The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Turning ploughshares into swords > Comments

Turning ploughshares into swords : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 6/9/2013

It is a frustrated and angry response from a tired and diminished superpower, intent on demonstrating that it still has the strength to determine international outcomes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Bruce Haigh sounds exactly like Barrack Obama before he became the President of the USA. Obama was all for peace. He was going to close Guantanamo Bay, and pull US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. What happened to Obama? Perhaps when you get in the hot seat reality bites and you suddenly realise that what you were advocating was total stupidity?

My take is, that Obama wanted to show the Muslims how much the yanks loved them by attacking Syria and punishing Assad for using poison gas on civilians. But he is copping it not from the doves, but from the usual war advocating hawks who seem to have a more mature appreciation of reality.

The right wing "war mongers" do not see any reason why the USA should save people from themselves who are guilty of un American activities. Saving the Muslims in Kosovo from genocide and the Muslims in Somalia from starvation was hardly received with any gratitude from the Muslims in those two wretched countries, or anywhere else in the Caliphate. So this time, the Muslims can pisss up a rope.

The sensible thing to do would be for US ground forces to invade Syria and confiscate or destroy the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons that that idiot Assad has stored away. After all, if you saw an idiot child playing with a loaded gun you would take it off him, wouldn't you? And if the religious fruitcakes get hold of those weapons then they will use them on you know who, and they will try to use them on us, also.

But the yanks are tired of the ingratitude of the world when it comes to being the world's policeman, and (Obama excepted) the yanks think that this time all the whiners and whingers can solve the problem. This time their enemies can kill each other off for all they care. Won't the whiners and whingers be disappointed when the yanks don't intervene? Then they will attack the USA for not intervening.

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 6 September 2013 7:17:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well what do you know.

Here we have an ex diplomat, who is so upset with Assad & his Syria that he wants us to voice strongest condemnation against them. I wonder if that hurts.

Then even more serious, he wants to talk about it at the UN. God he is getting serious isn't he. Isn't that what happened at the UN about Kosovo? They talked about it, & talked about it, & talked about it. I think they even roused on the Czechs for being naughty. That was as effective as everything the UN has done in the last 50 years.

For god's sake Bruce, in the famous words of Yoda, "Do or Do not", & if you are not going to do, for heavens sake, stop wringing your hands & shut up, you're sounding just like that other ex diplomat, KRudd.

As LEGO says, the only intelligent thing to do about Syria is to ignore completely, & let them finish what they started. At least while they are fighting among themselves, they are less likely to fight us, & have no excuse to expect us to take in the losers as refugees.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 6 September 2013 8:04:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two quotes from this article demonstrate how the story grows, this time in eight quick paragraphs, from a still uncertain and unproven beginning into a certainty:
1)The American Administration seems determined to carry out a punitive attack against the Assad regime for the latter’s alleged use of nerve gas against Syrian civilians.
2)There is no doubt that the cruel attack on innocent civilians by the Assad regime is worthy of the strongest condemnation and sanction.
In the second statement, the 'alleged' is gone. That Assad carried out the attacks is now presented as a self-evident truth.
But if that self-evident truth is so self-evident, why not present it to the UN and world opinion?
This is looking like a re-run of Iraq and those mushroom clouds that were to appear over our cities in 15 minutes. Or was it 45? Assumptions made with nothing proven, but what the hell, let's stay on song and bomb them anyway. Who's to know, or at least until the dust settles and by then we have another case of 'facts on the ground'.
And if boots go on the ground to accompany those facts, you can bet any amount that this time the search for chemical weapons will yield positive results. That will be one lesson learned from Iraq - don't go looking for damning evidence unless you have it in your back pocket to begin with.
Posted by halduell, Friday, 6 September 2013 8:23:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Assad is toast, much like Saddam was toast a decade ago. Pity about all the little toasties that will get toasted along with him. And after? Will Russia finally man-up and come to Iran's defence? This is looking increasingly unlikely as Putin slowly emerges as the straw man in all these confrontations. He gave a whistle-blower sanctuary but precious little else in the way of standing up to a school yard bully. Mostly bluster, that one. Maybe the now running artist who depicted him in a corset got it right.
And China? When will they show their hand? Quietly, quietly catchee monkey.
Who is it in this equation that seems so determined to leave no stable government standing from the Mediterranean to the Indus Valley?
Posted by halduell, Friday, 6 September 2013 8:23:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bruce

I disagree and agree.

1. Disagree with your argument that the US has not approached the UN Security Council. There have been 2 years of efforts by the US, UK and France to persuade Russia and China (the other 2 permanent UN Security Council (P5) members) to agree to UN peace-keeping efforts in Syria. China and Russia have exercised their vetos to bloc any UNSC action on Syria.

2. Agree that the matter can be referred to the UN General Assembly for it to vote whether armed intervention is warranted.

3. Agree that Australia has been lobbied-pressured by the US to become a bit player in a Coalition against Syria.

The most visible type of Australian military support would likely be the frigate HMAS Newcastle currently deployed just off the Middle East

HMAS Newcastle is deployed as part of "Operation SLIPPER, the Australian Defence Force contribution to the international campaign against terrorism, smuggling and piracy in the Gulf of Aden, and for enhancing regional maritime security and engagement."

http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Sep2013/Operations/363/A-view-from-the-other-side.htm#.UiaUB51-_X4

Regards

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 6 September 2013 11:55:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The major publicised piece of intelligence "proving" Assad launched the 21 August 2013 attack appears to be http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/assad-ordered-a-poison-gas-attack-says-german-intelligence/4936372

BND's "evidence" is largely circumstantial. BND records conversations about an attack but not specifically a gas attack.

The lead-in linking the attack with gas was actually written by a journalist.

The comeback from intelligence analysts would typically be "we base our estimates on a wide range of classified and overt sources".

But what if the pivotal sources are circumstantial?

Could it be that the intelligence analysts, military and political staffers are interpreting intelligence in line with Obama's need to go to war?

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 6 September 2013 1:41:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good to see that the US Hegemon is going down, I am look forward to our Chinese overlords.
Posted by McCackie, Friday, 6 September 2013 2:04:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear Bruce. It used to be all George Bushs fault... and he took responsibility.

Why are you not shafting Obama for not having the brains or guts to make a decision. What has he done? Mate he's run off to Congress in order to shift responsibility onto them.

He was always a useless mouthy plick. Why ever would you think he was anything else?
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 7 September 2013 9:48:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And Bruce our diplomats answer to their Minister... not to our PM.
After today for the first time in our history their boss will be a woman. How do you think they will deal with that?
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 7 September 2013 9:52:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The responsibility for making war in the US rests with the US Congress. Obama has done the right thing here. Now it's up to them to do the right thing too. That means listening to their constituents, as opposed to their financial backers, and not make another knuckle-headed war.
Hopefully our diplomats will be the professionals we expect them to be and continue to answer to their Minister. Why would anyone suggest any different? The Minister's gender is totally irrelevant - in this Department as in all others.
Posted by halduell, Saturday, 7 September 2013 12:13:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Nutter, just like our red witch, that fool Obama has done a great deal of damage.

It will be many years before another like him or her will get the top job.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 7 September 2013 12:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For evil to flourish, it is sufficient for good to do nothing!
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 7 September 2013 5:45:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By injecting high explosive into a country peace will surely result, or will it?

US-French high explosive injections into Syria may involve such risks as:

- mass Syrian civilian deaths

- international and home-grown terrorist reactions (see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-07/us-orders-beirut-embassy-staff-to-leave-over-security-threats/4942302 of September 7, 2013)

- Assad or Hezbollah deciding to widen the war through shelling or firing missiles at Israel, Turkey and Jordan,

- Syrian use of anti-shipping missiles against tankers which would cause a large spike in world oil prices.

- all leading to an expansion of the war beyond the expectations of limited US-French involvement.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 7 September 2013 6:07:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

"But the yanks are tired of the ingratitude of the world when it comes to being the world's policeman," The "world's policeman" has killed millions in its various "interventions" since WW2 and naturally, the survivors of American "humanitarian" efforts often hate the bastards.

"The sensible thing to do would be for US ground forces to invade Syria and confiscate or destroy the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons that that idiot Assad has stored away"

Really? Sensible? The real reason that the Coalition nations invaded Iraq was that they probably knew that the country didn't possess WMD, it would be far more sensible not to invade Syria
Posted by mac, Sunday, 8 September 2013 1:18:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Quinlan's position as Australia's choice at the Security Council is probably the best thing we have going to organise some meaningful diplomatic maneuvers to deal with the horrific levels of violence in Syria.

"Violence is not overcome by violence,
but by forbearance."

-St John Chrysostom
Posted by SHRODE, Sunday, 8 September 2013 4:04:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, don't worry mac, this time the Ayrabs can gas, nuke, irradiate, shoot, bomb, starve, or infect each other to their hearts content and the yanks won't do a thing about it. This time the Ayrabs can hate each other.

May the best religious fruitcake win.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 8 September 2013 4:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much as some may think that the 'right' or 'sensible' thing to do is to 'attack' or to 'invade', this is all wrong.

It is time to turn the swords into ploughshares; not the other way around.

As reported in recent media, Assad has sent messages to many of the world's leaders seeking their understanding and forbearance, and appealing to their better nature and their demonstrated commitment to family and moral values.
It is therefore time to call Assad out; to call for him to demonstrate the courage of his 'espoused' convictions, and the 'honesty' of his 'appeal', by stepping down immediately and calling an election.
This should not be (or be construed to be) to call Assad's 'bluff', but must be a genuine offer of truce - subject to necessary conditions: a halt to all attacks on civilians or so-called rebels/insurgents; Assad's immediate stepping down; and the immediate commencement of dialogue between the regime and the leadership of 'opposition elements' to pursue an end to internal strife and the achievement of peace and stability; And on the understanding that, should any of these terms not be implemented fully and transparently, then Assad may be assured, in the strongest possible terms, that horrific vengeance WILL be rained down upon him and his regime.

Assad's choice; to put up, or shut up. No second chances.
And, a sound basis for the UN to resolve a course of action, entirely dependent on Assad's timely response.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 8 September 2013 9:51:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I fear I was somewhat hasty in various aspects of my previous posting on this subject, and wish to make a correction.

Having reviewed more recent information on the situation in Syria, it appears that Assad may not be the great rogue some are portraying him as, and the greater fault (and hazard) may well rest with various of the so-called revolutionary 'groups' - some of whom are aligned with Al Qaeda and/or other radical Islamist interests - with religious 'cleansing' as a significant part of their agenda (as indicated by the attacks by some such forces on peace-loving Orthodox Christians, driving them from their homes).

It is well possible that more support should be given to Assad to quell and disband such rebel groups - with as little violence as possible - lest Syria should fall into an even worse mess than Egypt is currently experiencing, and with potential to draw the whole of the Middle East into one huge Islamic State subject to Sharia Law and sectarian governance.
Iran should give us a miniscule taste of what this could mean for relations with the West, and with Israel - and what might then become of the Israel/Palestine question.

Things are not always the way they seem at first light.
(Getting rid of Saddam has not turned out very well for Iraq, and Afghanistan is also still in a mess.)

The spectre of 'out of the frying pan ...' looms as a real possibility for Syria, should this situation be handled badly.
I feel The West (via Arab emissaries) would be wise to engage much more closely with Assad, and to review and evaluate the dire potentials of this situation, before leaping to any ill-founded conclusions or ill-fated actions.

To build, and not destroy, should be the vision for the 21st Century.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 10 September 2013 11:41:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy