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 > Julian Assange - a modern day hero > Comments

Julian Assange - a modern day hero : Comments

By Kellie Tranter, published 3/8/2010

The US has suggested that Wikileak's Julian Assange has the blood of a soldier or an Afghan family on his hands.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Well while immigration dominates OLO comments this day I attempted (manfully) to unearth holes in Kellie's latest diatribe of good sense and peaceful intent. Using "Kellie" and not "Ms Tranter" as I like to remain on first name terms with people I respect and constantly disagree with.

Failure :( An attempt weaken Kellie's leadin by white-anting Thoreau's record of profound achievement went down like a flaming budgie. Thoreau's life and beliefs, including transcendentalism, which I (sort of) follow, where exemplary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau

Even Thoreau's early death could not be blamed on grog or the pox, but TB.

Kellie presents a convincing set of legal arguments for the US and vassals not to be in Afghanistan. But legality (that touchstone of codified politics) is Kellie's speciality and national interests are mine.

In that regard the US is in poor Afghanistan (sexual imagery be forgotten) in spite of that poor forgotten relation of US national interests, international (UN) law.

US national interests include:

- projecting US power into central Asia while US military power is still dominant.

- excluding from the Afghan area Russian power down from the northern "stans" and Chinese power from the east.

- keeping India happy by nailing down Pakistan directly in Pak and in Pak's backyard (Afghanistan) partly due to Pak's tendency to launch terrorist ops into India and insurgents into contested Kashmir.

- pressuring and monitoring Pakistan's democracratic-military-ISI balance which impacts on the containability of Pak's energetic nuclear weapon (Islamic Bomb) genie

- reminding Iran next door that the US/Western military ARE next door and powerful (similar effect on Pak (as above))

- gives US military a sizable Mission (raison d'ętre) with a sizable budget totalling all up One Trillion US Dollars per year for the whole US defence sector.

(by Peter Coates cont'd)
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 3:51:17 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
(part 2 of attempt to refute humanitarian good sense)

Further on US national interest components

- money and foreign policy muscle provides the US military with profound influence over US domestic political and economic behaviour, pork-barrelling, defence factories in Congressional districts, defence corporate campaign funding for both Parties and revolving door jobs for Pentagon officials (excluding DefSec Gates who I like).

- the US military can obliquely point to the value of nearby oil, gas and pipeline projects in the area - although, on closer examination, the net utility of these hydrocarbon factors is minute compared to the human, material and political cost to the US of the war

- However US Presidents cannot resist the power of the military-industrial complex so they need to combat it sideways through such measures as covertly authorised Wiki"leaks" - like this one.

= Obama cannot take on the US conservatives of both Parties who support the Afghan War so his current Leak is hoping to weaken their pro-Occupation (Boots on Ground) arguments by showing with leaked facts why surges and Boots on the Ground are ineffectual and self-defeating.

- Meanwhile putting on Aus hat and casting US reasons to be in Afghanistan aside: Australia must support the US as the US' most loyal ally in Afghanistan because we need the US defence umbrella. We have built a dependent defence and foreign policy tradition to the extent that we have no-where else to go. No room for manoeuvre.

Extra-ordinary options for Australia need to be contemplated - between eventual appeasement or neutrality vis a vis China or nuclear armed neutrality on the 1960s Swedish model a la http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2010/07/australia-should-stick-with-us-until-we.html or something in between – over the next 20 years.

And in this last regard I don't think Kellie is going to agree on Aus-indigenous nuclear weapons...

So the broader national interest realism vs humanitarian liberalism debate continues.

And I'm happy to be part of it :)

Peter Coates
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 3:57:14 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
We know that Iraq was a lie.There were no weapons of mass destruction.Vietnam was as lie and so will be the invasion of Iran be a lie.

Prior Sept 11 Afganistan produced no heroine.Now the USA is there,it produces 92% of the world's heroine.How cannot the most powerful military machine on the planet not subdue a few Afghan cave dwellers?
The answer is ,for a few global corporates money in selling arms,drugs and getting oil from Turkmenistan through Afganistan ,Pakistan to the Caspian Sea over rides all human misery.

The USA/Israel are the clear aggressors.Since Ronald Reagon promoted a policy of pre-emptive aggression,the USA have been the clear destablisers of relations on this planet.They have attacked and invaded Nth Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan and interferred with the politics of many countries around the planet.

So Peter Coates,do you want to debate some real issues.What is the price of your nuclear umbrella?
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 9:55:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, a new hero. Think back to Ed Murrow, later the whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and Woodward and Bernstein unmasking Watergate.
And the lying scum they have to deal with.
Posted by paul walter, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 2:43:44 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 agree with Ms Tranter's assessment of Julian Assange and his work.

I found it highly ironic that when Wikileaks released their latest information, they were accused of putting lives at risk!

Amazing, isn't it, how loss of life becomes a concern only when somebody challenges the conduct of a war.
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 7:56:44 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
Hi Arjay

Your first 3 paras, highlighting the historical duplicity of US foreign/defence policy certainly provides room for FUTURE discussion of nuclear weapons for Australia as a useful discourse.

Your arguments do not refute or touch on the cost of Australian nuclear weapons within the timeframe for initial deployment which I envisage to be 2025-2030.

Cost has many aspects, including opportunity cost, which must take into account the A$100 Billion to be spent by Australia on conventional weapons in the next 5-6 years
- noting South Afria produced nuclear weapons for $800 million all up.

Regards

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2010/08/iranian-googling-and-amateur-sigint.html
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 9:40:05 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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