Hi Dick,

That says it all: "I have a simple rule of thumb...if America says it's good, then it can only mean it's bad for the target country, and good for the US military industrial complex, and/or oil companies."

There's a lot worse than the Yanks, my friend. Al Qai'da and Islamism generally, like Boko Haram ? Crazy Christian fundamentalists ? Syria's Assad ?

So who invaded where, in this case ? Who has assault troops on whose border ? Who has sent in provocateurs into whose country ?

Simple rules ...... in a very complex world. That's not brilliant, incisive or perceptive - it's very lazy thinking, Dick.

Jo

Speaking of lazy thinking...
"So who invaded where, in this case ? Who has assault troops on whose border ? Who has sent in provocateurs into whose country?"
1) Originally, no one. And still no one. The Russian troops in Crimea were there under terms of a treaty between Russia and Ukraine that had to do to with Russian's lease of the Black Sea port of Sevastopol. As galling as it is to some, Crimea's reversion to Russia went off without outside help. Crimeans considered themselves Russian, and now they are Russian.
2) NATO to Ukraine's west and Russia to her east.
3) Provocateurs from the EU and the US were all over the Euromaidan protests in Kiev. This stated the current ball rolling. It's fair to assume that Russia has agents liaising with Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine today. These would be to counter the Right Sector thugs operating out of Kiev under the current illegitimate government holding power (just) there now. While we haven 't seen much brutality coming from the presumed Russian agents, we have seen ample footage of the Right Sector thugs operating in Odessa and Mariupol.
As for saying both Al Qai'da and Syria's Assad are worse than the US, why then does the US, and Australia for that matter, support Al Qai'da terrorists in their war against the Syrian government of Assad. Al Qai'da has assumed a bogeyman status in our press. When we want to operate under a black hat, we employ them. When we want to be seen to be wearing a white hat, we damn them to all eternity. We lie as a matter of course, and the greatest mendacity comes from within the Anglo-Zionist world order.

Halduell knows the truth but many others still believe the Hollywood image of the USA and West being the good guys.

Dick,Malcolm Fraser is not the same person ha was back in 1981.He has resigned from the Liberal Party and has some serious conversations with the Citizens Electoral Council. http;//www.cecaust.com.au/ Malcolm believes that we should grow up and become a sovereign state.

@Loudmouth...lazy thinking is attacking the person rather than the argument. BTW, "rule of thumb" is a commonly used expression.

@Arjay, you may well be correct, but stating we should be a sovereign state doesn't answer the questions of "why?" nor "what's the advantage for the average citizen?". An assertion doesn't really mean much if those questions remain unanswered.

Hal (and Dick),

The dilemma for the Yanks vis-à-vis Syria is that they absolutely don't want any of their military support going to the Islamist reactionaries. But they also don't want to follow Russia in supporting the dictatorship of Assad. And the democratic forces in-between are far too weak and diffuse to direct arms to, without their ending up in the hands of the reactionaries.

My bet is that the US will eventually hold their nose and support Assad (hopefully in coalition with the democrats) rather than the Islamists. So back to square one. What a ghastly situation for the Syrian people.

Hal, I wouldn't believe every bit of rubbish I see on Putin-TV.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth, I don't know why you included me, since I've made no mention of Syria. However, Hal is correct in his assessment. Syria is a Russian ally, thus America's interest in usurping the current government, to force Russia to retract its political influence into its own borders. Same for Ukraine, though America is using its influence in NATO to effect this.

It's not about reading and believing Putin's views. It's about viewing the world as a geopolitical "war game" of which there are 3-4 major players, depending on how you wish to view it...Russia, China, America and the EU. Or, through NATO, that America and the EU are one. And as India develops and so starts to compete for the same resources as the other players at a significant level, will eventually become a target of some, or all, of the other players. It's about empires expanding and protecting their interests. It's a more objective view of global politics than the emotive hyperbole of mainstream media, demonizing one by another. It's not a good idea to believe ANY politician of ANY country or political stance, but view things on the global geopolitical scale, being suspicious of ANY government's press release.

That said, didn't Obama look jackboot-ish wanting to invade Syria, in contrast to Putin suggesting UN intervention and a timetable for Assad to dismantle his chemical weapons? Yes! So Obama has funded the very groups that the "war on terror" targeted, in order to undermine the Assad government. I'm no supporter of Assad, but I'm no supporter of jackboot behavior, nor the hypocrisy of funding "terrorists".

What Hal and I are trying to do, is call a spade a spade, rather than parrot mainstream media's "reporting" which amounts to nothing more than press release from the US government. This does NOT constitute investigative journalism, which mainstream media is wary of these days in the US, since under GWB it was announced that any media outlet proffering views outside of government policy risked losing their license for "dissent". Ergo, America controls information and subsequently, the hearts and minds of the public.