Pete, you frequently raise the question of would we (Australia) prefer to trade the US for either China or Russia. That is a false question because your proposed alternatives are not exhaustive. We could for example opt for non-alignment or armed neutrality like the Swiss.

Another exercise you might like to turn your mind to is the history of the US, Russia and China. China has throughout a long history not sought a foreign empire, being mainly concerned with secure borders and traditional areas of influence. The Russians during the Soviet era were mainly concerned again with having buffer states, hardly surprising given their experience with the Germans in two world wars. That is still their predominant goal, western hysteria and misinformation notwithstanding.

The US on the other hand has throughout its history been an expansionist empire, including but not limited to the Monroe Doctrine; the seizure of one third of Mexico following the Polk created US-Mexico War; the Spanish American war; and of course up to the present day with wars, invasions, coups, 1000+ military bases around the world; etc etc. A country Malcolm Fraser aptly described as a "dangerous ally".

We really need to think outside the box and avoid the knee jerk stupidity of simplistic labels. A mature foreign policy based on Australia's real best interests. Just don't expect that from the present mob or the pretend alternative masquerading under the label of "Opposition".

David G writes - "Hopefully you'll think about the issues I've raised, Pete, and adopt a more balanced view of America. I see it as the enemy of the free world, a nation based upon endless greed, a warmongering parasite which is taking our world down."

How about David G developing a more balance view... your current view is very extreme and bordering on shear paranoia. The US is no where near as bad or as determined as you keep claiming. I'm not America's biggest fan, but your exaggerated accusations force me to defend the US.

David O'Neill on his anti-US/anti-Abbott band wagon states: "We really need to think outside the box and avoid the knee jerk stupidity of simplistic labels. A mature foreign policy based on Australia's real best interests. Just don't expect that from the present mob or the pretend alternative masquerading under the label of "Opposition".

For the umpteenth time David, please tell us the details of what that mature foreign policy would be. Give us something practical, realistic, do-able, and please include a recipe for dealing with ISIS. Just criticising without spelling out your alternative is just more of your scratched record blah, blah, blah.

Hi ConservativeHippie

While David G has his heart in the right place James O'Neill has expressed a liking for Putin.

So it can be inferred that James O'Neill's concept of nation building parrots the Russian model ie. starving its neighbours of heating oil and gas in the dead of winter, nuclear armed, nationalistic, anti-Semitic, high internal security level, with a judge led legal system of guilty till proven innocent.

Cheers

Pete

Hi David,

" ..... a more balanced view of America. I see it as the enemy of the free world, a nation based upon endless greed, a warmongering parasite which is taking our world down."

Yeah, probably. But the bigger task, the more crucial task, at the moment is to destroy the reactionaries of ISIL, the Islamo-fascists, who are doing more harm every day than the US could manage in a year.

What, you don't think they are fascists ? How could they be, Islam is a religion of peace, is that it ?

And if they are fascists, then they are reactionary. That word used to mean something on the Left. [Ask your mother]. The Left has no business - forgive me for pointing it out - sucking up to it by trying to divert any criticism to the US, for what they might have done forty and fifty years ago.

Get your priorities right: the time will come again when we can all sink the boot into the Yanks.

Joe

Despite Abbott's revised wording that Australia has some latitude not to join the Iraq war - we actually have no choice now. Australia already made an international pledge.

As reported by our own ABC on Saturday http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-27/the-coalition-against-islamic-state/5773408 :

"Australia has pledged eight F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jets to the Middle East, one early warning and control aircraft, one aerial refuelling aircraft, 400 personnel to support air deployment and 200 troops to serve as military advisers."

Equally compelling is that Australia cannot opt out of a long lineup of allies that have pleadged aircraft for the airstrike campaign. Note the US alone could rotate around 500 aircraft over around 6 months - more for the likely longer period. The pledgers of fast jets as airstrike aircraft include:

UK
France
Denmark
The Netherlands
Belgium
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Bahrain
Turkey
Qatar
Canada may yet decide whether to deploy F/A-18s
NZ has none - but may be helping in other ways

With even "outer ring" NATO countries like Belgium contributing F-16s there no way inner Anglo alliance Australia could sit out this new Iraq War.

Hello everyone, I just joined the site.
I'm not sure how to begin, I support Assad in defending his own country and don't buy into the idea that he alone is responsible for killing 200,000 people. I don't support ISIS and I do recognise they are a threat but I don't think the US has the right to attack targets in Syria without Assad's request to do so or a UN mandate. I think US President Barack Obama is a terrorist by his own definition, since he armed, trained and funded these terrorists earlier in the war in Syria to take down Assad, and I think Australia's involvement and support for the US also makes them complicit in supporting terrorism. I am against both US foreign policy and Australia's willingness to go along with whatever the US wants.