American engagement is also needed in dealing with the 'soft power' dimensions of the world's slide towards conflict - for reasons suggested in 'If you are right, Australia is in trouble' and 'What is Soft Power?"
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/child_abuse.htm#21_9_16
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/Babes.htm#11_9_16

Deception is the core of traditional East Asian Art of War strategies - and 'soft power' methods for creating confusion and disunity seem to be being increasingly used in Australia (and presumably in the US) presumably in the conventional hope of 'winning beforehand'.

Well, if we are looking for an improvement on Obama, forget Clinton; Clinton is of the same left as Obama, which has actually encouraged China's belligerence with its weakness. Trump represents the firm right, which is needed to regain America's self respect and prosperity. But, he is an unknown quantity when it comes to foreign policy. It is doubtful that America will ever return to being the world leader of Reagan days. Nevertheless, it will still be Australia's best ally and protector. Australia must show China that it stands firmly with its like ally, and that will not acquiesce to totalitarian, communist bullying. We have to stick with people and countries like ourselves.

As for Syria, well leave them alone. Leave the entire Middle East alone - except in support for Israel, the only democratic country in the area - and leave that other basket case, Africa, to itself, as well. We have enough on our plates defending ourselves and Western civilization from the barbarians and our own resident Marxists to bother with being 'nice' to the likes of China. And, equally important, cut needless, costly immigration, particularly of those people who have have nothing to offer except dissent and dislike.

Liar Liar.. Pants on Fire..

Another crap article, courtesey of the Ministry of Propaganda.

Putin never occupied Ukraine.
Crimea voted to succeed from Ukraine after the Western-backed Maidan, then they voted to join Russia in a second referendum.
The plan for Syria is to remove Assad, again Western-backed, and Yemen is to install a US puppet ruler.
Phillipines the CIA run drugs from Vietnam, and also has now backed away from the SCS issue, so Muete is now top of the list as a target of western regime change.

Russia isn't necessarily being assertive, they didn't start it, the US did.
It accepted the request for help from the democratic leader of Syria, President Bashar Al Assad.
They have an interest in defending Syria as western powers want to regime change Syria to put oil pipelines through to service Europe which would destoy Russia economically. (one of the reasons)

Putin does not want to revive the Soviet Union.
Again, its not assertiveness on the part of Russia and China.
They are acting defensively because of the aggression shown by Washington.

Syria was not responsible for the chemical attacks commonly attributed to him.
The attack was done by western-backed rebels and blamed on Assad.
It occurred on a day UN inspectors just happened to be there, to create a context for western powers to intervene.
Like the bombing on the beach in Tunisia and the attack in Paris, brought about official changes in national military stances towards the Syrian conflict.

Obama created that red line, (despite their own use of chemical weapons and sales of white phosphorous to M/E countries) for the purpose of staging an event that would create 'justification' of further measures towards Assads removal.

The world does resemble the years preceding the second world war, only this time America is clearly the aggressor.

Just wondering do they pay you to push these NEOCON talking points or are you a globalist butt-licker of your own accord?

The truth about the fabled Reagan days - or the daze of American "greatness"
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/RonaldReagan_page.html

To Armchair Critic

Firstly, the secession vote undertaken by Crimea was deemed illegal by everyone except for Russia. Herman Van Rompuy and Manuel Barosso, president of the European council and EU commission president have said that it was illegal. Secondly, what do you call 'little green men' invading another sovereign country--that looks pretty assertive to me.
Secondly 'the democratic leader or Syria' huh? Syria is a dictatorship mate. It's democratic the same way that North Korea is 'the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.'
Thirdly, Putin wants to expand Russia's influence through military force--tell the Baltic states that he's not a thug. Fourthly, Russia and China have been acting extremely aggressively--you've only got to see what China is doing to its smaller neighbours to see that they're not a partner for peace. Armchair critic, check your facts before you post mate.

I disagree with most of this premise!

I don't accept must as an appropriate term in diplomatic dialogue!

Such as the US president must be more assertive!

Yes he must have a big stick but held in a velvet glove! But needs to be smarter! Particularly when dealing with China or Sabre rattling Putin!

And as easy as ushering in SAFE, CLEAN, CHEAP molten salt thorium technology and then use it to turn seawater into COPIOUS LOW COST FUEL! And well below the production costs of comparable Russian or Chinese equivalents!

Then flood the free world with this almost free fuel or derivitives! And with that flood, end the economic blackmail that has been the international energy market for literal decades!

Leaving most of the miscreants entirely unfunded and urgently needing to do deals, such as selling all weapons grade plutonium to the US, where it can be safely burned in molten salt reactors to create SAFE, AFFORDABLE, CHEAPER THAN COAL domestic energy; to keep domestic Sabre rattling economies afloat!

And that is the only kind of absolutely essential engagement, with a snowflake's chance in hell of avoiding nuclear conflict!

Yes, the US will have to start from scratch as would we if embarking on energy reliant economy transformation!
Alan B.

Simon Louie
What makes a vote for secession "illegal"?

Jardine

I'm quoting from this article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/14/crimean-referendum-illegal-international-law.

"Territory cannot be annexed simply because the people who happen to be living there today want to secede. International law is unambiguous on how countries should decide the fate of disputed territories like Crimea. Countries can acquire territory by discovering uninhabited land, signing a treaty – as with Khrushchev’s transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 – or occupying an area peacefully over a long period of time. The legal methods for resolving questions of sovereignty are founded on widely recognized principles of international law. These do not include, and have never included, a simple referendum of people living in a contested territory. That is why every successful secessionist movement has founded its claim on legal entitlement to the territory that they seek to “liberate”. Thus the Baltic states argued that they were illegally conquered by the Soviet Union; Tibet says the same about China; and Eritreans fought for decades to reverse their illegal annexation by Ethiopia."

You can't just have a vote and say that this area is now our nation because a number of our speakers want to redraw borders. That's what happened with the Munich agreement. Putin doesn't care about the Russian speakers living there, he's interested in the Crimea's ports.

Hope this helps

The WINNER of this section , today , by the length of the straight is 'Armchair Critic'

Delusional would have run second had it started.

To Simon Louie
So you are an expert on the happenings in the neighborhood of China are you? Please tell me how you get to be such an expert. Throughout history powerful tribes have expanded their borders, however it is only the European Christians that have got on boats and sailed around the world to rape and pillage the natives. So before you start throwing facts around, I suggest that you check the history books.

As for your nonsense about claiming land using International law, I suggest you look at the annexation of New Zealand, Australia, United states, and Canada.
Chris

Simon you need to read beyond the mainstream media. In Ukraine, have you forgotten that the USA's Victoria Nuland destabilised Ukraine and installed their puppet? Also, interesting when George Bush, Sr. was President, rarely heard that he was head of the CIA; be fair now. The US wanted 'regime change' in Syria and supported the rebels; if they 'win' they will divide Syria between Israel, Iraq and Turkey, leaving Assad with area around Damascus. Finally, Russian assertiveness? : which country has 1000+ bases around the world (including Australia), controls the UN, NATO.

So let us accept this expert-advice and assume that the Crimean cessation was indeed illegal? So what?!

Here is a population that doesn't want to live under your regime, whatever be their reasons, yet you believe that you have a right to force them to live under it anyway, citing legalities.

There were times when releasing slaves without permission was also illegal*.

To hell with laws!

FREE TIBET!

["The law also limited manumission, or freeing of slaves. It stated that a master could only free a slave for “meritorious services,” and even then the decision had to be approved by the county court" - http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-newnation/5252 ]

Yep...just like the WMD's they found in Iraq, a perfectly plausible reason to carry out "surgically precise" strikes from Tomahawk missiles to introduce freedom and liberty back into children's lives as their limbs are surgically blasted into the next world no doubt.

Australia spends in the region of $13 Million per day on US defence industry product. There is every likelihood that the next 'engagement' will involve ADF personnel as well.

I can only hope my children do not have to don a uniform in the name of some American ideal for freedom...apologies I meant: "for some overweight 68 yr old American industrialists holiday in the Maldives on top of his 22yr old secretary..."

Simon knows international law! Not that it has mattered a dam to Putin or communist China!

There is only one thing these folk are concerned about and that is earning enough income to maintain their economies and military dominance?

The latter enhanced by an alliance of convenience, advanced Russian technology and Chinese manpower?

The Chinese are claiming territory that may well hold large reserves of hydrocarbons! And the Russian economy is all but dependent on its oil and gas exports for its economic survival!

The creation of hydrocarbons from seawater, for far less than recovering or refining current oil reserves? Will effectively end Chinese plans/reason for dominating the neighborhood, on the back of purloined finite energy resources?

Cheaper energy, would enable all the affected countries to compete with China for manufactured goods market share and end European dependence on Russian energy for anything! Including defense specific energy supplies!

Effectively drying up Russian export incomes! Consequently bringing both players to the negotiating table without a shot fired or the sound of a single Sabre rattle!

Just as the Russian winter defeated Napoleon and Hitler, it will not serve Putin when the hydrocarbon dependent cash flow dries up? And in so doing, make a complete mockery of the annexation of the Crimean hydrocarbon reserves and the lives and treasure wasted in that futile endeavor!

Nor will the Chinese administration survive an enduring economic downturn that needs unfettered trade to effectively reverse!

We confront two stark choices where these totalitarian regimes are concerned!

A trade war fought on the energy dependent economic front, or given the inexorable ramping up of military ordnance/preparedness/confrontation, nuclear conflict!

Nominate your pleasure! We can do one or the other, but not both!
Alan B.

Good on you, Simon. I don't think there is any need to respond to your critics; most contributors do not, and dissenters never get to challenge writers and columnists in the paper media when irritated by them. Contributors give us something to think about, and argue about, among ourselves.

Simon Louie,
And so what the UN right to self determination exists only when it suits?
Or just only when you use it to pull countries towards the NWO but not when countries try to pull away from it?

Herman Van Rompuy seriously you want to quote him?
Well of course then your a globalist and an elitist and care nothing for the common people.
But is it no surprise that we care not for your crazy ideas either?
And so its illegal... because he said so?

Assad is a dictatorship, really?
So those elections he has where most of the people support him what are they?
The type of approval ratings that NONE of our so called democracies have ever seen.
Tell me after 5yrs of war would people really stand by and support a ruler like the kind you suggest he is if that was true?

He's no more a dictator than the US is a democracy.

And even if he was a dictator so what?
That doesn't necessarily mean anything in and of itself other than the west cannot install it's own puppet rulers to further its own globalist interests against the will of that nations people.
The people, well they just deal with the wars and regime changes and destruction and death.

Tell me did you support the downfall of Ghaddafi? I'd bet money you did.
How did it work out for Europe?
Ghaddafi had an agreement in place to stop migrants going to Europe, so how did that work out?
Really how did it work out?

The Baltic States - what a joke, why would Putin give a crap about the Baltic States?
Really why?

Its just rhetoric in order to justify military spending to push forward an anti-Russian anti-China agenda over global hegemony.

And no China and Russia aren't acting aggressively.
They are simply countering the US moves to place advanced military hardware in regime-changed Pro-US countries that border them.

Stop trying to fill peoples heads with lies.
People like yourself really are a big part of the problems in todays world.

To TTBN
The whole point of this site is the exchanging of views on topics of interest.There are two types of people here, and that is those who have opinions, and those who just read the opinions of others. It seems to me that you should always answer a post addressed to you unless it agrees with what you are saying or you can't refute what has been said, even if you disagree with the points made.

So if Simon does not reply, it will be left to the observers to decide which is the reason for Simon's silence.
Chris

Simon Louie

So which do you think is more of an authority of international law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the Guardian newspaper?

By the way, do you think that might is right?

LO,

Well, I suppose people can draw their own conclusions as to why some people do not reply, but they might not draw the correct conclusion, and they will never know one way or the other. But argument is between posters in my view. I don't see any reason for discussion between posters and contributors. As I said, you can't have a back and forth with a newspaper columnist.

Dammit ttbn,
I was kind of looking forward to see what other fictional tales he was going to come up with.

To ttbn
Could you clarify a few questions for me please
1 Which international body writes these laws.
2 Which court enforces theses laws.
3 Was the Scottish vote for devolution legal under these laws.
Chris