Last week I attended an event featuring our past Foreign Minister Bob Carr talking about his book. I am certainly not one of Bob's biggest fans but I thought it would be interesting to hear from someone who had been particularly open, some make the case to his discredit, about his brief time as Australia's international representative.

Whatever one says about the man it is hard to ever condemn him of being flippant. He took over a dozen questions from the floor and gave quite considered answers to them all.

When asked about the current government he said he has been at pains to not be overtly partisan in his commentary on them since leaving politics but when pressed he offered this observation of Mr Abbott.

'He seems to be a man looking for a war.'

I thought it was stretching the bow a little but he related how it took our defense chiefs nearly three days to talk Abbott out of putting up to 3,000 armed Australian troops on the ground in the Ukraine. When Obama was considering strikes from the air to relieve those trapped on an Iraqi mountain Abbott had already flagged the possibility of Australian troops on the ground.

Still I wasn't convinced and left thinking I would take Bob's observation with a grain of salt.

Then I wake up this morning to read this from the ABC;

“Senator Johnston told ABC's Lateline program that while there is a "long way to go" before any fighter planes could be deployed, Australian forces are in a "high state of readiness".

The impression of 'chomping at the bit' is starting to sink in.

So I'm wondering how concerned Australians should be with this Abbott doctrine which at best could be called international adventurism and at worst alpha male posturing, one that could involve us again in armed conflict on the other side of the world and could cost us dearly in terms of our soldiers lives and millions if not billions of dollars in capital.

Yea Steele and progressives are happy for this to go on.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=808206809213310&fref=nf

''He seems to be a man looking for a war.'
you are sick Steele

SteeleRedux,

In times of bad polls and desperation, shonky govts always reach for the "ACME - We're Under Threat" slash Patriotism button.

It's clear that the Abbott Govt realises it is so on the nose with the electorate, that the only thing that will suffice is Tony strutting around the world like a tiny flea on a large dog attempting to jangle some brass and pretend he's very important in the scheme of things - oh, and he's quite happy to take Australia and it's forces along for the ride for some electoral impetus.

Listening to Question Time the last few days, each day the first three questions from the govt side have been on terrorism, extremism and border protection - allowing Govt Ministers to waffle on ad nauseam on their confected nuance concerning Australia's "vulnerability"

They've got nothing else....they've been comprehensively proven to be a mendacious and shifty bunch and they know they're going to get rolled at the next election.....the only recourse left to them is to beat the war drum and try and convince Australians that the war on terror has been revived and is happily sitting with its feet up in the Cabinet Room.

I'd say the latter, "alpha male posturing" in the service of the LNP re-election campaign....

SteeleRedux, the conservative side of politics has a long history of leading Australia into other peoples wars. They started with the Sudan in about 1885 and are still doing it today in 2014, nothing has changed. Despite the rhetoric of the time, history tends to judge our involvement somewhat more harshly.
When wars around the world are mentioned one name that consistently crops up is Australia, not North Korea or Somali, but Australia. We should be careful we may be getting a reputation as a war mongering nation. Not only is Tony Abbott a man of God, but also a man of peace. a bit like Runner. LOL

So let's see ...at the present time we have hundreds of “Ozzie” Jihadis fighting for terrorist causes around the world and almost certainly tens of thousands of sympathizers in Oz and it is the govt that is confecting Australia's "vulnerability" --and it’s the govt who is seeking to start war!

Progressives really do live in a world of their own,eh

Sick, depraved, delusional & disgusting.

Just amazed that anyone would pay to hear Carr. However I can see why he would appeal to some here. Carr, "I soar above the mundane and serve my country". What an ego and a hugely expensive one too. Sadly, Carr is still costing the long-suffering Aussie taxpayer heaps.

Paul 1405,
You must be turning your 'Watermelon' Greens blind eye to your Matilda site, where there has been a series of most unflattering articles about Carr. They do turn on one another. No surprise there that you haven't said anything about Carr and Obeid,

<No-one wants to seem too close to a corrupt colleague, but even for a profession that routinely sews its fabrics with the thread of hypocrisy, current efforts by Labor luminaries to dissociate themselves with the now-scandalous Eddie Obeid are pretty impressive. Many of the people claiming to have been bitter opponents of Obeid's rise through the party are the very same ones that promoted him.

Carr is one of them. As journalist Alex Mitchell pointed out yesterday, Carr was instrumental in Obeid's appointment to Carr's first ministry in 1999. Carr convened the factional meeting that put Obeid's cabinet spot to a vote. And then, according to Mitchell, Carr voted for Obeid himself.

Like much of what Carr told Wilkinson, the idea that the former premier was swept unwillingly along by the irresistible force of Obeid's factional strength doesn't pass the smell test. Carr was a part of the same broad faction as Obeid. What he is really apologising for is under-estimating Obeid's organising abilities.>
https://newmatilda.com/2013/03/12/why-bob-carr-should-thank-eddie-obeid

....In times of bad polls and desperation, shonky govts always reach for the "ACME - We're Under Threat" slash Patriotism button.

Well Poirot, I would suggest you have a head start there as your beloved labor government has the patient on poor polls. But, polls mean little inn the real world.

Abbott is merely trying to do something about riding our nation of these grubs. The trouble is, he is going about it the wrong way. what he should be doing is to let them leave to fight their war, then cancel their passport because, by not allowing them to leave is simply retaining the hate here. These people will vent, but I would much rather fight to keep them out, than to fight them here.

Allowing these people to immigrate here will go down in history as one of our most costly mistakes ever. Evidence that it has been a failure can be seen by the number of Australian born Muslims, leaving, or wanting to leave to fight for the IS.
We need to take a tough line, or bend over, they are our two choices. Personally, I'm for the tough line approach.

Beach, I have known Bob Carr for a rather long time, in his days on Randwick Council, being a "local" Labor member and all. Never warmed to him. I always thought Carr to be rather arrogant, talking down to people. At the time I found politicians like Laurie Brereton and Lionel Bowen much more in tune with the party than Carr. Bowen was a real gentleman and a very good local member.
As for Eddie (who must be) Obeid, you obviously do not read lots of my posts, I have mentioned the criminal Eddie countless time, and never favorably. Never met Obeid, and never want to. Are you too busy watching that Miss Marple of yours on 'Youtube'? Don't forget to post the link I want to watch it again for it crackup value no less.

Dear SteeleRedux,

I haven't as yet read Bob Carr's book - but I will.
I envy your being able to hear him speak in person.
It's always interesting to hear things straight
from the horse's mouth, so to speak - as there are
undoubtedly so many questions that need exploration
and analysis. That's why memoirs are one of my favourite
genres. "Inside The Third Reich," by Albert Speer,
being a favourite.

As for our PM wanting to get us involved in another war?

I think we should wait and see before making judgements
on that issue.

At present it seems that the government is
taking precautions regarding giving the country new
counter terrorism units at our airports to be operated
by customs and border protection. And this is something
I think most people will approve of as a necessary measure.
However ASIO Director David Irvine pointed out - it
would be wrong to blame our Muslim population for the
acts of these extremists.

I'm keeping my finger-crossed of course that we don't get
involved in another war. But if the United States should
get involved - I don't see us staying out of it.
And no matter who the PM is or will be in the future -
Australia has always supported the US. We can't just blame
the current government should we get involved.

The Islamic terror machine in the Middle East? Why fund its rebellion, then, against the secular regime in Syria? Is it to create the likes of ISIS and the consequent demand for permanent war embroiling the same Coalition of the Lying that drove us into Iraq? Bully for the Yanks’ military-industrial complex then, and tough bikkie for Australian budgets and the lives of Australian soldiers. The alternative is opposition to the bought pollies led by Abbott and Shorten.

The Islamic terror threat at home? Why persist in importing it then? Why promote mass immigration by people whose declared religion is to oppose the Enlightenment freedoms that have made Western countries worth fleeing to and whose denial makes their Islam-ruled countries worth fleeing from? Is it to “justify” creeping degeneration into a police state with ever greater powers and budgets for political police surveillance over us all? Because that's what's happening like a ratchet that can move in only the one direction. The alternative is opposition to the dhimmi pollies led by Abbott, Shorten and Bandt and PC spruikers over-represented in the ABC. Islamophobia. Y'know, crimethink like Naziphobia.

I am reminded of Rwanda, remember the group guilt when it was realised
that perhaps 100,000s or a million were slaughted and everyone said
"Why wasn't something done about it ?".

This war has been going on for 1400 years and is built into the religion.
All our waffling here will not change anything, I am afraid that we
will need another party to come into being that is dedicated to either
changing Islam or removing it.
To bring this subject into a political contest would not be good.
Perhaps something that is horrible enough will happen and all parties
will agree that Islam has to go.

Idealy we need a new crusade to raise an army that can go to Africa
and the Middle East to pacify the Islamists. I do not see the UN ever
being able to do something like that.
If nothing is done then I think it is not unlikely that all Christians
in the Middle East will be killed. The IS will then decide to have a
go at Israel and then nuclear weapons will be used.
The Jews were the very first victims of Islam.
Remember the jews said "Never again !".

Dear runner,

Your link appears to be down. Repost it and I promise to look at it and respond. Meanwhile here is one for you, a rather brave artist sticking one up ISIS.
http://youtu.be/ZkEo5aPHzoU

Dear Poirot,

It most certainly is becoming more pervasive. Abbott is in desperate need of a 'Tampa' moment. He knows how well his bluster over the Ukraine tragedy rated so he seems to be trolling to escalate. Unfortunately there will probably be Aussie lives sacrificed.

Dear Paul1405,

While there have been a few wars I am glad we as a country chose to participate in but choosing to go to war is an act that those in power need to give deep deliberation to before committing lives and resources. Every bit of evidence seems to indicate that deep deliberation is not high on Abbott's list.

Dear Hasbeen,

Fully agree. Looking for a war to divert from dismal polling figures would disgust most people.

Cont...

Cont...

Dear onthebeach,

The event was free but at the end I regretted not having brought my wallet as I would have liked to purchase his book, especially as the proceeds were going to a great cause, an organisation that facilitates Australian and New Zealand doctors doing surgery in poor countries. It is called Interplast and its website is here;

http://www.interplast.org.au/

I'm wondering where the proceeds of Joe Hockey's book are going? I'm sure it is to a worthy cause but I can't find that information.

Dear butcher,

Could you please explain to me in logical terms how by putting troops on the ground in Ukraine or in Iraq means “Abbott is merely trying to do something about riding our nation of these grubs.”

Dear Foxy;

You wrote;

“As for our PM wanting to get us involved in another war? I think we should wait and see before making judgements on that issue.”

I respectfully disagree. The only viable proof will come in the form of Australia committing combat troops and by then it will be too late. We need to be sending a message to our politicians that we are against the loss of more Aussie service personnel's lives in the Middle East. I fully support resources being committed to humanitarian operations, that is what UN nations should be about, but armed hostilities are an entirely different matter.

Dear Bazz,

Enough crap my friend. You do realise that the Iranian parliament has Jewish and Christian representatives. In fact when the Iranian president went to the UN last year the Jewish member Siamak Moreh Sedgh was one of only two parliamentarians who accompanied him.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/hassan-rouhani-jewish-un

If this is true Abbott is a war monger just like George Bush. It seems Abbott lacks good judgement and that makes him a dangerous man.

Steele, hmmm, I wonder what the Jews in the Iranian government think of
Iran's policy of supporting Hezbollah and supplying rockets to Hamas ?

SteeleRedux, If I was not a pacifist, I could go along with what you say; <<choosing to go to war is an act that those in power need to give deep deliberation to before committing lives and resources.>>
I can not recall any war Australia has been involved in which followed "deep deliberation". If we were not dragged into wars by the imperialism of Britain, then it was a case of serving America's geopolitical interests.

Runner>> ''He seems to be a man looking for a war.'
you are sick Steele<<

Runner, Steele may have the flu but is spot on regarding this issue. Abbott is toeing the American Administration line and they want conflict with Russia.

I laughed and laughed when I heard Abbott telling us that Russia is a bully and he is not having that at his G20...or will it be G19? A ridiculous statement given America is the benchmark he uses for “bully free” diplomacy.”

There is still no empirical proof as to who shot the plane down over Ukraine.....technology has failed us as it did with the other (downed?) Malaysian Airline plane...no proof .

This exercise in provocation by America is about getting NATO bases in Ukraine and controlling the oil that flows from Russia across the Ukraine and into Europe.

What we can prove is the fact that Joe Bidens son Hunter, and a “friend” joined the board of a Ukraine energy company. Suddenly America is squabbling with Russia and Bidens son along with a Biden family friend end up on the board of a Ukraine energy company. Then David Leiter, a former Senate chief of staff to Secretary of State John Kerry, signed on to work as a lobbyist for that same company this May.

It was reported this week that the IQ of first world nations was decreasing.....I believe that.

Paul1405>> the conservative side of politics has a long history of leading Australia into other peoples wars.<<

Paul our mate Bill Shorten supports Abbott on this......but then again Bill will even support someone elses view whether he knows what it is or not....Bill supports it....lolol.

Dear SOG,

Yeah right. There are no Russian tanks in the
Ukraine (the ones we see shown on the TV News
are a mirage), and the Russians are not supplying
the Russian insurgents in the Ukraine with weapons.
And Putin doesn't lie as we all know! He doesn't follow
Lenin's philosophy - of "whatever it takes..."
And of course the plane simply fell out of the sky -
the Russians didn't do it - that's why they kept the
Western examiners out of the crash site for so long.

You go on believing that!

Foxy> You go on believing that!<<

It stinks Foxy dear, thats all I am saying. At the end of the day soldiers die and friends family and aquantances of the American administration make a load of money...I don't believe Russia is the instigator. The democratically elected president was called a Russian pupppet and overthrown in favor of an IMF puppet.

Recent poles show the vast majority of Ukrainians think of Russia as a friendly nation.....while the western press demonize Russia.

<<Paul our mate Bill Shorten supports Abbott on this>> yep sonofgloin, as I said; the conservative side of politics has a long history of leading Australia into other peoples wars. It's true unless Shorten has switched sides. Wearing a red tie as opposed to a blue one, does not make one a "radical", Shorten is a point in question.
sonofgloin, well said, I could not agree more. With the biggest school yard bully of them all, Obama, calling the nasty kid Putin a "bully" and wanting to punch his lights out, there is the snot nosed bullies buddy boy Abbott in the backgound yelling at the big kid "You show em Barack'y Boy, give the Russkie a black eye, for me!"
Foxy, there is never any good guys in this, only degrees of badness. The Russians are as bad as, but the American are not the clean skins they make out they are.

Dear Paul,

I know about the Americans.
We lived in the country for close to ten years.
My children were born there.
However, who else would come to Australia's defence
at the time of need? And as for blaming the US
President. He's being very careful at the moment
don't you think. He's not commiting US troops -
rather aid. So worrying about Mr Abbott getting us
involved in another war may be mute. Americans are
not keen to get involved in more military action.
But of course things may change drastically, depending
on the next US elections.

Foxy, the reason Obama is so "careful" is that he's caught between two male appendages, no matter which way he moves, he's screwed. Help Assad's Syria beat ISIS and he pisses off Israel/Gulf States and helps Russia/Iran. Bomb Assad and he helps ISIS and he would look like a douche in the international community for helping a bunch of barbarians. Sending in non lethal aid is the wait and see approach: wait and see if they kill each other.

Foxy,

"..... So worrying about Mr Abbott getting us
involved in another war may be mute...."

More to the point is Abbott will talk all this "military - threat - war - intervention - extremism" rhetoric to the hilt to divert attention from his Govt's woeful performance and continuing gaffes and ineptitude.

For the same reason the British Govt is now ramping up their security threat level.

It's a great way to keep the population jittery, on edge, diverted from domestic issues and most of all..."on side".

Paul1405 said: I can not recall any war Australia has been involved in which followed "deep deliberation". If we were not dragged into wars by the imperialism of Britain, then it was a case of serving America's geopolitical interests.

What about the war against Fascism - World War II... the outcome being, off the back of 1000's of Aussie's who gave their lives, you still have freedom speech and live in a democratically elected country.

Foxy... thank you for your comment and for showing you are not as predictable as some would like to believe.

It's a great way to keep the population jittery, on edge, diverted from domestic issues and most of all..."on side".

Yea Poirot the mass slaughter of Syrians and Iraq's to the cheers of the local muslims is just a figment of people's imagination. You progressives do really lack the ability to think past your warped world view. Not every world view is as corrupt as your own.

more fruit of the stupidity of progressives. No wonder it was hidden from the public
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152480384712716&fref=nf

runner,

"Yea Poirot the mass slaughter of Syrians and Iraq's to the cheers of the local muslims is just a figment of people's imagination. You progressives do really lack the ability to think past your warped world view. Not every world view is as corrupt as your own."

Hold on runner, where do get off calling people's views corrupt?

Earlier you labelled SR sick.

You are nasty piece of goods who gets his rocks off by jumping onto threads and slagging off anyone you don't agree with.

You have very little cogent argument - always just few disparaging comments and then you hurl epithets.

That's your limit, runner.

It's all you've got

' That's your limit, runner. '

Might be Poirot but its enough to show your stupidity.

Scandalous!

<This was pulled off AUSTRALIA’s Today Tonight and never aired!
This clip was made by Today Tonight, Channel 7 a while ago.
Due to political correctness it was decided not to broadcast it.
However it has been leaked out.>

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152480384712716&fref=nf

Oh, excellent...runner gives yet another example of not being able to post on topic without slinging another derogatory name/epithet.

'Oh, excellent...runner gives yet another example of not being able to post on topic without slinging another derogatory name/epithet.

yep maybe I learn't it from u Poirot especially every time the name Abbott is mentioned. Try looking in the mirror.

Steeleredux ,does anyone have a recording of what Bob Carr said? I see no other reports on Carr's speech on the web and it would be good verify your statements.

I don't trust Bob Carr since it was reported that he is a friend of Henry Kissenger a senior New World Order Zionist, yet Carr is sticking up for the Palestinians.

SR,

What unmitigated poppycock. Bob Carr as a private citizen has no access to the discussions between the PM and the defense dept, and he is well known for bending if not breaking the truth. I bet he has taken one of the many scenarios discussed and conflated it. Considering that the US is Australia's strongest ally, offering a few planes to fly sorties under US command.

The diplomatic achievements under Abbott far eclipse anything under the last labor government.

<<What about the war against Fascism - World War II... the outcome being, off the back of 1000's of Aussie's who gave their lives, you still have freedom speech and live in a democratically elected country.>>
ConservativeHippie, I do not profess to be a world expert on wars and the geopolitical structure of the first half of the twentieth century. I do believe however WWII was a direct extension of the Imperialist war begun in 1914. Australia being drawn into the conflict through its close alignment with the imperial power Britain. Between 1919 and 1939 a period of easing of hostilities, but don't tell the Chinese or the Abyssinians that.
Failing to obtain satisfactory resolution through the Treaty Of Versailles in 1919 a number of nations realigned themselves, most notable Italy and Japan. Although Germany was able to assist in removing Russia from the war through its support of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Russia was not subjugated by Germany and consequently proved to be a major impairment to German expansionism in the 1940's. The Versaillles Treaty created economic and political instability in Germany, giving rise to German Fascism in 1933, and consequently hostilities resumed in 1939. The United States had briefly been involved in the conflict in 1917, but tried to resume its isolationist stance again in 1919, but was never comfortable with Japanese expansionism in the Pacific and was consequently drawn back into the war in 1941.
With the realignment of Japan, Australia become involved in the Pacific War against Imperialist Japan in 1941. We had automatically resumed the European War in 1939 as part of the British Commonwealth. At no time did Australia enter or reenter the war because of aggression directed towards itself, not by Germany or Japan.
As I said Australia never had any period of "deep deliberation" before entering or reentering a war.

Yes, runner, I realise you have deputised yourself as the official Abbott protector on OLO.

What I'm talking about are debating skills on this forum - as opposed to your handy little knapsack full of nasty epithets you sling at your fellow posters in lieu of real argument.

Political figures are lambasted all the time on this forum.

Calling your debating opponents "sick" and their views "corrupt" is what people do when they don't have the capacity to state their case otherwise.

Paul - I just don't get your position

How do you know exactly what level of deliberation occurred before Australia committed to the European and Pacific theatres of war (and if it was enough)? There are times when important decisions need to be made expediently. Just look at the current outcome of Obama's deliberating/dithering.

Regarding the Japanese expansion in the Pacific, how much more deliberation was required? Or perhaps maybe you think Australia should have sided with Japan against the Imperialist Yanks?

http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2014_03_20_Treasury_Bail_In.html This may be about a campaign to get rid of Abbott and he may be reluctant to bring in "bail in" ie a Cyprus style confiscation of bank deposits. If this happens they will have to bring in martial law to cope with the riots.

I think Malcolm Turnbull the ex- Goldman Sachs CEO of Aust will be far more ruthless than Abbott when it comes to economic fascism issues like "bail in".Remember our Govt has already confiscated $360 million in accounts not used for 2 yrs.

People are getting very nervous. The RBA reported last week that $10 billion has been withdrawn from our banks and held as cash at home. A further $ 15 billion it being held as cash overseas. This could OS people seeing our $ as a safer haven than US $.

ConservativeHippie; <<Paul - I just don't get your position>> I only gave you my interpretation of events in the first half of the twentieth century. As I took your <<What about the war against Fascism - World War II.>> as you offering an example of "deep deliberation" by Australia. I do not believe there was any such thing.

Before the outbreak of war in 1914 both the Labor Party and the Conservatives had committed Australia to the 'British Empire'. Even though war was declared during an election campaign which resulted in a Labor victory there was no "deep deliberation" by politicians as to what position Australia would take. Australia at the time did not possess an independent foreign policy. Again in 1939 PM Menzies did not need "deep deliberation" to declare war on Germany. Menzies famously said;
" Fellow Australians. It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war."
Australia's entry into WWII was the result of Great Britain declaring war. Australia's virtual non existent foreign policy at the time, had no bearing on Menzies decision.
With hindsight and given subsequent events some may say Australia's response at the time was fully justified, but that does not reflect any notion of "deep deliberation" on our part.

Dear Foxy,

I'm not sure the Russian military forces can be directly blamed for the shooting down of the Malaysian Airliner.

Here is a recording of the telephone intercepts made of the initial conversations between the rebel commanders soon after the plane came down.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003007434/intercepted-audio-of-ukraine-separatists.html

That is not to say there is not a degree of Russian culpability because there is.

Dear Arjay,

I saw Bob Carr at a library event which was part of writers week so it was more about his book than a speech but it may well have been recorded. I will ask for you. He was in fact directly challenged about his regard for Kissinger to which he offered a fairly unconvincing excuse about Kissinger's involvement in Chile. He did go on to acknowledge the US involvement in may coups particularly the overthrowing by the CIA of the democratically elected President of Iran. He said he had been told by a Saudi prince that until that moment tensions between Sunni and Shia were minimal.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Did Abbott plan to put armed Australian troops into rebel held territory to secure the crash site? Yes.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Australia-to-send-troops-to-MH17-crash-site-in-Ukraine-Tony-Abbott/articleshow/38991080.cms

Am I certain of the number? No, but it would have needed to be substantial.

Did Abbott negotiate with Russia or the rebels? No. He was in talks with the Ukranian government who didn't hold the territory.

Did Former Air Marshal Huston rule out Australian troop deployment within a couple of days after Tony's announcement? Yes he did.

“AUSTRALIA'S special envoy to the international MH17 mission has said military personnel will not accompany Australian Federal Police members to recovery bodies from the crash site in eastern Ukraine. Former Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston said it would be a non-threatening force that will be going in to the crash site, which is in the middle of a war-zone, led by civilians and police.”
http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/AFP-wont-be-joined-by-military-in-Ukraine-recover/2330663/

The facts fit Carr's version. It is over to you to furnish yours.

And what on earth do you claim as Abbott's diplomatic achievements?

Dear SteeleRedux,

I would like to quote to you parts of an article
written by Dr Al Kabaila, "Should We Care about
the Ukraine," which was published in the
Lithuanian newspaper, "Musu Pastoge," Nr. 12,
and which I have previously cited on this forum:

"What happened after World War II that enabled the
countries of Europe to develop in relative peace?"

"It was an agreement, often a tacit agreement, to
regard the territories of all independent states
as "exempt" from being taken over by their
neighbours in "small wars,"
small wars that often ended up by dragging other
neighbours in ever bigger and bigger wars."

"What happened now in Ukraine, breaks that tacit
agreement not to invade neighbours. The tacit
agreement that kept at least Europe in relative
peace for nearly three quarters of a century was
broken. The "Greater Russia," as the current leaders
seem to like to call the remnants of the Soviet
Empire, has invaded a part of another independent
country. Ukraine, and absorbed that part -
the Crimea, in to the "Greater Russia."

"The "referendums" to join up with the invading state
were taken after the invasion. It matters not that
the soldiers of the invading country removed insignias from
their uniforms. It does not matter how farcially unbalanced
the referendum questions were, it does not matter how
jubilantly the crowds in the capital of the "Greater Russia"
greeted the "new era" of expansion."

"What does matter is that this breach of the territorial
integrity of another country has started the new era. We are
returning to the pre-World War II behaviour of some
nations. It is a start of expansionism, ignoring all the
norms of international treaties and agreements."

"It is too easy to brush aside the events that are unfolding,
events which have in the past involved most countries of the
world into endless conflicts and horrific wars."

"Therefore it is not wise to ignore the fire that has already
started as nobody can predict where it will end."

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear SteeleRedux,

It is worth remembering that -
"Substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons, including the
"delivery systems," were stationed in the Ukrainian
territory when the Soviet Union collapsed, and were under
the control of the newly emerged Ukraine. The "western powers"
were anxious to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons
and wanted to destroy them. As Russia was regarded as a
"reliable", big power, it was put to the Ukrainians that
they should surrender their nuclear weapons to Russia to
deal with the destruction."

"This was regarded as a reduction of nuclear danger to all
"western powers." As it did nothing to reduce the danger to
Ukraine, Ukraine was guaranteed its security in return for
their willingness to surrender peacefully their arsenal.
Yes. Ukraine did hand over their nuclear arsenal to Russia."

"Have you seen the graphic TV re-broadcast of a TV
program in Moscow that reminded in threatening tone
that Russia "was the only power able to destroy
New York and other American cities, leaving behind
only radio active ashes?"

"It is worth noting that it was shown at the same time as
the invasion of Crimea by the Russian troops."

Russia culpable? - you betcha!

Foxy you have to break your addiction to MSM as they are cunsumate liars. Russia always had a military base in Crimea. They have not invaded the Ukraine.

It is the West that wants to put Missile defence bases in the Ukraine. It is the West that has broken a long standing agreement that dates back to the cold war of Russia leaving East Germany on the proviso of no nukes in Poland etc.

Russia and China do not need war as they can win the peace by having their own BRICS bank free of Western Central Banker's debt. Do you not yet understand how global power plays work ?

SR,

No, the information you have provided does not support in any way "he related how it took our defense chiefs nearly three days to talk Abbott out of putting up to 3,000 armed Australian troops on the ground in the Ukraine."

All there you have provided, or that I could find, indicates that Australia's intention was to contribute unarmed, personnel to an international effort to secure the site consisting mostly of police personnel with a possibility of "some" military personnel. Note that 90 unarmed police were sent over and no troops.

As for 3,000 armed Australian troops on the ground in the Ukraine, all I can say is that it sounds like another flimsy beat up and that either Carr was lying or you were.

SM,

We all know that Abbott if champing at the bit to involve Australia in international disputes...for electoral advantage.

Paul Kelly:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/leader-for-a-more-dangerous-world/story-e6frg74x-1227022252877

"Abbott’s every instinct is to deploy Australian military and police assets and he needs to be persuaded by his advisers from such options."

"Abbott said later there was “very strong circumstantial evidence” the plane was shot down by Russian-backed rebels using equipment “supplied by Russia.” He wants to know “the precise circumstances,” who gave the orders, if possible bring individuals to trial but, if not, take action against Russia. He said the world believes Russia has a “heavy degree of responsibility” for the atrocity.

In the early days of the crisis several weeks ago Abbott wanted to put 1000 Australian troops onto the crash site in conjunction with 1000 Dutch troops. Nothing better testifies to his outrage at the event and his keenness to deploy Australian assets in a cause that affected Australians. This option remained on the table for a few days.

It was never going to be viable. Yet debate around this idea continued before the Prime Minister was talked around and decided it was too dangerous and inappropriate an option. Putting Australian troops into that highly charged situation would have been far too risky.

Yet it offers insights into Abbott’s approach to military issues: he is impatient with limitations relating to logistics and deployment. When Australians are involved Abbott wants to make a difference as soon as possible."

Dear Arjay,

Russia maintained a naval base in Crimea as part
of an agreement when the Ukraine gained its
independence from the Soviet Union. As was the
case with a naval base in Lithuania (Kalingrad),
which was a part of Lithuania. As in Kalingrad,
the Russians occupied the whole region, and
insisted on an "agreement" for unobstructed
military traffic from Russia to Kalingrad through
Lithuanian lands. In the case of Crimea - they simply
occupied the entire peninsula an area half the size
of Tasmania. It appears now they are attempting to
link Crimea via coastal areas of Ukraine being
occupied by Russian separatists.

Those are the historical facts emanating from the
respective occupied regions.

Historically Russia has always persisted in expansionism
by occupying productive lands to sustain their empire
of "Greater Russia." If they want something they simply
take it and the West has never made a serious attempt
to stop them. Putin denies that There are Russian
tanks in the Ukraine despite the satellite photographs
that clearly shows movement across the borders and pictures
of the tanks. Sanctions won't work with Russia. They will
simply take what they need - as was the case of Soviet
expansion after World War II resulting in the "cold war."
Meaning - "we won't do anything if you don't do anything."

As George Bernard Shaw once said in a cynical way, "The
only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn
anything from history."

Dear Poirot,

Thank you for the words from the Australian which is very much a right leaning newspaper, and to have that assessment from Paul Kelly really does give weight to Bob Carr's perspective.

This was also a frightening concession;

“THE cycle of events means Tony Abbott is now vesting a huge amount of time, energy and cabinet deliberations in his prime ministerial role as national security guardian, a task that fuses his moral fervour with political gain.”

I'm not quite sure what I am more afraid of, Abbott's 'moral fervour' or his 'fervour for political gain', especially when there are Australian lives at stake.

Dear SM,

Given Paul Kelly's words I am prepared to concede the 3,000 may have been Bob referring to the combined forces planned on being dispatched. I did not write any of this down nor as yet has there been any audio of the event posted. But regardless I think the point still stands, Abbott wanted to put a serious number of armed Australian troops into a war zone, into harm's way and with a grave risk of inflaming tensions in the area.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Here's an article that you may find of interest:

http://newmatilda.com/2014/08/31/common-sense-case-against-western-intervention-iraq

That article was half-baked, a complete waste of time. However it was worth reading this letter in reply,

"What a load of codswallopp this piece is, It is the worst kind of apologia for Islamic nutters I have ever seen. The simple fact is that this mob of religious zealots stand for every thing that civilized people abhor.

As they blithely ignore every concept of civilized behavior, you know trivial things like not slaughtering civilians and prisoners, selling women into sexual slavery, like forcing people to chose between converting to their brand of Islam and being beheaded Michael Brull is telling us to just look the other way and eventually some one else will deal with them!

This article utterly "jumps the shark" there are thousands of reasons to fight this blight upon humanity now, before they get even more established and to do so does not require any western boots on the ground, Drones and hellfire missiles along with regular air strikes can and will make enough of a difference that the existing forces on the ground can excise this cancer, because to do nothing in the face of such barbarity is just not something that even the most ardent socialist should contemplate unless they want to be forced to pray five times a day and give up all of the freedoms that have been so hard won over the last century or so."

Posted for those who are not afraid to exercise their own mind and do not depend on flakey 'independent' sites and blogs to tell them what they should think.

otb,

So pleased that you've found a kindred spirit on
"New Matilda," one who undoubtedly appreciates
the opportunity to express their views uncensored
on a site that does encourage free expression and deeper
thought than the filtered stuff that comes down
the colon of the main stream media.

Foxy,

The vexing dilemma that confronts respectable, credible sources is that they must sometimes reply to foolishness -as I am doing right now- to correct misleading statements, although in so doing one always risks lending some belief to the original unsubstantiated and unreliable claims.

otb,

I'm so glad that you're not the same old
sausage fizzing and sputtering in your own grease.

With The Labor Party basically playing second fiddle to Abbott on the potential of Australia being drawn into yet another useless war in Iraq. It has been left to The Greens and Andrew Wilkie to raise the lack of parliamentary consultation on this very important issue. Abbott is gung ho, as is Labor, when it comes to Australia's involvement in American sanctioned war. We have failed to learn from our past mistakes of sycophantic support of America as it pursues its global interests, in lands far removed from Australia.
I think Paul McGeough put it well in today's SMH under the heading of 'Abbott shows Australia still at America's beck and call'.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/australia-still-at-americas-beck-and-call-20140831-10albb.html

Deputy Greens Leader Adam Bandt MP condemned the Government’s failure to allow a House debate on sending forces to Iraq.
“The government has shut out any debate in the House of Representatives on Australian military involvement in Iraq," said Mr Bandt.
"All the House of Representatives gets is a non-binding discussion after the decision to join the war has been made. It's a sham."
“Prime Minster Tony Abbott and Labor are in lockstep, but the Greens will stand up for the right of Australians to decide whether to get involved in another war in Iraq,” said Mr Bandt.

LOL Paul 1405!

The Greens have a hide like a swamp buffalo and obviously believe that the public have very short memories. This is just the ambulance-chasing 'Protest Party' Greens out to get headlines.

Remember how Greens' leader Bob Brown used to profess concern for the troops but never fulfilled his promise to visit them in Afghanistan?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/greens-leader-bob-brown-must-visit-diggers/story-e6frfhqf-1225937851978?nk=762fa3799c897ec0e2cde3a7343687d2

Beach, I hope you posted that from down at the recruiting office, or are you another one of those stay at home armchair warriors! I suspect so.

Good on The Greens, as the only political party willing to stand up to the sycophantic Abbott as he sucks up to the Yanks on this.

Christine Milne is in favour of humanitarian aid to the Kurds in their fight/plight with IS.

Could anyone explain just what this humanitarian aid could be and how does she think that IS would regard this humanitarian aid and those that give it?

Humanitarian aid, should include food, medical supplies, clean drinking water,clothing and shelters etc. Abbott's version of humanitarian aid seem to include munitions and arms from that wonderful democratic state of Albania. According to Abbott "Australia has participated in a humanitarian air drop to the besieged town of Amerli in northern Iraq... we have done so at the request of the Obama Administration and with the permission of the Iraqi Government," The Iraqi ambassador to Australia didn't know what Abbott was talking about.
This should soon be followed up with even more humanitarian aid in the form of bombs being delivered on innocent men, women and children. thanks to the warmongering types like Obama, Abbott and Shorten. you can throw in Canada, Italy, France and the United Kingdom into that mix as they also plan to supply weapons to the combatants in Northern Iraq.

Chief of Defence Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin said the Australian humanitarian mission on Sunday morning delivered 15 pallets of food, water and hygiene packs, enough for 2,600 people for a day.
The food came from the World Food Program and the hygiene packs were from AusAid and marked "Aid from Australia". The aircraft since has returned safely to the base. This type of aid, like all Greens, I fully support.
What is to be gained by military intervention as a first option in a civil war.
Both sides in the Iraqi conflict are committing acts of violence against civilians, said the UN.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11068897/Both-sides-in-the-Iraqi-conflict-committing-acts-of-violence-against-civilians-says-UN.html

As general Haig said to Blackadder in series 4:

On the "Big Push" and the position of the Big Brass:

"We're right behind you."

To which Blackadder muttered:

"Yes, about 25 miles behind us."

Beach, had to dig that one out of the archives did you not, Oct 13 2010, and its in one of the media's criminal enterprises (News) publications, Murdoch's 'Herald Sun' and a double whammy to boot, it was written by your favorite redneck himself convicted criminal Andrew Bolt!
Beach still waiting for that link to your Miss Marple, what's her name?
p/s I note Julia is not wearing the obligatory bullet proof vest, wasn't she afraid of being shot by a "friendly" Afghan solder, they loved us so much in Afghanistan even the friendly's would shoot us. Was that pic taken down at Victoria Barracks just for Bolt!
By the way Bob Brown was proven right yet again. A great statesman is Bob.

SR,

Thanks for conceding that your pretext for this thread was bollocks. Wanting to contribute troops (possibly armed) to an international peace enforcing effort is hardly warmongering as you seem to imply.

Would you consider the insertion of a large number of armed peace keeping troops into the dangerous East Timor area peace keeping or war mongering?

Without the prodding of Abbott and Bishop, it looked very likely that the enfeebled Obama presidency and the vacillating EU was going to do nothing. That the passengers are not still rotting in Ukraine is largely due to their efforts.

Abbott has clearly vastly outperformed any Labor PM on foreign affairs and especially considering the bleating by Rudd and Labor that Abbott was not suited for diplomatic work.

Paul,

Once again the greens are advocating that Australia sits back and does nothing, just as they sat back and happily accepted that thousands drowning at sea was just "s^*% happens" as long as we were nice to the survivors. The greens' philosophy is that if you do nothing, you can do nothing wrong. If thousands of others die, it is someone elses' fault, and warrants a lot of hand wringing and tut tutting.

The reality is that no one in Iraq has completely clean hands, the crimes against humanity committed by ISIS dwarf everything done by others combined. Helping the Kurds and others by disrupting ISIS's movements from the air, and arming the Kurds is saving the maximum number of lives with little no risk to Australian troops.

Brown eyed Bob got it wrong again.

Dear Shadow Minister or rather Yes Minister,

Lol, do you even lie in bed straight?

Except for a question over exact numbers every thing I related about Carr is backed up by Kelly yet somehow you see a victory for yourself? The proof was laid in front of you and you slapped your hands over your ears and rocked back and forth chanting, 'You were wrong and I was right!'. Sorry mate but facts just don't disappear like that but you were good for a laugh at least.

Clown.

And what is this piece of tosh?

“Without the prodding of Abbott and Bishop, it looked very likely that the enfeebled Obama presidency and the vacillating EU was going to do nothing. That the passengers are not still rotting in Ukraine is largely due to their efforts.”

While those two were doing pissing contests in the Security Council, the one that if Abbott had his way we would not have sought membership of, the Malaysian Prime Minister directly contacted the rebels and secured the movement of the bodies and the black boxes.

Go do your homework mate.

SM,

"Thanks for conceding that your pretext for this thread was bollocks. Wanting to contribute troops (possibly armed) to an international peace enforcing effort is hardly warmongering as you seem to imply."

"Would you consider the insertion of a large number of armed peace keeping troops into the dangerous East Timor area peace keeping or war mongering?"

Lol!...are you suggesting little ol' Oz just waltzes in and sets up its own little peace keeping operation in the middle of what's going on in the Eastern Ukraine?

Here's what Kelly wrote:

"In the early days of the crisis several weeks ago Abbott wanted to put 1000 Australian troops onto the crash site...This option remained on the table for a few days."

"It was never going to be viable. Yet debate around this idea continued before the Prime Minister was talked around and decided it was too dangerous and inappropriate an option. Putting Australian troops into that highly charged situation would have been far too risky."

"Yet it offers insights into Abbott’s approach to military issues: he is impatient with limitations relating to logistics and deployment...."

Stupid mongering, more like it.

Abbott really should keep out of international politics, the mans an embarrassment. All the sycophant has to do is site by the phone and wait for the call from Washington, which will give him his riding instructions, it would save us a whole lot of apologising to the rest of the world for his behavior.

How quick the conservatives are to rush us into war. History shows their eagerness for peace through war is a mirage. Time and time again they have ordered Australians into other peoples conflicts, always claiming their motives are pure of heart, and of the noblest order. The reality is some what different, the wars are often of their own making, and for their own self serving reasons, Iraq being a prime example, along with other past wars, too numerous to mention. Bloody conflicts which result in the deaths of so many innocent victims. Why should we believe the conservatives now, that they are reformed charterers acting only through altruistic motives, and this time it will be some how different. The scenario is always the same, start off with a few "advisers" or special forces, but in quick time the whole thing is escalated into an all out war, involving thousands of our own people. The outcome is more than often, death and destruction for the local non combatants along with a relative few casualties of our own. In the end we walk away leaving a sorry state of affairs, all to be repeated sometime in the future, there or somewhere else in the (third) world.

Poirot,

Cherry picking again.

Paul Kelly actually said: "In the early days of the crisis several weeks ago Abbott wanted to put 1000 Australian troops onto the crash site in conjunction with 1000 Dutch troops." In other words, Abbott proposed contributing troops to an international effort to secure the majority of the crash site which covers covers 50 square km, for which a delegation of 10 or even 100 people would have been useless. Part of the negotiations at that point were also trying to achieve a cease fire in the area.

Considering the urgency of the situation, a large number of trained people able to leave at a moment's notice could only come from the army.

SR,

Paul Kelly's opinion does not in any way support your post. You were essentially saying that TA was intending to unilaterally send 3000 armed troops into a war zone.

Where you deviated from the facts were:
1 It was to be part of a multinational effort,
2 It was not going to happen without a cease fire in the area, (which was eventually achieved.)
3 There was no mention of the troops being armed.

So SR and Parrot, I guess that both of you are against the peace keeping efforts of Australia in East Timor?

Paul,

Have you tried Prozac? It would prevent continually having to wipe the spittle off your monitor.

SM,

"Considering the urgency of the situation, a large number of trained people able to leave at a moment's notice could only come from the army."

So you appear to be saying that even though Tones envisaged his troop deployment as part of an international effort - that you can't see what sort of nutty idea that would have been in that particular arena in eastern Ukraine?

You can't glean that Tones was a little itchy to deploy "one thousand" of our personnel - seemingly at the drop of a hat?

You can't work out that the situation on the ground militarily in that area was a tad unstable?

Peace keeping missions usually require much time and effort to organise - and only occur when there is considerable co-operation and trust available.

The fact that Tony barrelled out into the public arena the first chance he got, beating his chest and accusing Russia and its ally of any number of atrocities without first checking his facts wasn't conducive to a whole lot of co-operation.

He's a dill...who's hootin' and hollerin' to add a bit of lustre to his Tin Pot credentials.

Shadow, you can't have an international coalition consisting only of Australia and the Netherlands, it has to include our other major allies Ethiopia and Palau. Although I don't think the Palauians (people from Palau) will turn up this time, George Dubya failed to deliver the promised whomp'em last time, 10 sacks of flour and 4 blankets, just can't trust those Yanks. Besides I don't know what the Paiauians are bitch'n about, its more than we ever got!

Dear Poirot,

You wrote;

“The fact that Tony barrelled out into the public arena the first chance he got, beating his chest and accusing Russia and its ally of any number of atrocities without first checking his facts wasn't conducive to a whole lot of co-operation.”

Abbott's focus on Russia rather than the separatists was instructive. As with George Pell he is a follower of the late Bob Santamaria who was stridently anti-Communist.

David Marr, in this week's Quarterly Essay, remarks that ''Santamaria instilled in his followers a habit of discovering everywhere in the world around them a contest between the forces of good and evil.''

From a young Jesuit to now the PM Abbott's self confessed infatuation with Bob and his message hardly seems to have diminished. The enemies of his youth are his enemies still.

This remark from him a couple of weeks ago “None of us would have thought a month or so back that Australian uniforms might be within 30 or 40km of the Russian border” is just so telling. Why did he couch it in those terms? Because the thought obviously sends a thrill down his spine.

Well I am personally very glad we had the likes of Former Air-Marshal Andrew Houson to calm Tony's cold war hard-on on this occasion but I am positive Abbott will not be denied forever, and it is going to cost lives.

Parrot,

I have no doubt that you can glean anything you want including that Craig Thomson was innocent of using prostitutes in spite of evidence of his credit card use accompanied by a copy of his drivers license, and phone calls from his hotel room. Similarly, you allow innuendo to propel yourself on flights of fantasy concerning Abbott. However much you would like to indulge your fantasy about how much you know about what TA thinks, the reality is that you have no clue.

Can you remember the Libyan crisis when Rudd was at the forefront demanding military action against Gaddafi? What do "glean" from that. I heard not one accusation of warmongering from the left whingers.

The problem with politics and diplomacy is that what is said is often for local consumption or to convey a message, whilst the only real measure is what happens.

The real measure is what is the reality?

The reality was that most of Europe cared more for the gas that Russia provided than acting. TA's activism help to ensure that limited sanctions were applied to Russia and for a short while Russia backed off, a limited ceasefire was achieved, and the bodies, black boxes, and some evidence was collected. All without a single Aus soldier on the ground.

Similarly, when Indonesia said they would not tolerate turning back the boats, Rudd and Juliar quivered in their boots and did nothing. TA in a matter of months turned the boats around, and found Indonesia quietly helping.

When Labor's spying on SBY was uncovered, Labor wanted TA to grovel to SBY and promise never to spy again. TA acted to protocol, and drew up an agreement that pleased both parties and put the relationship in a better position than it had been in a decade.

SR,

TA and the rest of the world had more than enough proof of what happened. TA chose not to do the diplomatic shuffle around the subject. TA got results.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Okay I get that you have a life sized cut out of Tony that you give a great big kiss and cuddle to before going to bed each night but please spare us concocted tales about he and Julie doing anything but chest beating, waving their hands in the air and blowing ineffectual spitballs at the Russians.

This is what really happened.

22 July 2014, 12:19 AEST

“Pro-Russian separatists have handed over the two black boxes of flight MH17 to Malaysian authorities in Donetsk.
The handover came after Malaysia's prime minister Najib Razak secured a deal with rebel commander Alexander Borodai, which also included guaranteed safe access for independent investigators to the crash site.

Both sides signed a document at the headquarters of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, which Mr Borodai said was a protocol to finalise the handover.”

“Meanwhile, a train carrying the remains of the majority of the victims has left the crash site, as part of the agreement between Malaysia and the pro-Russian separatists. For days the bodies have been kept in refrigerated railway wagons at a small station 15 kilometres from the crash site, prompting fury from nations demanding the bodies be repatriated.”

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2014-07-22/mh17-prorussian-separatists-hand-over-black-boxes-to-malaysian-authorities/1346085

Abbott and Bishop were very much bit players in this. There was no way they were going to talk to the rebels because they were so intent on laying the blame directly at the feet of the Russians. It is likely the bodies would still be there if it was left up to the diplomacy on steroids that seems to be the only way these two know how to operate.

Thank God we had the Malaysian PM who knew what had to be done.

SM,

I write:

"So you appear to be saying that even though Tones envisaged his troop deployment as part of an international effort - that you can't see what sort of nutty idea that would have been in that particular arena in eastern Ukraine?

You can't glean that Tones was a little itchy to deploy "one thousand" of our personnel - seemingly at the drop of a hat?

You can't work out that the situation on the ground militarily in that area was a tad unstable?

Peace keeping missions usually require much time and effort to organise - and only occur when there is considerable co-operation and trust available.

The fact that Tony barrelled out into the public arena the first chance he got, beating his chest and accusing Russia and its ally of any number of atrocities without first checking his facts wasn't conducive to a whole lot of co-operation.

He's a dill...who's hootin' and hollerin' to add a bit of lustre to his Tin Pot credentials."

...and you reply:

"Parrot,

I have no doubt that you can glean anything you want including that Craig Thomson was innocent of using prostitutes in spite of evidence of his credit card use accompanied by a copy of his drivers license, and phone calls from his hotel room. Similarly, you allow innuendo to propel yourself on flights of fantasy concerning Abbott. However much you would like to indulge your fantasy about how much you know about what TA thinks, the reality is that you have no clue."

Since this Govt bombed...so have your debating skills - and your cred....

The trouble with the Mad Monk is he doesn't think. The primeministership has gone to his head. He is now thinking he is an international statesman, and a world leader, when clearly he is not anything of the sorts. Abbott is simply a nincompoop who should be kept in his box.
Fortunately Shadow for your benefit we have a couple of the best posting forumites in SteeleRedux and Poirot trying to point out the errors of your ways, but it would appear to be falling on deaf ears.
Shadow when are you going to buck up and realise Abbott is an idiot and his puerile attempts at saber rattling with the Russians is ridiculous! Who does he think he is, Julius Caesar?
Shadow, your immediate attention is required over on the Liberal Corruption Thread. You firefightings skills are need to hose down the latest bit of scandal concerning your CORRUPTION PARTY formally The Liberal Party. A party scumbag was caught out yesterday lying over a corps! He makes Craig Thomson look like a saint!

Paul,

If one is being attacked by a force that intends murder and rapine on one's people and one is short of ammunition and arms then the supply of such ammo and arms is humanitarian and it matters not their origin.

Is Mise,

"If one is being attacked by a force that intends murder and rapine on one's people and one is short of ammunition and arms then the supply of such ammo and arms is humanitarian and it matters not their origin."

Which explains Abbott's chest thumping on Russia and Ukraine how exactly?

Yesterday I made the following comments;

“This remark from him a couple of weeks ago “None of us would have thought a month or so back that Australian uniforms might be within 30 or 40km of the Russian border” is just so telling. Why did he couch it in those terms? Because the thought obviously sends a thrill down his spine.”

“Well I am personally very glad we had the likes of Former Air-Marshal Andrew Houson to calm Tony's cold war hard-on on this occasion but I am positive Abbott will not be denied forever, and it is going to cost lives.”

Little did I think Abbott's hard-on was going to put 'Australian uniforms” “within 30 or 40km of the Russian border” so bloody soon.

This from the ABC;

“Australia will open an embassy in Kiev and is considering providing military assistance to Ukraine as it battles Russian-backed rebels, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has told Parliament.”

"I am pleased that our flag will shortly fly alongside Ukraine's as a sign of our support in these troubled times."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-03/tony-abbott-announces-interim-embassy-in-kiev/5716632

He wants this so bad it is frightening.

Paul,

".....The primeministership has gone to his head. He is now thinking he is an international statesman, and a world leader, when clearly he is not anything of the sorts. Abbott is simply a nincompoop who should be kept in his box...."

Ain't that the truth.

But he's got Credlin and his band of trusty puppeteer/advisers writing the script for the foreseeable future.

Gee, Peta's done so well so far, hasn't she....

SR, Parrot,

The moment you start attacking me I know that you have exhausted your pitiful reasoning ability.

While both of you paid up members of the (fortunately) small band of looney left whingers have your own cut outs of TA to blame for every thing from global warming to sunspots. It must be hard for you to be so continually wrong.

Let's see some of the wildly inaccurate stories that the looney tried to sell as fact, and have been proved bullcrap.
1 Abbott is unelectable
2 The boats can't be stopped without a regional solution,
3 Indonesia won't stand for the boats being turned around,
4 TA is a misogynist (he winked)
5 TA won't repeal the carbon tax,
6 TA won't repeal the mining tax,
7 TA is not suited for foreign affairs (received high praise from Obama and pretty much every foreign leader he has met)

As for the greens a more idiotic bunch you could not find, Peter Whish-Wilson said Islamic State fighters should not be described as “terrorists” because Australian forces could also be viewed by some as terrorists.

Yeah, SM, Tones is a first class statesman and diplomat.

(If one holds grandstanding, chest-thumping, sloganeering, foot-in-mouth, opportunistic liars in high esteem)

Will the Greens senators be taking the next plane out to apologise to the 'non-terrorist', non-evil', 'demonised', Islamic State fighters? Bob Brown, self-appointed President of the World Government will fix it all when he is finished playing pirate on the high seas.

There could be some savings in it for the federal budget. *Whish* and off go the heads of Milne, Rhiannon et al.

Paul 1405 will be along shortly to relate one of his long meandering fanciful stories to 'prove' that Islamic State terrorists are just ordinary guys, softies even and he met one at a union bbq somewhere sometime etc etc. Hey, not that PM Abbott though, he and his Aussie army are evil, pure evil and they do it for fun (apparently).

'Greens' is a misnomer. 'Watermelons Protest Party' is where it is at.

"Is Mise,

"If one is being attacked by a force that intends murder and rapine on one's people and one is short of ammunition and arms then the supply of such ammo and arms is humanitarian and it matters not their origin."

Which explains Abbott's chest thumping on Russia and Ukraine how exactly?
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 4 September 2014 9:15:50 AM"

It doesn't, it attempts to widen the definition of 'humanitarian', as in: if I throw a drowning man a lifebuoy it is a humanitarian act and if I give a man who is being attacked by a known murderer a rifle etc., then that is also a humanitarian act.

Dear Poirot and others,

The following link explains the PM's actions
in the Ukraine:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-03/tony-abbott-announces-interim-embassy-in-kiev/5716632

I'm sure that Ukrainians are very grateful for the
support as I imagine are the people of the Baltic States.

It seems that both sides of politics slam
the Russian invasion in the Ukraine:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-29/both-sides-of-politics-slam-russian-invasion-in-ukraine/5705956

'(If one holds grandstanding, chest-thumping, sloganeering, foot-in-mouth, opportunistic liars in high esteem) '

take a bex Poirot.

"take a bex Poirot."

Take a funny run - runner.

: )

The naiveté in Foxy’s comment that “both sides of politics” agree on the geostrategic claims over the Ukraine, when “both sides of politics” means Abbott and Shorten, is breathtaking, but seems par for the course on this thread. America’s geostrategic side (seeking to thrust NATO into Russia’s face) and Russia’s (seeking to keep NATO away from its face) are the two big-league sides that are facing up. Surprise surprise, the Lib and Labor minnows are both on the ONE side. Honorary Yanks the both of them.

If we have the slightest gratitude to the millions who died fighting the war against REAL aggression and saved OUR bacon, we might give a thought to the side of the people who live on the spot and the victory those wonderful Allied soldiers and Resistance heroes won for the world, expressed in the postwar UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [#1]. Look at what it says at the very start:

Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. [Principles governing implementation]

So Lest We Forget, why not focus on insisting that US-Russian negotiations be about how to secure this right for the captive peoples of Eastern Ukraine, through properly supervised plebiscites? As was belatedly done for the captive people of East Timor?

#1 http://www.ohchr.org/en/profesosionalinterest/pages/ccpr.asp

Dear Emperor Julian,

The facts are these:

What does matter is that Russia has breached the
territorial integrity of another country. It has
invaded a part of another independent country -
the Ukraine, and absorbed that part - the Crimea
into the "Greater Russia."

The "referendums" to join up with the invading
state were taken after the invasion. It matters not
that the soldiers of the invading country removed
insignia from their uniforms. It does not matter how
farcically unbalanced the referendum questions were,
it does not matter how jubilantly crowds in the
capital of the "Greater Russia" greeted the
"new era," of expansion. What does matter is that
this breach of the territorial integrity of another country
has started the new era.

We are returning to the pre-World War II behaviour of
some nations. It is a start of expansionism, ignoring
all norms of international treaties and agreements.

It is too easy to brush aside the events that are
unfolding, events which have in the past involved most
countries of the world into endless conflicts and
horrific wars.

Shadow you might see SteeleRedux and Poirot as "paid up members of the (fortunately) small band of looney left whingers" a notion which is totally erroneous, they are both thoughtful and intelligent posters. You however have shown yourself to be a supporter of the corrupt criminals of the New South Wales Liberal Party and the lunatic we have to suffer in the form of a pathetic Prime Minister. Shame on you, where is your integrity?

I see Foxy has ducked the question about the right of the people of the captive nations to determine their own future by a supervised referendum, as East Timor belatedly did. Indeed the persistence with which Foxy is ducking the questions about the Ukraine may even surpass the assiduousness of her ducking and weaving about the core message of the Koran.

No it is not a question of the referenda that did happen which left room to hide behind "they're faked" as she does. The plea I posed, for the rights of the actual people who live there, was for the US-Russian negotiations to be about finding a verifiable plebiscite for the captive people under international supervision. Such votes have been held many times in many places in the past. Not rocket science. My implication is that if the Yanks or anyone else stood in the way of the people exercising this then their reluctance to respect the right of the people is spitting in the face of everything the Allied soldiers (including OURS) and Resistance heroes gave their lives for.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“The moment you start attacking me I know that you have exhausted your pitiful reasoning ability.”

Oh please don't start a victim chant after all that you have flung about.

All I said was you could well have a life sized cut out of Tony that you are very fond of. It was hardly an attack.

As to exhausting one's pitiful reasoning there is never a clearer indication than when someone bangs on over an entire post addressing everything but not the point put. If you are done then just say so and move on.

Dear Paul1405,

Thanks for the dip of the hat but not always true I'm afraid.

It is a dangerous game Abbott is playing if he thinks he can re-position Australia as a middle ranking power, presumably a military power at that. We have long been seen by many, simply as an American lackey, always at the ready to do Uncle Sam's bidding. That in itself has negated any possible influence on a diplomatic level that we could have exerted in world affairs. But to take our committed servitude to a new level on a far broader military scale is playing with fire and fraught with danger for Australia both domestically and internationally. Put simply Australia has no military business in such places as the Ukraine, Iraq or Syria.
Where we can do some good in the World is to concentrate on regional affairs in the Asia/Pacific sphere. In that way we can maintain stability for ourselves and at the same time do some real good for others. While Abbott is off in faraway places playing Tonto to the Lone Ranger, Barack Obama, there is every possibility things will get out of hand in our own back yard. I would think places like Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, The Solomon Islands, Fiji and Vanuatu should be of far greater concern to Australian than The Ukraine. Dealing with those nations may not gain Abbott the Worlds adulation that he so desperately craves, but the price of real success might be to remain unseen and unsung in the background of world affairs.

SR,

I have a reasonably thick hide, and your childish taunts are so pathetic as to make me laugh, especially as they are a sure sign that you (and others) realise that your justification for your thread has fallen in a heap. Rather than just admitting that the whole pretext for the thread is non existent you try and divert the thread into a mud flinging exercise.

The thread was based on your assertion that Abbott was a warmonger determined to unilaterally insert 3000 armed troops into the Ukraine, the subsequent assertion that Abbott is still a warmonger because of his offer to contribute troops to an international effort to secure the scene of a mass murder, is ludicrous especially since you have no idea of the context, the pre conditions or the negotiations surrounding the issue.

The opposition foreign minister Tanya Plibersek thinks Africa is a country, Bill Shorten has no idea of what is happening but supports it anyway, Christine Milne thinks calling people terrorists is hurtful to their feelings, and Brown eyed Bob thinks foreign relations is chatting to aliens.

SteeleRedux,

SM posts:

"I have a reasonably thick hide, and your childish taunts are so pathetic as to make me laugh...."

Lol!...that's the pot calling the kettle "childish".

Shadow Minister thinks this (repeated many times on another thread) is adult debate suitable for OLO discussion...

"Back handed Brandt,
Rip off Rhiannon,
Mendacious Milne,
Shifty Sarah HY,
Lying Ludlam,
Slippery Whish Wilson, and now
Pickpocket Parker.

A sorry rogues gallery of GREENS CORRUPTION."

Now there's a 5 year-old to contend with...we're shaking in our boots at his incisive commentary.

Dear Emperor Julian,

You can say whatever you like - the facts remain -
and NATO and others condemn the actions of Russia
in the Ukraine. The "referendums" to join up with
the invading state were taken AFTER the invasion.
It matters not that the soldiers of the invading
country removed insignia from their uniform. It does
not matter how farcically unbalanced the "referendum"
questions were, it does not matter how jubilantly
the crowds in the capital of the "Greater Russia"
greeted the "new era" of expansionism.

What does matter is that this breach of the
territorial integrity of another country has started
a new era. I shall keep repeating that we are
returning to the pre-World War II behaviour of some
nations.

It is a start of expansionism, ignoring all norms
of international treaties and agreements. It is too
easy to brush aside the events that are unfolding.
It is not wise to ignore the fire that has already
started as nobody can predict where it will end.

The jubilation in Berlin after the "Anschluss" of
Austria was very similar to those shown in Moscow.
Also, the jubilation of some in Vienna is not that
different from the jubilation of some in Crimea.
The "losers" of the "Anschluss" lost quietly as
have the Tatars of Crimea, who experienced the
persecution and deportations by the Soviets. The
Crimean Tatars "always" lived in Crimea, but only a few
survived the heavy hand of the Soviets.

When the PM of Great Britain returned from a meeting with
Hitler in which he had tacitly consented to the
occupation of Czechoslovakia for a "solemn" promise by
Hitler not to wage was in "our time." On return, he waived
a piece of paper, proclaiming in a quivering voice
"peace in our time."

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Emperor Julian,

It is time to reflect on the events that
took place before the outbreak of all-out war
to end all wars, World War II. Are we not at
the same state of mind of some leaders that were
spreading the hegemony of their countries,
at first by relatively peaceful means, then by
promises of peace in the near future, "the
peace in our time?" Are these not the lessons we
need to learn? We need to care about what is
happening in Ukraine.

Jubilation in Berlin after the "Anschluss" of
Austria was very similar to those shown in Moscow
as we can see from archival material. Also, the
jubilation of some in Vienna is not that different from
the jubilation of some in Crimea. The "losers" of the
"Anschluss" lost quietly as have the Tatars of Crimea,
who experienced the persecution and deportations by the
Soviets. The Crimean Tatars "always" lived in Crimea,
but only a few survived the heavy hand of the Soviets.

When the PM of Great Britain returned from a meeting with
Hitler in which he had tacitly consented to the
occupation of Czechoslovakia for a "solemn" promise by
Hitler not to wage war in "our time." On return, he waived
a piece of paper, proclaiming in a quiveryng voice "peace
in our time." Films of this have survived.

Susbstantial arsenal of nuclear weapons, including the
"delivery systems," were stationed in the Ukrainian
territory when the Soviet Union collapsed, and were under the
control of the newly emerged Ukraine.

"Western powers" were anxious to avoid proliferation of
nuclear weapons and wanted to destroy them. As Russia was
regarded as a reliable, big power, it was put to the
Ukrainians that they should surrender their nuclear weapons
to Russia to deal with the destruction.

This was regarded as a reduction of nuclear danger to all
"western powers." It did nothing to reduce the danger to
Ukraine, Ukraine was guaranteed its security in return for
their willingness to surrender peacefully their arsenal.

Yes, Ukraine did hand over their nuclear arsenal to Russia.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Emperor Julian,

Have you seen the graphic TV re-broadcast of a TV program
in MOscow that reminded in threatening tone that
Russia "was the only power able to destroy New York and other
American cities, leaving behind only radio active ashes?"

It is worth noting that it was shown at the same time as the
invasion of Crimea by the Russian troops.

It is worth remembering that V. I. Lenin in his political
philosophy made it quite clear that law has but one
primary goal, "A law is a political measure, it is
politics." No Soviet authority or communist leader has
abandoned this concept. It has been applied in the
territories "liberated" by the Bolsheviks during the
October revolution, in the captive nations occupied by
the Red Army during World War II, and in the lands won
by military force or "wars of liberation" in Asia, Africa,
the Far East, and the Caribbean.

Fortunately for the world, despite all his posturing and saber rattling Abbott does not posses the capabilities to do anything significant. He is a bit like a lighter and slimmer version of Idi Amin, more huff and puff than anything else. Unlike that pair of super hero's Abbott admires, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, they had their fingers on the trigger, the pair were a real danger!

Paul 1405, "He is a bit like a lighter and slimmer version of Idi Amin, more huff and puff than anything else"

Sometimes you would be better off saying nothing than demonstrating such ignorance and callous insensitivity as to trivialise and scoff at the atrocities of a monster. Here, educate yourself,

http://atrocities-of-amin.blogspot.com.au/

Beach, there was a hit song in Australia which trivialized Amin. Yes Amin was a monster, and a product of the West, was he not? At one time Britain was flying in a plane load of luxury goods monthly into Kampala just to help keep him in power, knowing full well what a monster Amin was. He become an inconvenient embarrassment for the West. When he finally shot through, assisted in his get away by the West, he settled in Saudi Arabia where, Britain and America, allowed him to live out the rest of his life in luxury (died in 2003). Now some people want to take the 'high moral ground', people who at one time were willing to overlook Amin's indiscretions for political reasons. I hope that educates you a little.

SteeleRedux,

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbotts-is-intervention-bluster-muffles-civil-unrest-in-australia-20140905-10cgc3.html

"But of course, we won't be going there. Perhaps Nigeria, in spite of its oil wealth, is not our strategic concern. Where, then, are the battalions of those who should be concerned? The Saudi King warns that IS will be in Europe and America within months. The Saudi King, the closest thing we have to an absolute monarch outside of North Korea these days, has at his convenience an army of 75,000 men, including a 1000-strong tank armada which might even give Vladimir Putin a moment's pause if he found them sitting astride some patch of turf he might like to place within his possession. The Royal Saudi Air Force, deploying from bases somewhat closer to the Islamic State than Williamstown, boasts more than 300 combat aircraft, including F15E Strike Eagles and shiny new Eurofighter Typhoons, barely out of their bubblewrap."

"The world is horror and madness. So why is the horror and madness of the Islamic State our concern? Consider their fanboy coreligionists in Nigeria, Boko Haram, infamous kidnappers/slave traders of 300 school girls. These murderous clowns look good for the sort of stern correction that can only be delivered by a squadron of heavily armed F/A-18F Super Hornets...."

Horror enough, you would think, to justify a tiny bit of bombing. Just a little touch of special forces magic in the night, perhaps?"

"So why are we going to another war? Surely not because the last one went so well? And why is Tony Abbott banging the drum so much louder than his American commander?

You might imagine it has nothing to do with some infantile crusade against mediaeval barbarism. You might think a certain PM sees an opportunity to pull out of the death spiral his government's been in since it handed down the most unpopular budget in living memory. You might think that one blunder after another has forced him to an impasse where nothing is left to him but blood and circuses. You might think that. But I couldn't possibly comment."

Foxy I'm curious. Would you care to make an educated guess at what the people of the Crimea think of "the invasion of Crimea by the Russian troops."? Do you think that matters a damn in your geostrategic scenario? Do you think it should be ascertained before asking Australians to come to conclusions about "Russian aggression"? Do you think it was "Australian aggression" when our troops went into East Timor and enabled a referendum of the people to the fury of the Indos and the Timorese quislings?

Or are you merely peddling the US neocons' Project for a New American Century, PNAC, seeking global "full spectrum dominance"?

Dear Emperor Julian,

The Second World War was an extraordinary event.
It cost not just hundreds of thousands of lives -
it cost millions of lives. After that followed
a time of "cold war," as two super powers confronted
each other with the prospect of mutual destruction.

It was an uneasy peace, but nevertheless it was peace,
a new kind of peace. There were "small wars" which cost
many lives, particularly civilian lives (in the last
Iraq war most casualties were of civilians). But it
was not an ultimate madness of "big wars" and European
nations that had been at each others' throats for
thousands of years enjoyed the unheard of prosperity as
a result of peace, the absence of "big wars."

What happened after the World War II that enabled the
countries of Europe to develop in relative peace?

It was an agreement, often a tacit agreement, to regard
the territories of all independent states as "exempt" from
being taken over by their neighbours in "small wars,"
small wars that often ended up by dragging other
neighbours in even bigger and bigger wars.

What has happened now in Ukraine, breaks that tacit
agreement not to invade neighbours. The tacit agreement
that kept at least Europe in relative peace for nearly
three quarters of a century has been broken. The
"Greater Russia," as the current leaders seem to like
to call the remnants of the Soviet Empire, has invaded
a part of another independent country, Ukraine, and
absorbed that part- the Crimea, in to the "Greater Russia."

What does matter is that this breach of the territorial
integrity of another country has started a new era.
We are returning to the pre-World War II behaviour of
some nations.

It is a start of expansionism, ignoring all norms of
international treaties and agreements.

@Paul1405, Saturday, 6 September 2014 7:28:51 AM

That was a non-answer.

As was stated earlier, you would be better off saying nothing than demonstrating such ignorance and callous insensitivity as to trivialise and scoff at the atrocities of Idi Amin who was a butcher, a monster. You are shameless.

Beach, if you consider me to be callously insensitive to the atrocities of Idi Amin who was indeed a butcher and a monster. What do you make of the western political leadership at the time which actively supported and protected Amin, and ensured him a safe haven in Saudi Arabia where he was able to live out the rest of his life in luxury and comfort. People like Thatcher and Callaghan in Britain and Carter and Reagan in America.
Closer to home and more recent, how do you feel about Abbott actively supporting an outlawed terrorist organisation in the form of The Kurdistan Workers Party, and others in iraq. Is it a case of "my enemies, enemy is my friend"?

http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Listedterroristorganisations/Pages/KurdistanWorkersPartyPKK.aspx

As I said some do conveniently take the moral high ground, when it suits.

Paul 1405

Again that is an irrelevancy. You are shameless.

Beach, you failed to answer the question. Is it shameless of the Abbott Government to provide military support, by its own admission, to an outlawed terrorist organisation in the form of the PKK and others. Likewise, do you think we should now switch our support to the Assard regime in Syria. I think we should condemn the lot and not militarily support any side. time and time again the west has made the mistake of supporting one side, only to find later that support was ill founded. We even supported Saddam Hussein at one time when it suited us.
When is a terrorist a freedom fighter, when he's on your side.

Paul,

If the support for those opposed to IS/ISIS/whoever saves innocent lives then is it not justified?

Foxy’s account of the war might well have been written in Langley, Virginia, with all its references to “tacit agreements”. I recall only what I read in the Press at the time, and clearly remember German Chancellor Helmut Kohl raising the hope to regain Lebensraum east of the Oder-Niesse German-Polish border with reunification and the Western Allies telling him not to even think about it. I recall the Axis scum, expelled from Poland’s western territories where they had ruled as brutal overlords during the Nazi occupation, whining incessantly in Germany demanding compensation, until the Polish Parliament responded that before any claim of compensation could be considered the quantum of reparations for the German war damage to Poland would have to be calculated and paid. That shut the Nazis up. For now.

I also recall from news reports that agreement was at least tacit, and maybe more formal than that, that reunification would not be accompanied by any eastward expansion of NATO. Now the Russians can see NATO metastasing like cancer towards their borders. On geostrategic grounds, I can sympathise with their concern and their warning of massive retaliation if NATO’s push comes to shove. But the grounds in the eastern Ukraine and Crimea are more than geostrategic. They rest on the firm global consensus agreements at http://www.ohchr.org/en/profesosionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx . Way beyond tacit.

Five highly relevant questions in my first paragraph, each related to the human rights of populations, not overlords, and each so far weaseled out of by Foxy’s PNAC handouts. Is her silence complicit and will it continue?

Dear Emperor Julian,

Perhaps the following link may assist to clarify
a few things for you:
It gives current events in historical perspective.

http://origins.osu.edu/article/Ukrainian-crisis-russias-long-shadow

BTW: The information that I have provided
on the Ukraine did not come from the US -
but from an article (as I stated previously) written
by Dr Al Kabaila, "Should We care about Ukraine?"
in the Lithuanian newspaper in Sydney, "Musu Pastoge,"
Nr. 12. 2014.

If it offends you in some way - you are under no
obligation to read or respond to it. And using
words like "weasel" is not polite.

Paul,

You are starting to behave like a troll.

Are you completely disconnected from reality, or do you just feel that the greens would be best represented by telling at least one outrageous lie a day? Australia is not supplying arms to the PKK.

How do you feel about Rhiannon and Bandt molesting small animals?

Shadow,definition;

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response ...

I will agree many of my factual posts do upset some of the 'Usual Suspects', the inconvenient truth can hurt! That is not being a troll

I maintain Australia supplied arms to people in Iraq who Australia rightly labels terrorists'. I posted a link to show that the Australian government has designated the PKK and other Kurdish groups as terrorist, you may have missed that one so I'll post it again, just for you.


http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Listedterroristorganisations/Pages/KurdistanWorkersPartyPKK.aspx

note the link is a dot gov dot au

Now a link to show what Australia done. and again just for you I'll provide on from your favorite Murdoch gutter press 'The Australian'.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/raaf-delivers-weapons-to-kurds-battling-jihadists-in-iraq/story-fn59niix-1227045690825

Is Mise <<If the support for those opposed to IS/ISIS/whoever saves innocent lives then is it not justified?>> If you are referring to military support, then if it is oh so simple as that, then yes it would be the answer, no question. However I fail to see how arming one side is going to save lives, particularly if you pass them on to people who in themselves are about as crazy as the ones you oppose. At this point in time, by arming our "friends" they may well simply kill non combatants from the other side. The whole situation in Iraq and Syria is not a simple 'white hats' verses the 'black hats' or should I say 'keffiyehs'. I totally support humanitarian aid for all non combatants. Indeed, once again we are facing a humanitarian crises in the Middle East.
Western military and political intervention in the Middle East post WWII has been a complete failure. The Bush administration did not have either the intelligence after, or the foresight before hand, to deal appropriately with 9/11. I do not think the Obama Administration knows what to do also. The Middle East is important to the West because of its oil, unfortunately in out attempts to protect our interests there, we have made a complete cock-up.
We can blame ISIS, Al Qaeda, The Taliban, Assad and a host of others, all we like, but until we realise that our policy and actions are simply not working the situation can only get worse

Paul,
As the greens have said in the past "If it only saves one life".

Is Mise, can you demonstrate how it will save lives and not cost lives? I fail to see how arming the PKK and others, and make no mistake that is exactly where the arms will end up, will save lives. In fact, I would not be surprised if they didn't end up in the hands of the unintended ISIS.

To Paul1405:
To the ongoing disapproval of the US and EU colonialists and the yapping curs in Canberra, the PKK has been part of a long struggle for the self-determination of the Kurdish people from the various colonialist rulers in Turkey, Iraq and Iran.

To Foxy:
In 1945 the world was left with (among many others) three historic moral and cultural gains: Recognition of the criminality of armed aggression and genocide and recognition of the right of captive peoples to self-determination.

In the context of the Ukraine two of those gains are under attack and at centre stage politically: those relating to aggression and to the right of self-determination. The captive peoples stranded in the Ukraine are fighting for their right to self-determination. The Kiev coup regime is engaged in violent military aggression against them. Kosovo and Bosnia and East Timor all over again!

[#1] To weasel (v.i.): to equivocate or hedge. Describes an action, not a person. Foxy in pretending it’s a personal insult is continuing to equivocate, or to hedge or weasel. Last thing I’d do is insult Foxy who (unlike the usual suspects) doesn’t insult people (as in “take your meds”) but comes across as equivocating (weaseling) copiously.

Foxy’s cited reference to Serhy Yekelchyk and thence to Steven Higley’s review of Serhii Plokhy’s book and further (my own exploration) Stephen Jones’ description [#2] of the military sneak attack on South Ossetia by the war criminal Saakashvili (thwarted by the Russians) all give valuable information though from a colonialist rather than a human rights perspective. Jones’ account contains an ominous warning that forces determined to restore the prewar status quo are busting a gut to abolish the world commitment to the right of peoples to self-determination. On the colonialist side are throwbacks on this thread comfortable with denying this right for the captive nations stuck in the Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_referendum has a ongoing list of the many independence referenda made possible by the Allied victory over the Axis and the subsequent anti-colonialist struggles. The Wikipedia entry is under dispute by colonialist sympathisers.

#1: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel
#2 http://origins.osu.edu/article/clash-caucasus-georgia-russia-and-fate-south-ossetia

Dear Emperor Julian,

Thank You for helping understand what you're
trying to say and for explaining your reasoning on
that.

Much appreciated.

Paul,

Thanks for the definition of a troll.

Anyone that compares Abbott to Idi Amin, the dictator that entertained himself by torturing political prisoners with welding torches is either an idiot or being deliberately inflammatory.

Similarly while there is a risk that a small number weapons may be stolen and find their way to the PKK, there no evidence whatsoever that the weapons delivered to the Kurdish state will "be delivered directly to the PKK". These are the actions of a troll or an idiot. The Kurds and other minorities in Iraq are facing a well armed and organised sectarian based militia that is on a genocidal rampage. To stand back and do nothing while thousands are murdered risks the same outcome as Rwanda.

There are no perfect solutions, but doing nothing but hand wringing from the side while thousands die is as morally bankrupt as Sarah HY replying that sh&* happens when more than 1200 asylum seekers drowned.

Shadow,
Read my post again << He is a bit like a lighter and slimmer version of Idi Amin, more huff and puff than anything else.>> I compared the huff and puff of Abbott to the huff and puff of Amin, something Big Dada was well known for. I think he even declared war on England, claimed he outranked the Queen, being an emperor and all, demanded she attend him in Kampala, which she never did.
If I compared Abbott to Obama, would you also castigate me for that, as the Obama administration has been responsible for acts of torture on prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
Just to please you from now on I will only refer to the 'holy one' in the most complementary of terms. Please do the same for Greens members of Parliament, I don't wish to label you a troll!

Paul,

Adam Bandt is a smaller version of Adolf Hitler, with the same slick dark hair.

We both know that the comparison with Idi Amin, was not primarily for his oratory style, and if you want to carry on playing games I will happily use the same tactics on your "holy" icons, as it seems to engender exactly the reaction in you that you were seeking from others.

If you take things seriously, then I will too.

Shadow Minister, I'm new here so maybe I'm not getting the dynamics, but are you serious when you're comparing Adam Bandt with Adolf Hitler?

Mollieme,

Are you so much in the habit of only reading the immediate last post that you are oblivious to the shameful comment by Paul1405 that led to Shadow Minister's satire?

Mollieme,

No, Using the above troll's rational I was only comparing their hairstyle.

Dear Mollieme,

Welcome to the forum.

You'll soon learn that on this forum you
may not be able to change the world -
but you can have fun trying to embarrass
the guilty.

As for Shadow Minister?
Well, he is brilliant -
to the top of his boots.

Dear Foxy,

Perhaps to the top of his thongs?

Dear Mollieme,

Welcome. I hope you enjoy your stay.

EmperorJulian, point taken re <<the PKK has been part of a long struggle for the self-determination of the Kurdish people from the various colonialist rulers in Turkey, Iraq and Iran.>> One of histories greatest cases of genocide The Armenian Genocide committed by Turkey during WWI resulted in as many as 1.5 million Armenians murdered. In the region in which Kurd's are pushing for independence, Armenians have also been in a struggle for independence for a very long time in those areas surrounding the present day Armenia. There is tension between Armenia and the Ukraine over Armenia's support for Crimean self-determination and its choice to join Russia. Again another very complex situation which is going to take some sorting out.

Mollieme welcome to the Forum.

Beach you attacked me for my comment, feigning indignation, but no such rebuke for Shadow over his comment, it was just a bit of satire was it. Your anti Green, pro conservative, sentiment on the forum is well documented. Get over it.

http://rt.com/news/armenia-supports-crimea-referendum-473/

Dear SteeleRedux,

Well it's finally happened.

Our PM has committed us to a Middle-Eastern war
at the request of the US.

Who knows where this situation will lead and
where it will end.

Shouldn't we should have our own foreign policy - or
will we forever follow the US?

I would like to hear what others think about this
issue. How will our engaging in another war in Iraq
make Australia any safer?

The solution is simple. Christine Milne can lead a delegation of Australian Greens to Northern Iraq to meet and negotiate with ISIS directly. One big group hug, a rousing sing-a-long of Kumbayah and ISIS will see the light.

Christine Milne spent 30 minutes denouncing the Government decision to back the USA stating Australia needs its own foreign policy, yet like so many who criticise, she didn't offer up a viable alternative plan for dealing with ISIS.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

What will our involvement solve?

Do you really believe that by getting involved
we shall get rid of ISIS? We achieved nothing
during our last involvement - we didn't get rid
of al-qaeda - ISIS replaced it. And our involvement
will only harden their resolve. The alternative
to this situation seems to be - leave them to sort
out their own problems. We have no right to be there.
And losing the young lives of our soldiers - for what?

cont'd ...

Andrew J. Bacevich wrote an interesting article
in The Spectator, 16 August 2014:

"What is America's strategic objective?
The answer is there is none. For the US military
action has become a substitute for strategy, indeed
for acknowledging the fact that nearly a quarter of
military involvement in Iraq amd in the Middle East
more generally has produced next to nothing of value."

"Only the naive, the obtuse or the dishonest will
believe (or profess to believe) that trying harder
has the slightest chance of producing a different and
more favourable outcome."

"The US and its European allies do not possess the wit
nor the will nor the might to fix whatever it is that
ails much of the Islamic world... The beginning of
wisdom lies in recognising that fact."

Foxy, doing nothing is not an option.

ISIS is a brutal terrorist group that is powerful enough to fend off the Iraqi Army. We cannot afford to let ISIS succeed unless we are willing to accept the slaughter 1000's and 1000's of the ethnic people's ISIS deems infidels. We were appalled by Saddam Hussain gassing some of the same ethnic groups; how is this different.

ISIS not going to stop at the Iraqi border. If successful within Iraq they will eventually set their sights on the soft target neighbours and onto Israel. ISIS has to be destroyed and whatever replaces them may or may not be as bad. Hopefully at some point in time a strong Islamic group will emerge and display the compassion the moderate Muslims tell us is at the core of Islam.

That is low level, isolationist, 'dog in the manger' thinking, Foxy.

It doesn't take a large force or international cooperation to deal with ISIS. However the international cooperation also recognises the common threat of terrorism world-wide, and there are many separate terrorist outfits of concern.

Forty countries cooperating is a big advance, but what if this exercise could lead to double that number and more working together in the near future?

Of course Australia wants to be part of it. It is quite obvious even from the number of terrorists who will return to Oz, that we will need friends and their cooperation to protect ourselves.

As well, as a good citizen of the world we should be pitching in to help and be seen to be making some worthwhile contribution at that.

Foxy,

".... we didn't get rid
of al-qaeda - ...."

I do believe al-qaeda wasn't a force in Iraq until the destabilisation in the wake of the invasion.

Non-stop civilian bombings have been the almost daily fare of Iraqis ever since.

Can someone tell me if the West was supporting ISIS against the Syrian regime - until they decided to spread their activities into Iraq?

If they are a threat to our people - and I for one agree they are - why have successive governments been importing them without a close look at the religion that is imported with them and propagated from parents to sons? Their murder rampage in the Middle East is in accord with clearly expressed Koranic values and instructions to all Moslems - brushing aside the "taqiyya" sugar coating - to behead the unbelievers who impede the spread of Islam.

The cult that motivates the murderers is a clear and present threat to freedom in Australia as they are intimately linked to the Moslem bridgehead that governments have been importing, whether they are allowed to return or not.

Sending Australian service personnel to be betrayed and killed is not the way. Islam is a global ideological offensive against the most basic human rights and has been ever since its paedophile "prophet" dreamed it up. Without a determined global cradle to the grave ideological counter-offensive in support of the open society and against its enemies the advance of the Age of Reason will falter and crumble, and liberty with it.

First question to every applicant to enter Australia: “Will you uphold the right of every person to reject, disobey or abandon your religion without penalty?” And hold them for life to their answer.

Foxy,

As ISIL is happily killing thousands, a small contingent of warplanes can halt their killing spree with little to no risk to Aus or the US, with the added bonus that potential ISIL serial killer recruits see the beheading business as somewhat insecure.

The alternative is watching people dying and saying "sh@% happens" like the callous greens when thousands of asylum seekers died at sea.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I thought it was our PM, Tony Abbott who used the
line, "Sh@t Happens," commenting on the death of
Lance Corporal Jared MacKinny who was shot dead in
a battle with Taliban insurgents. Channel 7 has
broadcast footage of Mr Abbott discussing the
incident with US Commander James Creighton.

Tony Abbott has been casting about with apparent haste for something - anything - to prove his statesmanship.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/fools-rush-in-tony-abbott-joins-a-war-without-definition-20140914-10gtib.html

"Fools rush in: Tony Abbott joins a war without definition"

"The smart thing for Western leaders in the wake of John Kerry's session with Arab leaders in Jeddah on Thursday last, would have been to bide their time. And it would have been smart too to bide their time a bit more after Sunday's grim reports of another Westerner beheaded by these crazed thugs who strut as Islamic freedom fighters in the deserts of Syria and Iraq.

But Tony Abbott leapt straight in – committing 600 Australian military personnel and more aircraft to the conflict, thereby giving the Arab leaders good reason to believe that if they sit on their hands for long enough, the West will fight their war for them."

"Even as Abbott made his announcement in Darwin, the US Secretary of State was trailing his coat-tails in Cairo, making little headway with pleas for assistance from a murderous military regime that will shoot its own people, but seemingly dares not volunteer to face the so-called Islamic State on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq."

"Oddly, the Prime Minister warned Australians to prepare for a fight that might last "months rather than weeks, perhaps many, many months indeed…" Seems he's in as much of a hurry to get into this war, as he seemingly thinks he will get out of it.

It's not clear why. This "we must do something right now" response is likely to create a bigger mess than already exists in the region. Consider: the death of 200,000 locals in Syria failed to rouse much of a reaction in the West; but the deaths of two Americans – and now a Briton – has raised a crescendo for international war when it might have made more sense to tackle regional politicking and feuding first."

(Tellingly, the great ally of the West, Saudi Arabia, has been lopping off heads with gusto lately - 23 in August)

Naturally Abbott will be itching to get Aussie troops on the ground, In an attempt to cover himself in glory as the leader of a middle ranking world power. Abbott see's himself as a smaller version of George W Bush, call him Junior Bush. Abbott hopes to one day emulate his American hero and deliver his our version of Bush's "Mission Accomplished in Iraq" speech which was trotted out May 1st 2003 on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Australia does not have an aircraft carrier, or battleship for that matter, Abbott might have to make do with something a little less salubrious, a leaky dinghy may have to make do.

Foxy, Shadow is very good at turning what the Liberals do onto The Greens.
Form Shadows bible 'The Daily Telegraph'

OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has been forced to defend saying "s... happens" while talking about the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan.
Channel 7 tonight broadcast footage of the Coalition leader being briefed on the death of Lance Corporal Jared McKinney in Oruzgan in August last year.
Speaking to an American Corporal James Creighton under fire for alleged lack of support for Australian troops in the firefight, Mr Abbott replied: “It’s pretty obvious that um ... well, s--- happens doesn’t it?”

Judging by the above its clear Abbott has nothing but contempt for the lives of Australian soldiers, totally expendable.

I think that the less the greens know about any situation, they more they whinge.

Both BS and TA have been given full security briefings and declare that an intervention is required both to save lives in Syria and Iraq, and to reduce the risk to Australia of home grown terrorists. Motor mouth Milne, who has nothing to go on other than the drivel in the New Matilda etc, pronounces that in her feeble opinion that action to degrade the ISIS forces will increase the risk to Australia.

Others that think leaving ISIS alone is a serious enough security risk to contribute:
US Democrats and Republicans,
UK Labour party and Conservatives,
Nato,
Saudi Arabia,
Egypt,
ETC.

Callous Christine Milne, and Sarah Heartless Young, both made it clear that they have nothing but contempt for the lives of Asylum seekers and soldiers, totally expendable.

An excellent article in today's SMH on Australia's new involvement in Iraq by James Brown. Brown is the Military Fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy. If those from the right like SM would care to read this analysis then comment rather than blindly following Abbott with his gung ho approach.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/australian-forces-could-face-heavy-burden-in-iraq-20140914-10gufa.html

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the link - however,
I don't think it will change a thing.
Australia has already been committed
to this involvement - and who knows
where it will end. Perhaps with a
change of government in this country
things may come to a close quicker.
But again, that's a gamble. The Opposition
is supporting the PM in this matter.

Foxy, I do not think Labor's support is of much consequence, Even with the big two's backing public opinion is divided at about 55/45 in favor at the moment. The ABC 'World Today Program' had good coverage. Where is Abbott's exit strategy, he cannot demonstrate any clear objectives, the whole exercise is fraught with dangers for Australia without defined gains. The situation with other countries such as Turkey is unclear and the loyalty of the Iraqi military is highly questionable at best. There is a lot more to this than a simple ISIL is bad (which it is), so lets go get em'.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4087631.htm

For those that are capable of reading:

ISIL rise to power has 3 underpinning factors:
1 The sectarian nature of the Syrian and Iraqi governments has left the Sunnis feeling victimized and preferring the Sunni ISIL over the Shiite Iraqi army.
2 The war in Syria and the disorganized nature of the Iraqi army has enabled ISIL to gather a quantity of armored vehicles and capture land using rapid deployment techniques.
3 The areas captured have ISIL a significant stream of money to buy arms.

The thrusts of the Allied approach is:

1 An air war only, (no boots on the ground similar to Libya), which destroyed the vastly superior army of Qaddafi even in his home territory.
2 Strengthening opposing militia such as the the Kurds and the Iraqi army,
3 Creating an Iraqi government that is inclusive of Sunnis as a political alternative to ISIL.

No one believes that ISIL can hold onto its territory with no mobility and no heavy weapons.

SM,

"3 Creating an Iraqi government that is inclusive of Sunnis as a political alternative to ISIL."

Yes!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-obamas-strategy-for-fighting-isis-isnt-all-about-us.html

"President Obama clearly took this decision to lead the coalition to degrade and destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, with deep ambivalence. How could he not? Our staying power is ambiguous, our enemy is barbarous, our regional allies are duplicitous, our European allies are feckless and the Iraqis and Syrians we’re trying to help are fractious. There is not a straight shooter in the bunch."

"Before we step up the bombing campaign on ISIS, it needs to be absolutely clear on whose behalf we are fighting. ISIS did not emerge by accident and from nowhere. It is the hate-child of two civil wars in which the Sunni Muslims have been crushed. One is the vicious civil war in Syria in which the Iranian-backed Alawite-Shiite regime has killed roughly 200,000 people, many of them Sunni Muslims, with chemical weapons and barrel bombs. And the other is the Iraqi civil war in which the Iranian-backed Shiite government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki systematically stripped the Sunnis of Iraq of their power and resources.

There will be no self-sustained stability unless those civil wars are ended and a foundation is laid for decent governance and citizenship. Only Arabs and Muslims can do that by ending their sectarian wars and tribal feuds. We keep telling ourselves that the problem is “training,” when the real problem is governance. We spent billions of dollars training Iraqi soldiers who ran away from ISIS’s path — not because they didn’t have proper training, but because they knew that their officers were corrupt hacks who were not appointed on merit and that the filthy Maliki government was unworthy of fighting for. We so underestimate how starved Arabs are, in all these awakenings, for clean, decent governance."

Incredibly tangled web of enmities and allegiances in the Middle-East.

P,

I don't disagree with your post at all.

What I do disagree with is some of the more looney assertions from the left.

While ISIL cannot be defeated from the air, it is possible to degrade their capability to the point where the Kurdish and Iraqi military can take over.

Poirot, closer to home what the 'The New York Times' is saying is exactly what people like Christine Milne and Andrew Wilkie are trying to articulate. I suspect despite Shortens attempt at solidarity that many within the Labor Party and a few Liberals as well are also privately questioning our actions.
Once again the conservatives are presenting this as a limited easy war, from the outset of hostilities have they ever presented war in any other way. The beheading of innocent Westerners as abhorrent as they are, are having the desired effect of drawing the US and its allies into another ground war in the region. Abbott should certainly rethink Australia's response and not simply be going all the way with the USA.

Where is "Half Cocked' Tony going, last seen in an army tent in Northern Australia, well away from the action I must say. A better question might be, where is 'Half Cocked' Tony leading us. There are reports that an organisation Australia openly designates as a terrorist group The Kurdistan Workers Party, are they communists, is operating with Peshmerga forces in Northern Iraq, its not known if Australian delivered munitions have as yet fallen into the hands of these terrorists, but they may well do, very soon. Abbott no doubt sees this as a case of 'My enemies enemy is my friend' but this friend may turn around one day and bite us on the backside. When caution is required, Abbott is acting with reckless abandon, playing into the hands of the ISIS terrorists.
Abbott's decision to deploy 600 military personnel and eight Super Hornets and other planes to the United Arab Emirates will cost Australia at least $400 million a year, a defence analyst predicts.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/iraq-deployment-to-cost-australia-about-400-million-a-year-20140915-10h35o.html#ixzz3DQyOtYfK

Paul,

"'The New York Times' is saying is exactly what people like Christine Milne and Andrew Wilkie are trying to articulate."

No they don't.

The US and Aus are explicitly saying that they are not getting involved in a ground war, and there is clearly no incentive to do so. The open desert areas of northern Iraq are ideal for warplanes and Drones to inflict maximum damage to any force that ventures outside a city, and to any fortifications within a city.

Neither is there any indication whatsoever that any arms destined for the Peshmerga has found its way to the PKK or the KWP, Nor any indication that an air attack on ISIS will increase the risk to Aus.

In short, not one iota of information that supports anything you or Milne claim.

Shadow, considering the budget crises, its good to see Tone found a lazy half billion per year to fund this little exercise. As for these ISIS crazies making themselves easy targets by running around that big open desert you refer to, they are not that crazy, you seem to forget ISIS occupies Iraq's second biggest city Mosul pop up to 2 million. What is Tone's plan to liberate the population in occupied towns and cities.
A good analysis of the Arab attitude by Dan Flitton in today's SMH.
Despite Saudi Arabia being a western ally, its governing theology is closer to ISIL'S than any other Arab state. On side are Egypt, UAE, Jordan and Bahrain, Turkey despite being a NATO member fears arming the Kurd's on the grounds that an independent Kurdish state would claim Turkish territory. Qatar is suspected of backing Islamist rebels in Libya with additional backing from the Saudi's. Iran is a "hidden" ally in the war against ISIL, supporting both the Iraqi government and Shiite militias, but the US is still cold on Iran over its nuclear program. All in all the West cannot count on 100% Arab support.

Paul,

ISIL is essentially Sunni, as is Mosul and Saudi Arabia who has a particularly strict interpretation of Islam. However, the assumption that SA supports the mass executions and ethnic cleansing that ISIL is doing, is yet another long bow. Similarly Mosul probably prefers ISIL to the Shia military, but as a city normally known for relative tolerance, is unlikely to be adapting to the ruthless tyranny of ISIL well, which is why the US is pursuing political reform in Iraq to be more inclusive of Sunnis.

"....which is why the US is pursuing political reform in Iraq to be more inclusive of Sunnis."

It all sounds so simple when you put it like that, SM.

Knowing the enmities in the region - and ignoring them - the US and its partners set about totally routing the Sunnis in the 2003 invasion. Since then, as Friedman notes:

"....Iraqi Shiite militias used to help drive America out of Iraq and encouraged Iraq’s Shiite leaders to strip Iraqi Sunnis of as much power and money as possible, which helped create the ISIS Sunni counterrevolt...."

"....And the other is the Iraqi civil war in which the Iranian-backed Shiite government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki systematically stripped the Sunnis of Iraq of their power and resources."

Er....precisely what many commentators predicted would happen - and it has.

And now we're going back to stick a patch on the mess we acted as catalyst for in 2003.

Shadow,

Only time will tell, the big mistake made in the past has been the notion that you can impose Western concepts and values on these people and they will be fully accepting of such. When they do not act in the way we expect we cannot understand why. You say rightly so <<which is why the US is pursuing political reform in Iraq to be more inclusive of Sunnis>> When did they wake up to that one? Following the last Iraqi War the US was warned about the consequences of failing to include Sunni's and other minorities in any power sharing arrangements, which would lead to civil war in the country, which it has.
Given our past track record of getting it wrong, why are you so confident we have got it right this time? Or is it simply blind faith in Abbott.

P&P,

While I acknowledge the problems in the region, I do not agree with you that all Arabs are irredeemable savages unable to appreciate the benefits of democracy.

While Iraq is a mess due to sectarian squabbles, a similar even worse mess is evident in Syria, where the dictator was not removed by the US, and so the glib assumption by the greens that Iraq would have been better off under Saddam (who gassed thousands summarily executed similar numbers and started wars that killed millions.) is on shaky ground.

Finally the point of the airstrikes is not to target every ISIL lunatic, rather to weaken its forces firstly to the point where it is no longer strong enough to launch successful attacks, then to the point where it is unable to mount a defense sufficient to repel the Iraqi armed forces, exactly along the same lines as the strategy that enabled ragtag rebels in Libya to defeat the well armed army of Gaddafi.

Shadow, We have never said << that all Arabs are irredeemable savages unable to appreciate the benefits of democracy.>> by saying <<impose Western concepts and values>> you are taking an elitist view, as to what was meant. I would consider that people other than those of European origin could have values, although different to ours, which are equal to or superior to ours. There is every possibility that is the case with people in the Middle East.
There never was a claim by The Greens that Iraq would have been better off under Saddam Hussein, what we did question was the price paid by all sides to remove the tyrant, most of all the price paid by the Iraqi people. I referred to George W Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished in Iraq" speech May 1st 2003. Given the state of Iraq today, some 11 years later, and the priced paid, it does beg the question was it worth it? I'll leave that for you to answer.
This new war has every possibility of extracting a very high price without achieving very much at all. Would you support the deployment of ground troops again if it was deemed necessary, by the likes of Abbott?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/us-could-deploy-ground-forces-isil-fight-201491752135174676.html

Paul,

Turkey is the only Arab country that seems to be stable and prosperous, mostly because it has adopted the need for a secular democratic state pretty much along the lines of what the US was trying to establish in Iraq. The problems are not due to "values" as much as sectarian loyalties dating back centuries. If those within ISIL have values equal or better than ours then they are hiding them very well.

As for the outcome in Iraq, I would recommend you look at Syria, the direct analogue of Iraq without external intervention and compare the outcomes.

As for boots on the ground, you are asking me to make a sweeping judgement on a future scenario which is extremely unlikely. A surgical strike to rescue hostages might be one scenario, but general I don't see it happening.

Similarly would you support Milne if she requested amnesty for those Australians involved in the beheading of hostages

Shadow, to answer;

<<If those within ISIL have values equal or better than ours then they are hiding them very well.>> Totally agree, there is no nutter like a religious nutter. As my old man used to say; "Son, there is nothing worse than a bloke who thinks god is on his side...in his eyes, he can do no wrong."

<<Similarly would you support Milne if she requested amnesty for those Australians involved in the beheading of hostages>> In a word, NO!

As for troops on the ground, at the end of the day that will be a military recommendation, followed by a political decision.

Was talking to a couple of Muslim people on the weekend. Like most of us they are totally disgusted with the actions of these crazy's. Their sympathy is with the ordinary people in the Middle East, not the radicals. I suppose we should be thankful that its Barack Obama and not George W Bush making those political decisions this time round.