Well all those that abused Pauline Hanson because of her maiden
speach in parliament can now apologise to her.
While they are at it they might apologise to Enoch Powell the
British member of parliament that predicted what is now going on in Europe.

Will they never learn ?

Mr 0,

I see you haven't even attempted to answer any of the questions that I asked.
(unless you're so dumb that you think "population" means "oversimplified demographics")

Your speculation without evidence is boring. Despite your claimed degrees in history, anthropology and sociology, you've consistently failed to demonstrate any knowledge of those subjects.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Paul1405,
"I am saying war is the result of humanity not yet reaching a level of mature development where the destruction of our fellow man is no longer a part of the human intellect. Looking at the past and present humanity is a long way short of that desirable goal, war and its associated destruction is very much part of the existing human ethos."
I agree, but WW2 disproves that this means "all wars are unjustified and crazy", so why did you extend the latter claim to the Korean War?

I think the effectiveness of sanctions would depend mainly on the leader's vulnerability. I think China would be susceptible, as their stability depends on economic success. Indeed I'd expect China to be more vulnerable to sanctions than to war.

And no I'm not Icelandic. Nor did I think you were French; unlike Mr 0, I recognise that opinions don't depend on ancestry.

Adian,"I am saying war is the result of humanity not yet reaching a level of mature development where the destruction of our fellow man is no longer a part of the human intellect. Looking at the past and present humanity is a long way short of that desirable goal, war and its associated destruction is very much part of the existing human ethos."

Wars do not come from the human intellect, war is driven by human biology.

The prize in all wars is control of countries and land.
Wars are territorial.

A tribe or ethnic group that loses control of their land and resources, can quickly become a dying race, we have seen this happen to races and groups throughout history.
That's why we fight wars so fiercely, it really is a matter of survival of our closest bloodline.

There are two big biological survival instincts in every species on this planet including the human species.
The sexual mating instinct and the terrortorial instinct.
And mankinds history is full , with territorial conquest.

Racism isn't the problem, it's a symptom, of the much more deadly underlying terrotorial hostility.

Racial aggression is really the same kind of hostility we see an animal display when it trys to intimidate or scare another animal who comes on to its territory.
Humans like the animals seek to protect their closest bloodline by providing them with territory filled with plentiful,survival,resources.

In humans the immediate and closest bloodline is, their children,parents, aunts, uncles,cousins and the tribe around them through generational intermarriage.
This is why multiculturalism is very dangerous in the long term.

Tribes compete with each other for resources to survive, and they will kill for those resources when certain factors come into play.
Like overpopulation and scarce resources(poverty)
When tribal numbers get big, one tribe will demand a separatist state,which basically means they want to carve off a piece of your country, and control it.

Hi folks,

I found this on the web news yesterday:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/britain-aligns-with-us-on-china-sea/news-story/e2b4895f12ca3143300c198dc26c28a6

Is there anyone on The Forum who really believes that China will accept the ruling of the Hague court (which looks definitely being in favour of the Philippines) and withdrawing it's forces from the South China Sea? I know Aidain the Engineer believes China will obey the ruling but we can't all be engineers like Aidan and have really unrealistic ideas about history, anthropology and sociology (and going by his latest post it looks like he also sees himself as a philosopher).

I think the key point in this article is that the author alludes to the chance that a ruling in favour of the Philippines will be a trigger for a war by China as it escalates its military forces to protect its annexation of the region.

Well folks, hers'e a piece of news that looks like the UK is now getting concerned about China's annexation of the South China Sea and is now willing to commit to US action against China.

http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/europe/129993-britain-aligns-with-us-response-south-china-sea-case

It's really hard to see this conflict not ending up in a war.

I think Turnbull thinks he can stay neutral. If he does (1) Australia will lose any future US support if it is invaded by China and (2) the Chinese will think Australia is on its side and use that as a future pretext to annex Australia.

I found this curious piece on the web:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/301935/south-china-sea-trouble-draggin'-on

If Suseonline sees this she'll probably start raving on about how many Sinophobic racist ant-Chinese paranoid 'reds under the beds' crazies there are in New Zealand. And Aidan The Engineer will probably break out in a lengthy discourse on the archaeology of Sino-New Zealand international law.