Plane shot down with 27 Aussies on board.

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
motch02 said:
its not really about who saved who back in WW2 its about today and people counting America as this global police force, when clearly they are pushing their own agenda. Spying on friends and locking away individuals who have revealed just what a malignant machine it has become.

20+ million Russians lost their lives saving their homeland, but people care little about the Eastern front..Could judge the ethics of dropping two A bombs on an opponent that had just as well given up..
I agree America is pushing its own agenda and spying on its friends, but I think it's naive to single them out for it. Every nation, ever, has done exactly that, to the greatest extent possible. The US just happens to be the most powerful nation at the moment, so it has the greatest footprint and attracts the most criticism. Australia is no less parochial and selfish; it's just less powerful.

RE individuals being "locked away": whom are you referring to?
 
Edward Snowden, Manning, John kiriakou.. It's just mostly a poke at the free press debate these guys released some of the most riveting eye opening documentation and were jailed for it. You need these guys to be the 'transparent' state the US portrays itself as though they have Guantanamo Bay it doesn't exactly scream transparency an democracy at me
 
motch02 said:
Edward Snowden, Manning, John kiriakou.. It's just mostly a poke at the free press debate these guys released some of the most riveting eye opening documentation and were jailed for it. You need these guys to be the 'transparent' state the US portrays itself as though they have Guantanamo Bay it doesn't exactly scream transparency an democracy at me
I totally agree the US is not transparent. But neither is Australia, or any other country. The idea of a totally transparent democracy is not realistic -- secrets are unavoidable and necessary when dealing with other countries. Any country would brand as a criminal anyone who released classified information without authorisation, unless the information fell under whistleblower protections because it documented violations of the law. Some of what Snowden and Manning released fell in that category but the vast majority did not. It was just embarassing.

I agree about Kiriakou -- that was sickening to me, and a real discredit to the US. Likewise, Guantanamo is shameful and absurdly inconsistent with the political principles that the US claims to project.
 
pedleyr said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the US didn't do any heavy lifting in the war in the Pacific? Because you've specifically said that the fight against the Japanese was done by Aussies.
No I am not and no I Did not.
 
Yes you did mate - direct quote:

"The fight agains the Japs was done by Aussies,Aussie soldiers,Aussie airforce ,Aussie navy,the Coastwhatcers being from many countries,American airforce ,American navy,Marines,Army,British forces ( never forgotten ) India,Africa etc.
This belief that America saved our arses is crap"

If you say you weren't saying that the US didn't do any heavy lifting then I take you at your word there but you definitely did say that the fight against the Japanese was done by Aussies, I'm not sure what inference you were making with it but you definitely said it.
 
motch02 said:
Edward Snowden, Manning, John kiriakou.. It's just mostly a poke at the free press debate these guys released some of the most riveting eye opening documentation and were jailed for it. You need these guys to be the 'transparent' state the US portrays itself as though they have Guantanamo Bay it doesn't exactly scream transparency an democracy at me
You're pushing an open door with me at least when you assert the US has much to account for. But on balance, I'd insist the western model of democratic society and government is a better deal for the majority and more conducive to the well being of citizens than anything else I can think of. Its not perfect, and its full of inequities, and I sit typing this from my shabby, but comfortable heated office, not a bunker or sewer with a ADSL connection. So be it.

But what would you prefer? What changes would like to see implemented?

I get the sentiment of 'transparency' but lets not bullshit ourselves. The truth hurts, and even when it's as plain as day, its more comfortable to address ugly conflicts euphemistically, ie, the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict was reported expressly as a Serb / Croat / Albanian war rather than a christian orthodox / muslim war (massacre). Think Srebrenica, think 'ethnic cleansing'. Being Albanian wasn't your main problem, but being muslim earn't you a sledge hammer to the head.
In a similar vein to the current Israel/Palestine conflict. Both teams believe god has got their back. Both believe god has promised them the same patch of ground. But it's easier to just report about those land grabbing Jews and Hezbollah human shield policy rather than get all complicated and state their both acting in accordance with the same batshit crazy doctrine.

So do you think we're really comfortable with that kind of 'transparency', or rather the western liberal kind that may see a president impeached or the CEO of a multinational in the dock?
 
I'm no political science major, but my biggest problem is people simply do not know, at the end of the day the world is a conundrum. The truth may hurt but that's no reason to lock yourself in the cupboard or behind your TV screen being spoon fed garbage and celebrity gossips and it's really eaten at me with the war in Syria and Ukraine.

The US are funding militias in Syria that are lopping the heads off civilians, and for what? Assad is a zoo keeper and maintained peace among a vast variety of religions.. They ousted Gaddafi and now Libya is in chaos. They've installed puppets across the globe this is no true political system, it's aim is a one world solution. You've got once again the Iranian revolution which was about oil, and deposed a democratically elected government, but these are the good guys..

They aided in the coup against a democratic Ukraine and have created a civil war with an IMF loan looming, yet they are the good guy. Words such as 'Russian missile', 'Rebel-held territory', are all phrases the media have used for this tragedy but they don't mean anything. All the missiles are Russian, Ukraine has been Russia's brother and is the home of early Russia they have Russian weaponry. America has no right sending "foreign aid" like they are helping it is simply that Ukraine is their asset now.

We could go on to discuss the war in Syria and that the US are funding militias there that have been lopping the heads off of civilians, Assad is basically a zoo keeper he managed to keep a lot of religions at peace until foreign money armed extremist militants. Gaddafi was praised in the 80s with cheap oil for his people, and state funded food stores now after NATO had it's way it is a lawless state and heading for another civil war. This is no solution.

NATO is basically a US puppet, if it ever had any major backlash for something it had done it would just dissolve and the next global alliance treaty would be made. All shiny and brand new.

To go to your first question, political ideology is hard because people simply are not the same in ideas and wants. I'd prefer a society more geared towards Anarchy and Collectivism, but it's because I feel I could thrive and engage in such a world other might not. It's the way we've created this world around us that has people see Democracy/Capitalism (possibly soon a plutocracy?) as this driving force and greater solution. Though we are simply destroying the planet with these ideals. The fear I have most is a one world solution and prospect of an Orwell 1984 with the added help of technology, which could rid 'free will'. *Sorry this is a derailment and only my view*

At the end of the day no one solution is correct but there's hypocrisy in the world and something very questionable about MH17. Israel is another topic yet one that is extremely intriguing
 
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE18iPQ1Euk#t=68[/media]

Here's a little video/documentary I've been flicking through if you want to see what Eastern Ukraine is like at the moment, very interesting
 
motch02 said:
I'm no political science major, ********* ( But im about to spell out world politics in truth, completely factual from stuff I've read on the net, my personal opinion, even though I've never been to those countries ever, and really, it's just stuff people have known for years. No need for proof, enough people believe what I'm about to write so it just has to be true ) *********** but my biggest problem is people simply do not know, at the end of the day the world is a conundrum. The truth may hurt but that's no reason to lock yourself in the cupboard or behind your TV screen being spoon fed garbage and celebrity gossips and it's really eaten at me with the war in Syria and Ukraine.

The US are funding militias in Syria that are lopping the heads off civilians, and for what? Assad is a zoo keeper and maintained peace among a vast variety of religions.. They ousted Gaddafi and now Libya is in chaos. They've installed puppets across the globe this is no true political system, it's aim is a one world solution. You've got once again the Iranian revolution which was about oil, and deposed a democratically elected government, but these are the good guys..

They aided in the coup against a democratic Ukraine and have created a civil war with an IMF loan looming, yet they are the good guy. Words such as 'Russian missile', 'Rebel-held territory', are all phrases the media have used for this tragedy but they don't mean anything. All the missiles are Russian, Ukraine has been Russia's brother and is the home of early Russia they have Russian weaponry. America has no right sending "foreign aid" like they are helping it is simply that Ukraine is their asset now.

We could go on to discuss the war in Syria and that the US are funding militias there that have been lopping the heads off of civilians, Assad is basically a zoo keeper he managed to keep a lot of religions at peace until foreign money armed extremist militants. Gaddafi was praised in the 80s with cheap oil for his people, and state funded food stores now after NATO had it's way it is a lawless state and heading for another civil war. This is no solution.

NATO is basically a US puppet, if it ever had any major backlash for something it had done it would just dissolve and the next global alliance treaty would be made. All shiny and brand new.

To go to your first question, political ideology is hard because people simply are not the same in ideas and wants. I'd prefer a society more geared towards Anarchy and Collectivism, but it's because I feel I could thrive and engage in such a world other might not. It's the way we've created this world around us that has people see Democracy/Capitalism (possibly soon a plutocracy?) as this driving force and greater solution. Though we are simply destroying the planet with these ideals. The fear I have most is a one world solution and prospect of an Orwell 1984 with the added help of technology, which could rid 'free will'. *Sorry this is a derailment and only my view*

At the end of the day no one solution is correct but there's hypocrisy in the world and something very questionable about MH17. Israel is another topic yet one that is extremely intriguing

Fixed it for you
 
mje1980 said:
Fixed it for you
wow!, it's extremely rude to adjust a post.. Please feel free to engage in at least a constructive manor

I never said I was spelling out anything these are simply my thoughts, if you have others please I'm interested but don't be childish and slap words on my post..

What did I say that wasn't factual in your eyes? and to be truthful I've been to Kiev and Chernobyl.. Kiev was great though no doubt has changed, I love Eastern Europe it has such a different feel to it though I've only ever been as a backpacker. I didn't know that travelling somewhere gave you a right to speak about it, I've been to Israel and Jordan does being 100km from the Syria border during a civil war give me more right to speak about it?
 
motch02 said:
motch02, on 28 Jul 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

I'd prefer a society more geared towards Anarchy and Collectivism, but it's because I feel I could thrive and engage in such a world other might not.
Like the former USSR?
I can't imagine how you think you would thrive.
Nobody else did.
 
pcmfisher said:
Like the former USSR?
I can't imagine how you think you would thrive.
Nobody else did.
There's a handful of small communities that live to this model, really just an ideal more than anything
 
The USSR had very little to do with anarcho-syndicalist model, pcmfisher and it's disingenous to suggest Stalinism or Russian Communism have anything in common with it.
 
pcmfisher said:
Like the former USSR?
I can't imagine how you think you would thrive.
Nobody else did.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Putin is one.
 
The former USSR may have started off with good intentions, the Bolshevik doctrine incorporated collectivism as well as Marxist views but it didn't take the faithful masses long to realise that they had disposed of one ruler for another especially when Stalin came to power against the wishes of Lenin.
As for Putin he was one who supported the farce which was to be the coup against Gorbachev and restore the power of the communist party and the USSR but switched sides when the coup failed.
Now he is in power and he goes through the motions of democracy,it must really irk him that he just the ruler of Russia and not the USSR.
 
wide eyed and legless said:
The former USSR may have started off with good intentions, the Bolshevik doctrine incorporated collectivism as well as Marxist views but it didn't take the faithful masses long to realise that they had disposed of one ruler for another especially when Stalin came to power against the wishes of Lenin.
As for Putin he was one who supported the farce which was to be the coup against Gorbachev and restore the power of the communist party and the USSR but switched sides when the coup failed.
Now he is in power and he goes through the motions of democracy,it must really irk him that he just the ruler of Russia and not the USSR.
You think that irks him? Imagine how pissed off he was when he had to let Medvedev be president for a while. Thankfully when they'd upheld the appearance for the mandated time, not a moment more, order was restored.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top