The Politics Thread 2015

[Seiffert82]

Classic SB
Defends the indefensible
Gets called out for it, says he's out


A tradition as old as the GH itself

[Green eyed Mick]

Seems like Syrian gov forces found the other Russian pilot.

That guy needs to buy lottery tickets.

It definitely looks like they were shot down in Syria and now Russia has accused the Turks of a premeditated strike.

[Green eyed Mick]

[Schifty]

Truck driver from #Hungary tries to run over #refugees and #migrants in #Calais. Films himself and posts it online. #EU

https://twitter.com/LeilZahra/status/670769534513598465

What a world we live in...

[Schifty]

letter from some men on Manus island to the Australian government. Happy Monday people.. [

[Schifty]

"ISIS and these kinds of extremists are a death cult. We’re a life cult." U2 heads to Paris http://nyti.ms/1QdKVW7

[Manbush]

At least Isis didn't hijack everyone's iPhones without their permission!

[papabear]

I thought ge would like

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at- ... 8ee4b85db5

[Schifty]

So UK parliament voted to start bombing Syria.

It's one thing to make that tough call, but to see MPs cheering that decision..

Who in the **** cheers going to war? Well it seems members of both major parties over there..

[T_R]

Sit down and watch these.

Best thing that happened in Australian politics this year - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-03/h ... ps/6999664

[Schifty]

I can't believe I missed this story

Police separate Reclaim Australia protesters during infighting at barbecue

RECLAIM Australia’s own supporters had to be separated by police as tensions boiled over following yesterday’s rally in Melton.

But it was members of the far right wing Reclaim Australia group who appeared to turn on each other after the rally came to an end.

Read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nation ... 6fc7391dae

Someone must have brought some tabbouleh to kick it all off

[T_R]

A friend of a friend wrote this to his local MP in the UK in regards Syrian bombing.

There is no better explanation of the situation in the Middle East. Seriously, read it.



Want to bomb them? Which/who?

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

[Toviii]

Very well put.

[The Nickman]

It's all about gas, apparently.

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-eas ... b63a9afb74

This actually makes the most sense about the Syrian "crisis" out of anything I've read or heard to date.

[Dr Zaius]

A friend of a friend wrote this to his local MP in the UK in regards Syrian bombing.

There is no better explanation of the situation in the Middle East. Seriously, read it.



Want to bomb them? Which/who?

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

What a mess.

[Schifty]

That's a depressingly accurate reflection on just how much of a cluster**** it is over there right now.

[Begbie]

Just nuke the Middle East.

[T_R]

Just nuke the Middle East.

It seems to be the only thing that makes sense.

[Schifty]

Meanwhile some people are panicking because a "Russian Jet" apparently flew over Vegas..

Clearly the soviets are up to something and secretly having jets take off in Santa Barbara.....

[Schifty]

So Trump answer to Isis is (and I Quote) "You have to take out their families"..

[-TW-]

Surely Americans aren't THAT stupid to elect that peanut...

[Green eyed Mick]

So Trump answer to Isis is (and I Quote) "You have to take out their families"..

So Trump's answer to ISIS is as flawed as the rest of the candidates in the US presidential race.

There are so many reasons ISIS exists and there are no simple solutions. It would be nice if there was a presidential candidate who would acknowledge this instead of pretending that bombing

[Schifty]

I'd say Trump easily has the most flawed solution.

The only way to have a worse one would be to drop nukes.

[Schifty]

Yep fed need more airstrikes..

[Green eyed Mick]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/man-dies ... lgfbn.html

**** when are we going to grow up and accept the fact that people take drugs and do something that might actually help.

[Seiffert82]

Alcohol is legal and causes more fatalities per year than drugs. Smoking cigarettes is also legal and is the biggest cause of preventable death in Australia. It also costs our economy over $30 billion per year in lost productivity and health care expenditure.

Legalising stuff that is bad for your health isn't the answer, just like making guns available via some half arsed licencing laws does not reduce the number of homicides in a country. Banning automatics and reducing the supply of guns altogether does.

The primary driver behind drug related deaths is cultural attitudes to risk taking by young people. This may sound harsh, but if a small number of kids die each year because they make retarded decisions with respect to drugs, or other risky behaviours, then so be it. I don't want my 7 year old daughter to grow up in a society where she and her friends can buy party drugs over the counter and then jump in a car and kill themselves because the driver is high. It's bad enough already with alcohol.

The solution to the problem isn't changes to laws and regulations - it's education with increased resources into rehabilitation and support programs.

[dubby]

Well said seiffert.

[T_R]

I shudder to imagine the spit-flecked frenzy that Seiffert's post is going to drive our resident stoners, GEM and Manbush into, but for the record I tend to agree with what he said. The idea that 'well, we haven't managed to stop it, so we should just give up' doesn't make that much sense to me.

[Schifty]

I'd say Trump easily has the most flawed solution.

The only way to have a worse one would be to drop nukes.

Oh...

Cruz: We'll defeat radical Islamic terrorism...carpetbomb them into oblivion..don’t know if sand can glow in dark..we’re going to find out.

[Green eyed Mick]

I shudder to imagine the spit-flecked frenzy that Seiffert's post is going to drive our resident stoners, GEM and Manbush into, but for the record I tend to agree with what he said. The idea that 'well, we haven't managed to stop it, so we should just give up' doesn't make that much sense to me.

I don't think we should give up but we need to pick our battles. Not all drugs are the same and we need to prioritise our policing where it can have the greatest impact. That means going after organised crime gangs not teenagers at a music festival. We also need to spend money on treating ice and heroin users rather than imprisoning them. That means creating safe places where drugs users can go for help where they won't be hauled before a court and slapped with a big fine and life altering criminal convictions.

Alcohol is legal and causes more fatalities per year than drugs. Smoking cigarettes is also legal and is the biggest cause of preventable death in Australia. It also costs our economy over $30 billion per year in lost productivity and health care expenditure.

Legalising stuff that is bad for your health isn't the answer, just like making guns available via some half arsed licencing laws does not reduce the number of homicides in a country. Banning automatics and reducing the supply of guns altogether does.

The primary driver behind drug related deaths is cultural attitudes to risk taking by young people. This may sound harsh, but if a small number of kids die each year because they make retarded decisions with respect to drugs, or other risky behaviours, then so be it. I don't want my 7 year old daughter to grow up in a society where she and her friends can buy party drugs over the counter and then jump in a car and kill themselves because the driver is high. It's bad enough already with alcohol.

The solution to the problem isn't changes to laws and regulations - it's education with increased resources into rehabilitation and support programs.

You make a very good point, unfortunately you seem to have missed it.

What we have done with guns in Australia is exactly what we should do with drugs. We didn't ban guns. The guns with the greatest potential for harm were banned altogether and those deemed less dangerous remained available under strict new regulations.

If we were a smarter country we would do the same with drugs. We would allow pill testing kits to be sold legally. We would regulate and restrict the sale of cannabis to medical patients and recreational users over 21. We could probably do the same with organic psychedelics. We would continue to pursue amphetamines, heroin, cocaine and other drugs more dangerous than alcohol with the full force of the law, targeting suppliers rather than users.

[T_R]

I hate it when GEM is reasonable and makes well-argued, entirely valid points.

This place is going to the dogs.

[gergreg]

I shudder to imagine the spit-flecked frenzy that Seiffert's post is going to drive our resident stoners, GEM and Manbush into, but for the record I tend to agree with what he said. The idea that 'well, we haven't managed to stop it, so we should just give up' doesn't make that much sense to me.

I don't think we should give up but we need to pick our battles. Not all drugs are the same and we need to prioritise our policing where it can have the greatest impact. That means going after organised crime gangs not teenagers at a music festival. We also need to spend money on treating ice and heroin users rather than imprisoning them. That means creating safe places where drugs users can go for help where they won't be hauled before a court and slapped with a big fine and life altering criminal convictions.

Alcohol is legal and causes more fatalities per year than drugs. Smoking cigarettes is also legal and is the biggest cause of preventable death in Australia. It also costs our economy over $30 billion per year in lost productivity and health care expenditure.

Legalising stuff that is bad for your health isn't the answer, just like making guns available via some half arsed licencing laws does not reduce the number of homicides in a country. Banning automatics and reducing the supply of guns altogether does.

The primary driver behind drug related deaths is cultural attitudes to risk taking by young people. This may sound harsh, but if a small number of kids die each year because they make retarded decisions with respect to drugs, or other risky behaviours, then so be it. I don't want my 7 year old daughter to grow up in a society where she and her friends can buy party drugs over the counter and then jump in a car and kill themselves because the driver is high. It's bad enough already with alcohol.

The solution to the problem isn't changes to laws and regulations - it's education with increased resources into rehabilitation and support programs.

You make a very good point, unfortunately you seem to have missed it.

What we have done with guns in Australia is exactly what we should do with drugs. We didn't ban guns. The guns with the greatest potential for harm were banned altogether and those deemed less dangerous remained available under strict new regulations.

If we were a smarter country we would do the same with drugs. We would allow pill testing kits to be sold legally. We would regulate and restrict the sale of cannabis to medical patients and recreational users over 21. We could probably do the same with organic psychedelics. We would continue to pursue amphetamines, heroin, cocaine and other drugs more dangerous than alcohol with the full force of the law, targeting suppliers rather than users.

Many years ago I checked myself into detox and rehab. I was the only person at either centre of my own volition. Every single other person was there because the alternative was jail. To suggest that drug users are simply thrown into jail without the opportunity to make changes is false. I do agree with most of what you are saying though.

[Dr Zaius]

I agree with GEM

[dubby]

Dealers go to gaol, addicts definitely need rehabilitation

[reptar]

I'm not not licking toads!