Australian involvement in the fight against ISIS
So it be Australian soldiers, mercenaries, arabs and possibly some other NATO members whose got boots on the ground in the conflict zones.I think that Australia is going into a war that doesn't benefit them geopolitical and they should grow some balls and be a strong independent country instead of a paid thug of the EUSA.
Australia is the 6th largest country on the planet that has almost every resources, but seems to be military and culturally dependent on the US to the point that they're willing to be hired guns.
At least in the case of UK, there must be some oil and opium deal they're getting out of all the wars they helped.What do Australia really get from such a war apart from more immigration to replace all those young soldiers that dies in the war?
Australia is the 6th largest country on the planet that has almost every resources, but seems to be military and culturally dependent on the US to the point that they're willing to be hired guns.
At least in the case of UK, there must be some oil and opium deal they're getting out of all the wars they helped.What do Australia really get from such a war apart from more immigration to replace all those young soldiers that dies in the war?
Comments212
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Howcome Turkey just has all those tanks parked on the border? I thought they were friendly to ISIS... I keep reading that they are trading oil with them..
Plus don't the Turks hate all the Kurdish people?
Plus don't the Turks hate all the Kurdish people?
they are stopping kurds from crossing in either direction. There is a large Kurd population in Turkey and many want to go and fight in Syria'
Australia is the lucky country. We could just sit back and say "bugger you, I'M alright Ahmed, look after yourselves".
To address your ill informed question and CRAP comments:
1. It takes more balls to get involved than to sit on the fence (like, for example, Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world).
2. It cost's the budget bottom line to get involved and means less to spend at home.
3. It costs in lives and the physical and mental health of the returned soldiers.
4. It costs in equipment and fuel paid for by Australians.
The pay back is simple; the more stable the offshore, the less pressure on our borders, and our comfortable lifestyle.
To address your ill informed question and CRAP comments:
1. It takes more balls to get involved than to sit on the fence (like, for example, Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world).
2. It cost's the budget bottom line to get involved and means less to spend at home.
3. It costs in lives and the physical and mental health of the returned soldiers.
4. It costs in equipment and fuel paid for by Australians.
The pay back is simple; the more stable the offshore, the less pressure on our borders, and our comfortable lifestyle.
I can't tell. Are you for or against intervention?
Australian English for dummies.
("Australia is the lucky country. We could just sit back and say "bugger you, I'M alright Ahmed, look after yourselves"").
Australians, are quiet comfortable, we could see someone who needs help and say let someone else step in to help, some good neighbour, anyone close by. But these "good" neighbours don't know anything about this type of selfless charity that has been a part of Australian culture since the country was born, it's called pitching in, rolling up the shirt sleeves, having a go, helping out, regardless of the personal cost, because we say it's un-Australian to ignore it.
The people who have no moral compass, no guts, no balls, and ignore the need, rationalize their inaction by saying they don't want to interfere in other peoples problems.
These people (like you) use words like "intervention" instead of the appropriate word "help".
I count myself among the people who want to help.
I count Valzeras as among the people who sit on the fence, and criticize those who want to help, or is just too ill informed to be posing this question.
("Australia is the lucky country. We could just sit back and say "bugger you, I'M alright Ahmed, look after yourselves"").
Australians, are quiet comfortable, we could see someone who needs help and say let someone else step in to help, some good neighbour, anyone close by. But these "good" neighbours don't know anything about this type of selfless charity that has been a part of Australian culture since the country was born, it's called pitching in, rolling up the shirt sleeves, having a go, helping out, regardless of the personal cost, because we say it's un-Australian to ignore it.
The people who have no moral compass, no guts, no balls, and ignore the need, rationalize their inaction by saying they don't want to interfere in other peoples problems.
These people (like you) use words like "intervention" instead of the appropriate word "help".
I count myself among the people who want to help.
I count Valzeras as among the people who sit on the fence, and criticize those who want to help, or is just too ill informed to be posing this question.
I count myself among the people who want to help
Too bad we couldn't vote for a party in the last election that really wants to help those in need (by offering them a home in this big, empty, lucky country). Both sides of the current government think it is fine to treat the most desperate of people, asylum seekers, as pariah, locking them for indeterminate periods of time in foreign concentration camps and hitting them with rhetoric instead of assistance, refusing them a home and cheering when their leaky boats are turned around before they reach our international boundaries.
Putting little children behind barbed wire and allowing their physical abuse is hardly showing a moral compass, or having 'guts and balls' as you quaintly put it. It shows a marked lack of guts, balls ...and most importantly, heart.
You really want to help, do the right thing and lobby your representitives in government to change their policies on asylum seekers. Help those who really need help, not our American friends, who are complicit in creating those refugees in the first place.
Too bad we couldn't vote for a party in the last election that really wants to help those in need (by offering them a home in this big, empty, lucky country). Both sides of the current government think it is fine to treat the most desperate of people, asylum seekers, as pariah, locking them for indeterminate periods of time in foreign concentration camps and hitting them with rhetoric instead of assistance, refusing them a home and cheering when their leaky boats are turned around before they reach our international boundaries.
Putting little children behind barbed wire and allowing their physical abuse is hardly showing a moral compass, or having 'guts and balls' as you quaintly put it. It shows a marked lack of guts, balls ...and most importantly, heart.
You really want to help, do the right thing and lobby your representitives in government to change their policies on asylum seekers. Help those who really need help, not our American friends, who are complicit in creating those refugees in the first place.
Stop please , you're making me cry.
It seems you would prefer that the men in Iraq are killed, the women are raped and we have boat loads of widows on our doorstep. Those women would never be on the boats, because they would be genuine refugees, with genuine need of protection, and no capacity to pay criminals for the trip.
Now you say that Americans (and therefore, by association, Australia) are complicit in creating those refugees. That's an amazing leap of logic.
You haven't got a clue about who really needs help, or how to help them. I could make a list for you of people who would genuinely qualify as refugees if they could only get on a boat and make it to our shores. They would number in the tens of millions, but would not include many of the people in our detention centres.
It seems you would prefer that the men in Iraq are killed, the women are raped and we have boat loads of widows on our doorstep. Those women would never be on the boats, because they would be genuine refugees, with genuine need of protection, and no capacity to pay criminals for the trip.
Now you say that Americans (and therefore, by association, Australia) are complicit in creating those refugees. That's an amazing leap of logic.
You haven't got a clue about who really needs help, or how to help them. I could make a list for you of people who would genuinely qualify as refugees if they could only get on a boat and make it to our shores. They would number in the tens of millions, but would not include many of the people in our detention centres.
you're making me cry.
good. It's the first step towards learning humanity.
good. It's the first step towards learning humanity.
They're only protecting their citizens.
That is not quite true.
No they're not. The Abbott government is failing in the polls after a tragic fail of a budget, so a distraction that includes looking tough by sending in military somewhere, while pandering to xenophobia, is just what the (spin) doctor ordered.
I have a friend who made what I think is a very valid point about this current push to bomb the barbarous ISIL off the face of the earth. He said -
"Certainly Islamic State have committed atrocities. It seems eager for more. But war is still a leap. We didn't wage war on Pol Pot, Idi Amin or Mugabe. In Eritrea, 90 per cent of women undergo genital mutilation. Do we bomb Eritrea? No. Eritrea is a Christian country. Does this mean Christianity is a violent religion? No. It means terrible things are done in its name and on its watch. Saudi Arabia has beheaded 46 people this year. Do we declare war? Hardly. We ally them."
"Certainly Islamic State have committed atrocities. It seems eager for more. But war is still a leap. We didn't wage war on Pol Pot, Idi Amin or Mugabe. In Eritrea, 90 per cent of women undergo genital mutilation. Do we bomb Eritrea? No. Eritrea is a Christian country. Does this mean Christianity is a violent religion? No. It means terrible things are done in its name and on its watch. Saudi Arabia has beheaded 46 people this year. Do we declare war? Hardly. We ally them."
See that's a very good point... Howcome there are no howls of protest or calls for intervention when the Saudis have done 40 beheadings in this year alone?
Saudi Arabia is an ally and customer of the USA, very, very wealthy ...and weirdly, along with Quatar, funds much of the Sunni war machine (ISIL).
Well if the Saudis fund ISIL they should be branded as enemies......Funny world we live in..
it's only some Saudis, not the official government policy, but individuals in the country.
We should just be staying out of their religious war and not take sides at all. We didn't do anything about Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia, I don't see why we are getting involved in this arab in-fighting.
We should just be staying out of their religious war and not take sides at all. We didn't do anything about Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia, I don't see why we are getting involved in this arab in-fighting.
We're involved because of America......they have their own interests to protect so everyone gets dragged along for the ride willingly or not.
clichés , bloody clichés ,
Here's another one: you mob are Un-Australian.
The fact is that the politicians WE voted for on both sides are in agreement on this. And it has got nothing to do with the USA, other than that if they weren't involved we would not have the capacity to be there solo.
Here's another one: you mob are Un-Australian.
The fact is that the politicians WE voted for on both sides are in agreement on this. And it has got nothing to do with the USA, other than that if they weren't involved we would not have the capacity to be there solo.
View all replies
I really wish we could avoid war, but if it's necessary, it's necessary.
And this one is necessary why?
We can't continue to let ISIS slaughter and rape people while forcing their evil ideology on them.
It is not just ISIS ideology. It is Muslim ideology. Like all the variations in all religions, different groups pick different parts of their religious texts to justify their actions.
In the case of ISIS, they base their practise of rape on actual wording of the Muslim texts.
This is the failing of all religions. They give such credence to their texts as the infallible word of their "God", and then they choose to ignore anything that makes their god look like a confused moron. That is, things that we regard as criminal, such as rape, slavery and polygamy where regarded IN CONTEXT as "normal".
In the case of ISIS, they base their practise of rape on actual wording of the Muslim texts.
This is the failing of all religions. They give such credence to their texts as the infallible word of their "God", and then they choose to ignore anything that makes their god look like a confused moron. That is, things that we regard as criminal, such as rape, slavery and polygamy where regarded IN CONTEXT as "normal".
The latest on Muslim text interpretation:
Muslim astrophysicist (and scholar), Nidhal Guessoum of the UAE claims that "well funded proponents are preventing progress and distorting Islam which once entertained ideas similar to evolution".
Nidhal Guessoum says that these ideas are not conflicting, but are integral to Muslim texts, and that Darwin only confirmed what Muslims should have known, if interpretations had not been distorted.
I rest my case, 15 hours after lyndentr33 made the above comment, this information appears.
What these learned scholars do not realise is that, by playing catch up with science and accepting and assimilating science truth into their doctrines, they are just reinforcing the case that the people who originated those doctrines were confused, fallible, bad communicators.
Does this sound like the same originator that designed the precise beautiful mechanism of the universe?
No. They are worlds apart. And they insult natural order to say they should co-exist.
Muslim astrophysicist (and scholar), Nidhal Guessoum of the UAE claims that "well funded proponents are preventing progress and distorting Islam which once entertained ideas similar to evolution".
Nidhal Guessoum says that these ideas are not conflicting, but are integral to Muslim texts, and that Darwin only confirmed what Muslims should have known, if interpretations had not been distorted.
I rest my case, 15 hours after lyndentr33 made the above comment, this information appears.
What these learned scholars do not realise is that, by playing catch up with science and accepting and assimilating science truth into their doctrines, they are just reinforcing the case that the people who originated those doctrines were confused, fallible, bad communicators.
Does this sound like the same originator that designed the precise beautiful mechanism of the universe?
No. They are worlds apart. And they insult natural order to say they should co-exist.
BTW if you have just caught the mid day news didn't take long......Now Abbott is sending ground troops....WTF?