Current world events, can we have an open discussion?

It is very difficult not to be cynical about war: Not only today, but virtually for ever. In recent times I have tried to look past the initial events playing out on available media and asked myself "what is the agenda here?" In simple speak, what is in it for the various parties involved.

It always was about power and control. Today it is fought as much in the economic arena as on the battle field. I would ask how many dictators have been deposed in counties when there is no economic gain to be had. When we look at the middle east there was clearly that of the economic resource oil. I am sure there have been many other wars which we hardly hear about that range in scale from skirmishes to genocide. I think the one we all love to quote is Rwanda with the conflict between the Tutsi and the Hutus. More than 800,000 people killed. Where were the altruistic western nations at that time? Oh, hold on....there's no oil. Sorry to have raised such a pointless issue.

Today it is about economics and strategy. If western countries had not intervened in the affairs of these nations, they would still be fighting among themselves.

Regards
Paul

It's truly hard to know what is really the "truth" because there is so much money in the game making sure you can't decipher what happened....

At this point - the simple basic facts of "did something happen" are even still up in the air... Much less the commentary, spin, and propaganda...

I mean seriously - it's like 17 different "movies" going on and they are all completely different...

Just look at what the various sides are reporting:
Russia - there is no evidence of an actual gas attack
USA - Gas attack by Assad or sponsored by Russia...
Syria and Lebanese media - Saudi Arabia was behind this
Saudi Arabia and quite a few other middle eastern media outlets - Israel was behind this
Some US alternative media - probably rebels did this to "themselves" like they did last time to bring the world back into war against Assad.

Etc....

The hard thing is... Based on so many sets of pictures coming out showing proof of completely fabricated incidents - it seems like the first step is simply confirming that something did actually happen... The crazy thing is that the only ones that seem to have taken this step (publically) are the Russians - and the news from yesterday indicates that they are making a big public spectacle that they didn't find anything..

So the news reports dribbling in today are indicating that there were some people in the town who suffered from hypoxia caused by bombs burning up oxygen.... Not chlorine, sarin, or any other chemical/biological agents...

So yes - people were suffocating.. That's what happens when you are hiding in basements or tunnels underground and conventional bombs go off which literally burn up the oxygen in the air....

And the accusations of "Chemical attacks" were being made by the rebels fighting the government.... And the rebel's stories were being accepted as fact without checking or thinking that they do in fact have a dog in the fight...

but once again... Is this Truth or is it propaganda? This would be a pretty big intelligence failure if the USA shot a bunch of missiles into Assad's camp and levyed new sanctions against the Russians over false info that could have been corroborated by a few of our own intelligence fellows on the ground... Who would profit from that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truckjohn

This would be a pretty big intelligence failure if the USA shot a bunch of missiles into Assad's camp and levyed new sanctions against the Russians over false info that could have been corroborated by a few of our own intelligence fellows on the ground... Who would profit from that?

---

Well it's happened before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truckjohn

So the news reports dribbling in today are indicating that there were some people in the town who suffered from hypoxia caused by bombs burning up oxygen.... Not chlorine, sarin, or any other chemical/biological agents...

So yes - people were suffocating.. That's what happens when you are hiding in basements or tunnels underground and conventional bombs go off which literally burn up the oxygen in the air....

And the accusations of "Chemical attacks" were being made by the rebels fighting the government.... And the rebel's stories were being accepted as fact without checking or thinking that they do in fact have a dog in the fight...

but once again... Is this Truth or is it propaganda? This would be a pretty big intelligence failure if the USA shot a bunch of missiles into Assad's camp and levyed new sanctions against the Russians over false info that could have been corroborated by a few of our own intelligence fellows on the ground... Who would profit from that?

---

And there you have the great cycle of propaganda truckjohn. Australia, England, the US and a host of other tagalongs attacked Iraq on the basis of a lie. I still cringe when I hear Lord Downer maintain the lie that there were WMD's in Iraq based on the intel at the time.

TT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

...
Before WW1 the Ottoman empire was on its last legs and there was no Iran, Iraq etc unti post WW1 the Poms & French drew some arbitrary lines on a map and imposed local chiefs as the kings.

---

Nope, gotta correct that. We hear and read a lot of stuff about the middle east which colors our impressions, often as part of the justification to allow us to avoid thinking too much about what our actual business is there. (You know, they've always been fighting like this, so us being there isn't really causing any problems, cos they are just like that).
Anyway, neither Iran or Iraq are countries created recently or by the west...

Persia has a history that goes back 2000+ years, much like Greece has had. The name Iran has been used interchangeably with Persia for about 1800 years. Iran was never part of the Ottoman empire. Iran had a number of clear dynasties (much like most of the long lived European countries).
Iraq has a much longer history, being originally Uruk in Sumer 6ish thousand years ago, and has been called Iraq by the Arabs for around 1500 years. Iraq _was_ subsumed into the Ottoman (Turkish) empire for about 400* years, but to assume it didnt exist as a country/place is the same as saying Britain didnt exist because the French (! in 1066) had control of it for a while.
*In fact Iran and the Ottomans used to fight over who controlled Iraq from about 1500 to 1650 CE and the Iraqis had their own rulers, the Mamlukes, for a while too.

The Sykes Picot (Hope I spelled that right) agreement to which you referred was a masterstroke of European stuff upedness. But they meant it to be that way. By setting up multiple kingdoms and protectorates (Syria, Jordan, Palestine, etc) the Europeans were stifling an emerging Pan-Arabic state**. This is colonial control lesson 101.

** which the Poms had promised to the Saudis for helping them defeat the Turks and then they reneged. See Lawrence of Arabia (Seven Pillars of Wisdom, TE Lawrence)

While we are talking about books, I highly recommend:
"The Road to Oxiana" by Robert Byron (who was most likely also spying for the Brits when he was travelling) and the travel books of Freya Stark, notably "Baghdad Sketches".

Regards
SWK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swk

Nope, gotta correct that. We hear and read a lot of stuff about the middle east which colors our impressions, often as part of the justification to allow us to avoid thinking too much about what our actual business is there. (You know, they've always been fighting like this, so us being there isn't really causing any problems, cos they are just like that).
Anyway, neither Iran or Iraq are countries created recently or by the west...

Persia has a history that goes back 2000+ years, much like Greece has had. The name Iran has been used interchangeably with Persia for about 1800 years. Iran was never part of the Ottoman empire. Iran had a number of clear dynasties (much like most of the long lived European countries).
Iraq has a much longer history, being originally Uruk in Sumer 6ish thousand years ago, and has been called Iraq by the Arabs for around 1500 years. Iraq _was_ subsumed into the Ottoman (Turkish) empire for about 400* years, but to assume it didnt exist as a country/place is the same as saying Britain didnt exist because the French (! in 1066) had control of it for a while.
*In fact Iran and the Ottomans used to fight over who controlled Iraq from about 1500 to 1650 CE and the Iraqis had their own rulers, the Mamlukes, for a while too.

The Sykes Picot (Hope I spelled that right) agreement to which you referred was a masterstroke of European stuff upedness. But they meant it to be that way. By setting up multiple kingdoms and protectorates (Syria, Jordan, Palestine, etc) the Europeans were stifling an emerging Pan-Arabic state**. This is colonial control lesson 101.

** which the Poms had promised to the Saudis for helping them defeat the Turks and then they reneged. See Lawrence of Arabia (Seven Pillars of Wisdom, TE Lawrence)

While we are talking about books, I highly recommend:
"The Road to Oxiana" by Robert Byron (who was most likely also spying for the Brits when he was travelling) and the travel books of Freya Stark, notably "Baghdad Sketches".

Regards
SWK

---

Thanks for that SWK. It goes to my point that one should go back to a point in the past and read the real history forward (which I haven't done in this case). Of course those countries existed before the Otterman's but they were in different forms to the ones the Europeans created (reinvented?) and as you stated for different purposes. An equivalent would be Yugoslavia, a country born around the same time as modern Iran & Iraq (1918) and fell apart after Tito's death in the 1980's with disastrous consequences. India and Pakistan did much the same after the Brits left in 1947.

The Poms have a history of reneging. During WW2 the allies promised Ho Chi Min that Vietnam would have independence from the French after the war in exchange for their support against the Japanese invaders. Of course this did not happen, and I have read that instead they re armed Japanese POW's and sent them back in against the Vietnamese until the French could take over, again with disastrous consequences.


On another note, what prompted my original statement regarding researching history is that I have always been a history buff but have not always read wisely. So this year I have commenced a history degree at UON. My first subject is Australian History 1788 to mid 1970's. I selected this because I want to get to the bottom of the Black Arm Band Debate and the history wars. What I have found is a wealth of written subject matter by the original settlers, magistrates, police, Indigenous Australians, visitors etc. It opened my eyes to how much history is out there waiting to be discovered and more importantly raises the question as to why we privilege one form of history over another. My Subject next semester is Europe and the World. Should be interesting.

TT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

The Poms have a history of reneging. During WW2 the allies promised Ho Chi Min that Vietnam would have independence from the French after the war in exchange for their support against the Japanese invaders. Of course this did not happen, and I have read that instead they re armed Japanese POW's and sent them back in against the Vietnamese until the French could take over, again with disastrous consequences.


TT

---

The British also reneged on an independant Poland agreement during WW2.

On a different topic the Polish merchant navy were commissioned to take Italian prisoners from Africa to England from the Eastern parts of Africa around the Cape. But, on orders, they let the prisoners free on the Western side of Africa (you can speculate which religion instigated this :rolleyes:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Tenon

... An equivalent would be Yugoslavia, a country born around the same time as modern Iran & Iraq (1918) ...

---

I dont know how I can say this more clearly. Iran as a country was not "born" in any way in 1918. It was neutral during WW1* and it had a continuous line of monarchs for 2000+ years, which only ended in 1979**.


*Although both sides (Brits, Russians vs Turks, Germans) invaded parts of Iran and fought _each other_ there, which tangled up the Iranians who were both allied and fighting either side at different times.

**In fact the last Shahs son is still alive in the US and there is a pretender monarchy which will very likely never regain the actual throne.

SWK

I was going to say earlier, but is well enunciated here, is that a "country" is nothing but an arbitrary set of moving borders over time. It has no inherent "right" to exist. It is simply an area of linguistic commonality, political or military control.... (ahem, Crimea..)

Perhaps as Australians it is easy to wrap ourselves into the idea that Oz is one giant country as we are an island (ok Tassie too!) - but I'd think that wasn't always going to be the case. I'd wager that if the historical dice had rolled slightly differently that we would be a number of separate countries.... (queenslander jokes aside)

Politics, technology, resources, rivers and military power push these borders constantly.

Look at China now with the South China Sea.... probably far more interesting than some dubious proxy war in Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swk

I dont know how I can say this more clearly. Iran as a country was not "born" in any way in 1918. It was neutral during WW1* and it had a continuous line of monarchs for 2000+ years, which only ended in 1979**.


*Although both sides (Brits, Russians vs Turks, Germans) invaded parts of Iran and fought _each other_ there, which tangled up the Iranians who were both allied and fighting either side at different times.

**In fact the last Shahs son is still alive in the US and there is a pretender monarchy which will very likely never regain the actual throne.

SWK

---

Yes I need to be clearer. Iran was not born in 1918 any more than Yugoslavia was born then. The people existed there for Millenia. My point was the re arranging of the borders and the loss of control of its own government for a period.

TT

Eastern end of the Asian continent
Australian warships challenged by Chinese military in South China Sea - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Yes Ray, I am somewhat concerned about China's muscle flexing and the "permanentness" of Xi Jinping. I do not believe their rhetoric that they are benign. The have created an economic powerhouse and production house that the rest of the world depends upon for cheap goods. It would seem that they think they can more or less do what they like now, kinda like Russia. I don't think the POTUS has a hope of trumping the Chinese Premier. I don't even think he'd be able to Trump him. :D

Furthermore, they are once more sabre rattling Tawain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truckjohn

I would suggest that if we do want to allow (semi) civil political discussions in an "off topic" sort of forum - that we create one that is "Private"... No search engine results, password access, must be a "known" participating member in good standing to gain access, etc....

Remember that this forum is read worldwide. The freedoms we experience here with regards to Free Speech and Free Thought are not experienced all over the place.... And both you and the forum owners can be prosecuted in those places for simply hosting ideas that the ruling party does not agree with... I am not talking about North Korea here - this is going on in places like Sweden and The UK of all places.....

And beyond that - the owners of this forum do not want to be publically scandalized for hosting ideas.. And I have considerable sympathy for that... Because there is no shame with regards to what people will do when they go off on a bent to destroy opposition...

---

TJ

I had meant to respond to your comment before and somehow I got a little distracted :rolleyes: . You of course make a very good point about the tone of this thread and it is a timely reminder to point out that this is a public forum and comments are there for all to see. Because of this and in an ever increasingly litigious society we should be careful what we say (I have fallen foul of this myself, a long time ago now, so I am not putting myself up on a pedestal and it was resolved amicably). However, the fact that it is a public forum is the essential point. To have a public voice it has to be out there where anybody can see. As long as contributors respect the rules and common sense there is no problem. Australia has freedom of speech, although it may not be quite as free as we would like.

If you want to denigrate somebody (not recommended) you should have facts to back this up: Something that will stand up in a court of law and withstand dissection by lawyers that cost much more than most of us can afford. I know it's an unpalatable thing to live with, but it is reality.

Having said that, this thread, to this point, is absolutely "civilised" and I am not pointing to any indiscretions. Just complimenting the participants and a reminder from an individual (Not a moderator).

Now on the subject of misinformation I was a little surprised when I heard the inimitable Boris Johnson may have mislead the public when he said the Russians were directly behind the poison attack on the Russian double agent. His information was apparently ambiguous. Just shows what hot water can feel like if you have not got all the facts together. Emotion over fact is not a good recipe.

Regards
Paul

Edit: I had meant to include this Forum link for anybody who is relatively new to the Forum, anybody who missed this bit when they joined and for those of us who have been here long enough that we have forgotten there are any rules and guidelines:

https://www.woodworkforums.com/f90/wo...ons-tou-198339

This thread is now 4 pages and has had 9532 views without a cross word so something is working well.

TT