39% of Australians said No

[Shano592 (Shane)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Some folk only respect a decision if it is in their favour and I say those are the folk who are a threat to all of us.

This, Alex, I think wins you the internet for the day.

I have been in front of a Magistrate on a couple of occasions. Nothing too serious, but I was found to be in the wrong on each visit. The impact was a curtailing of my vehicular motivation for several months, and a monetary disadvantage.

While I didn't agree with the judgements at the time, I had to - and did immediately - respect the decisions of the court. I wasn't pleased to be on foot again, but I did feel that the judgements were made correctly, based on the evidence given.

Now, I know it isn't in the league of others' experiences in court. But decisions are rendered based on the evidence provided. Appeals can be made if one feels a judge has erred.

But this vitriol I think should be reserved for Whirlpool, not here.

It's off-topic anyway.

My 2 cents.

[Stonius (Markus)]

Stone's law;

"The number of replies in a thread is inversely proportionate to their relevance to the subject of that thread."

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by bugeater

Assuming this is pointed at me.

I asked a pretty simple question. The response to such a question is always informative, even if the actual question itself hasn't been answered.

I mean if it's a broad privacy issue, I think you need to take considerably greater measures than frothing at the mouth over the census. Start an actual movement. Shape the national debate. But that's not going to happen if you can't articulate the actual evils this is meant to prevent other than a nebulous "lack of privacy".

Well... , you are asking me to spend a couple of days behind the keyboard to pen an answer with sufficient context.
And in my experience, most people filter out the information that doesn't conform to their current world view, so it would be a waste of my time.

You'll forgive me if I avoid any reference to Australian politics - there's one lightening rod I wont strap to myself (and it's a two bit side show in the overall scheme of things, anyway) But if you are genuinely interested in the broader context, start with a search of the term:

COINTELPRO

Then try:
Gladio B

then:
VERINT ICTS terrorism

Follow the white rabbit:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=brussels&x=0&y=0
(it should take you a day or so)

And that's just for starters....
Off the top of my head, I can think of another 100 examples of egregious criminality at the executive level ... but I doubt any of you would actually bother to look if I pointed them out, and it wouldn't make a toss of difference even if you did.

Pretty much all sides of all governments, the world over, are corrupt to the core and manned by nothing more than prostitutes acting as proxies for soulless money interests that have zero interest in our collective wellbeing and are amongst the very LAST people one should put their trust in.
Those that say otherwise are either ignorant of history and current affairs, or profit from your ignorance.

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's... but keep your grubby mits out of my laundry basket. ... thanks.
~c

For bonus points... google Insalw Scandal, PROMIS software and the murder of journalist, Danny Casolaro

or:
Murder of journalist Garry Webb... suicide by multiple gun shots to the head.

or:
Goldman Sachs, looting of the Libyan sovereign wealth fund, Clearstream Scandal, Sarcozi, NATO (French) smart bomb destroys records in Libyan Anti-Corruption Agency
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/wo...a/18libya.html
Corrupt Libyan officials, armed and funded by Mossad / CIA lead popular arab revolt,~cough~ AL Qaeda ~cough~
Libya destroyed in the name of freedom and democracy, job done - Weapons shipped to moderate Syrian rebels ~cough~ ISIS ~cough~

or.
Genie energy board of directors... Golan heights.... oil contracts awarded by Netanyahu (in land stolen by force of arms from Syria)
~cough~ Rupert Murdoch - Rothschild - CIA -~cough~

It's a vicious, dirty game where it's not the cream that floats to the top... just the scum.
You're a mug if you trust a single word uttered by proven, habitual liars that stand to profit from your (continued) deception.
~

[xelasnave]

In my view and experience Australia has the best legal system in the world but one must remember everyone is right so 50% will have a problem.
The main problem we have is the cost of justice and perhaps a need for getting matters before a court quickly.
The man with the most money has the advantage but that is not limited to law.
Rom the article you linked I suggest may have been written from someone not happy with the system. Bit too much generalising and where specifics are mentioned detail is missing.
Up here the suicide rate is alarming. Common denominator is drink and drug problem but they often are around because of other problems.
Nevertheless it should be asked why suicide appeals as a solution to a problem.
The experiences I have had with friends etc showed a spoilt child behaviour and self pity when drunk.
I think something should be done to help folk understand suicide is not the best solution to a problem.
All so sad I wish I could change things ...
Life is tuff and not everyone can be a winner.
Perhaps if there is a marriage break down children and property should go to the state and the parties locked up for life.
That would get rid of the Family Court.
Alex

[bugeater (Marty)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

And in my experience, most people filter out the information that doesn't conform to their current world view,

Yes they do don't they.

Originally Posted by clive milne

You'll forgive me if I avoid any reference to Australian politics - there's one lightening rod I wont strap to myself (and it's a two bit side show in the overall scheme of things, anyway)

Well that would actually be relevant, rather than stuff other governments have done and conspiracy websites.

As difficult as this may be to comprehend, I don't agree with many things our government does. Plus there are plenty of other governments in the world that have done very bad things. You clearly see things as black and white (well black) whereas I see it more as a sort of grey... But I still don't understand what any of this has to do with writing my name on a census form.

[Shano592 (Shane)]

Originally Posted by bugeater

But I still don't understand what any of this has to do with writing my name on a census form.

This!

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by bugeater

Yes they do don't they.


Well that would actually be relevant, rather than stuff other governments have done and conspiracy websites.

Interesting that you would employ the delegitimising tactics of 'denial of relevance' and the good old 'conspiracy' canard...

What I posted are references to historical fact and all of it on the public record, should you trouble yourself to look.... to ignore its relevance is to deny Australia's hegemonic relationship with the power brokers in this world.

For what it is worth... judging by how quickly you responded, it is inconceivable that you actually took the time to look at a single point that I referenced... so I guess I really was wasting my time.
Understanding is optional I suppose.

[bugeater (Marty)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Interesting that you would employ the delegitimising tactics of 'denial of relevance' and the good old 'conspiracy' canard...

What I posted are references to historical fact and all of it on the public record, should you trouble yourself to look.... to ignore its relevance is to deny Australia's hegemonic relationship with the power brokers in this world.

For what it is worth... judging by how quickly you responded, it is inconceivable that you actually took the time to look at a single point that I referenced... so I guess I really was wasting my time.
Understanding is optional I suppose.

Oh I understand.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Pretty much all sides of all governments, the world over, are corrupt to the core and manned by nothing more than prostitutes acting as proxies for soulless money interests that have zero interest in our collective wellbeing and are amongst the very LAST people one should put their trust in. Those that say otherwise are either ignorant of history and current affairs, or profit from your ignorance.

I bow in reverence of your ability to so succinctly sumarise my last 50 posts, in one paragraph no less...

[clive milne]

Rom... it would give me no comfort to be proven correct. (but thanks)

[xelasnave]

Clive I like the idea of the new world order.
It has the potential to eliminate wars and reduce military to local mob control.
Once we get there corruption should disappear.
Or am I missing something?
Alex

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Clive I like the idea of the new world order.
It has the potential to eliminate wars and reduce military to local mob control.
Once we get there corruption should disappear.
Or am I missing something?
Alex

Called a dictatorship I think. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely... unless I am the boss of course

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Called a dictatorship I think. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely... unless I am the boss of course

That's just something someone said and everyone has jumped on it.
Absolute power in the right hands will work.
If I was running the world I would not let the power go to my head I would only be concerned to make things better for humans and animals.
I would still eat the same, live in the same house and drive the same car.
For the sake of maintaining order I would regretfully make it a capital offence to disagree with me or exile them to Tasmania.
But that would be for the greater good.
If we are to get into serious space travel we need to stop wasting energy on military and politicians.
I wonder if world government will ever come to be and if such a system exists elsewhere in the universe.
Alex

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Absolute power in the right hands will work.

Example? Can't think of a single benevolent dictator. The temptation to enforce ones will is just to great, it seems. Even the benevolent "All Mighty" threats to smite your arsenal if you defy him...

Originally Posted by xelasnave

For the sake of maintaining order I would regretfully make it a capital offence to disagree with me or exile them to Tasmania.
Alex

The later is pointless in my case, the former doesn't scare me, so whats option 3... Make me read Hansard perhaps.

[xelasnave]

You don't hear about all those good kings through out history because the media only reported on the bad ones leaving the impression bad was the norm.
Execution would not be a scare tactic just a social tidy up and I would not want to scare anyone with the process.
Anyways world government is a long way off first we need a list for each country setting out names address national background etc.
Alex

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Clive I like the idea of the new world order.
It has the potential to eliminate wars and reduce military to local mob control.
Once we get there corruption should disappear.
Or am I missing something?
Alex

Alex, what follows is an excerpt from the Trilateral Commission, Rome plenary meeting *15/17 April 2016.... regarding engagement of Russia.
You can find the presser, here:
http://trilateral.org/download/files...ING_RUSSIA.pdf

In their own words, the Trilateral commission is there to bring together experienced leaders within the private sector to discuss issues of global concern.
http://trilateral.org/

This organisation is an international network which serves the interests of global commerce. They issue policy recommendations (to who exactly?) and use their media, financial and political assets to leverage change for their own ends.

Ever wonder why U.S. foreign policy seldom serves the interests of the American people.. yet has driven the U.S. economy to the point of insolvency? Simple... U.S. foreign policy serves the interests of big multinational corporations and the international financiers who profit handsomely from endless wars.

The Russian (engagement) policy statement can easily be seen for what it is - the international business community is waging economic war against non-compliant states using the pretext of human rights and protection of democracy. This is the reason petrol is so cheap at the moment... the Saudi's are pumping it like there is no tomorrow, driving the price down. The goal is to destabilise Russia (which relies on oil as a primary export commodity) The banksters also destroyed the Rouble (18 months ago) for the same reason... To get the Russian people to depose Putin and replace him with a puppet of their choosing.

Ask yourself this... why isn't the Saudi regime also an international pariah? they are the main financial backer of ISIS, and amongst the most intolerant and vicious bunch of thugs on the planet... beheading political dissenters on a daily basis... Answer - because they're doing the bidding of the big money interests in the world.

So... it could be argued that we already have a de-facto global 'understanding' amongst the power brokers of the liberal world... if not an actual formal bureaucratic structure called a world government...


Anyhoo...
some light reading from the Trilateral Commission:

THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION
ROME PLENARY MEETING 15-17 APRIL 2016
PAULA DOBRIANSKY, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Vice Chair, National Executive Committee, U.S. Water Partnership; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
ANDRZEJ OLECHOWSKI, Chairman, Supervisory Board, Bank Handlowy, Warsaw; Professor, Vistula University; former Minister of Foreign Affairs and of Finance of Poland
YUKIO SATOH, Vice Chairman of the Japan Institute of International Affairs in Tokyo; former Japanese diplomat and Permanent Representative to the United Nations
IGOR YURGENS, Chairman of INSOR, Institute of Contemporary Development; President, All-Russian Insurance Association (IRIA); President, Russian Association of Motor Insurers (RAMI), Moscow

Introduction

In May 2014, the Trilateral Commission task force on Russia released its report, “Engaging Russia: A Return to Containment?” It notes areas of consensus as well as disagreements between the task force’s four regional co-chairs: Paula Dobriansky (North America); Andrzej Olechowski (Europe); Igor Yurgens (Russian Federation); and Yukio Satoh (Asia-Pacific).1
This issue brief provides an update on our perspectives since the report’s publication two years ago.

Russia's Economy

International sanctions along with the decline in oil and gas prices have taken a devastating toll on Russia’s economy. In the 2014 report, we agreed that sanctions could set off further attacks on the ruble, accelerate inflation, and trigger a general economic downturn. These assessments have been borne out. Year-to-date inflation in 2015 was nearly 13% and the ruble’s exchange rate hit record lows in January 2016.2 Industrial output, according to Rosstat state statistics service, shrank for the first time in six years in 2015. And Russia, to quote Sberbank CEO Herman Gref, joined the ranks of the world’s “downshifter countries”3; it is now only the world’s fifteenth largest economy, just behind Mexico. The International Monetary Funds expects the Russian economy to shrink by another 1% in the coming year.
Prominent analysts in both Russia and the West are warning that Russia’s economic situation could unleash a domestic upheaval. Economist Anders Aslund, a member of the North America task force, broaches the possibility of “another regime implosion and attempted democratization.”4 Russian analyst Dmitri Trenin, one of the authors of the 2014 report, draws parallels to the Romanov era, arguing that Russia’s economy, in combination with other factors, could “trigger a collapse of not just the system, but the entire country.”5
Russia will need to enact significant structural reforms to stave off domestic instability. Even before the sharp decline in oil prices from $97 a barrel in 2014 to $30 today, we assessed that trends in international trade flows and global energy markets – for example the growing LNG market -- were changing in ways detrimental to Russia. As the ongoing European Commission competition review over Nord Stream 2 shows, calls for reform in Russia’s energy sector will be particularly demanding so long as Russian foreign policy provokes fears from its neighbors. Russia’s continued dependence on natural resource revenues could have far-reaching consequences for the “social contract” that the Putin government has struck with Russian society.
The Russian chapter’s 2014 assessment remains valid today: “a tangible downturn in living standards automatically delegitimizes the political course and its actors. Russia’s democratic institutions, now deformed and imitational, are not capable of making up for this deficit of legitimacy.” Given the demonstrable decline in Russia’s standard of living -- average monthly incomes have fallen by 10% and food prices are up at least 14%6 -- sustained economic stagnation could cause ongoing protests by Russian truckers and pensioners to spread to other discontented segments of society.
Putin’s former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin argued at the January 2016 World Economic Forum that Russia’s social order will remain stable for another two years, a “reserve” period during which Moscow faces the choice of reverting to inefficient spending or moving toward “a new economic model.”7 It is not likely, however, that Moscow will undertake reforms before assessing the outcomes of such major unfolding events as the November 8, 2016 U.S. presidential elections, the June 23, 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, and the future economic and political trajectory of China.

Domestic Political Snapshot

Our 2014 report provided a mixed appraisal of Russia’s political stability. We noted that Russia’s top figures received a boost in the immediate aftermath of the Crimea annexation and enjoy a high level of popularity. This is largely true today, with President Putin’s approval ratings remaining above 80%. Russians, as they have historically, are consolidating around national leaders in the face of an “external enemy.” However, Parliamentary elections in September 2016 – particularly if they are marked by voting irregularities -- could spur major demonstrations across Russia.8
The North America, Europe, and Russia chapters of the 2014 report alike noted that the anti-Putin Bolotnaya Square protests in December 2011 stemmed from Russians’ dissatisfaction with a repressive, corrupt system that is no longer delivering economic growth. The same factors are apparent today. Russia stood at 119th place in Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perceptions Index along with Azerbaijan, Sierra Leone, and Guyana. Four hundred thousand Russians emigrated in 2015, compared to 35,000 in 2010.9 A majority believe the country’s economy is in a “bad state,” and just 45% think Russia is on the right track.

We noted in 2014 that respect for democracy and human rights had deteriorated and that President Putin’s consolidation of power was at odds with Russia’s international commitments. Continued crackdowns against civil society, laws against foreign-backed organizations, and the assassinations of journalists and opposition political figures suggest that the trend has hardly reversed over the past two years. The Litvinenko Inquiry found “strong circumstantial evidence of Russian state responsibility” in the poisoning of former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, and concluded that Putin “probably approved” it. In the case of liberal leader Boris Nemtsov – who, on the eve of his assassination, was preparing to unveil “documentary” evidence on Russian involvement in Ukraine – Russia’s Investigative Committee has identified five Chechen suspects, but prominent opposition figures are accusing the Kremlin of complicity in the murder. To date, investigators have refused to explore who ordered the killing and have not questioned Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov. The overall brutality of the Kremlin’s crackdowns manifests Moscow’s underlying insecurity.

Russia’s Foreign Relations

Russia’s global ambitions and grand strategy have not changed substantially. As we wrote in the 2014 report, “Russia aspires to superpower status and seeks a regional order in Eurasia that is no longer underwritten by the United States.”
What has changed, however, is the nature of Russia’s engagement in key regions, as well as the international community’s response.

Nuclear Proliferation

The 2014 report generally attributed defensive motives to Russia’s nuclear program and “first use” doctrine. The North America chapter cited Moscow’s goal of “pursuing strategic stability and inducing missile defense accommodations” from the United States. The Asia report noted Russian “concerns about the growth and modernization of Chinese military power, including nuclear forces” as well as its desire to “retain the status of a global superpower.”
Russia’s foreign policy over the past two years, however, has provoked fears that Moscow’s nuclear strategy is part of a more ambitious Russian gambit to remake the liberal international order10. Russia continues to test cruise missiles in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, modernize its nuclear programs, and engage in nuclear saber rattling against the West.
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter recently said that he considers Russia an existential threat “by virtue simply of the size of the nuclear arsenal that it’s had.” In January 2016, the U.S. Department of Defense cited “higher-end” threats from Russia as a rationale for its fiscal year 2017 budget proposal, which would quadruple funding for the European Reassurance Initiative.
NATO defense ministers subsequently approved a plan to protect Central and Eastern Europe from Russian aggression by enhancing NATO’s military presence in the region, rotating forces through regional states to conduct exercises, and bolstering the alliance’s infrastructure.
“This will be multinational,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explained, “to make clear that an attack against one ally is an attack against all allies, and that the alliance as a whole will respond.”11

[clive milne]

Ukraine

Momentum is building in some quarters of the West to ease pressure on Moscow, which has Particularly in certain parts of Europe, calls are growing to lift sanctions, restart the NATO-Russia Council, re-invite Russia to the G8, and strike a deal with Moscow that would effectively cede Ukrainian territory to Russia. These trends could help Russia in its aim of undermining the European Union and might also fray unity between Washington and its European allies. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, however, has reaffirmed her opposition to lifting EU sanctions before the implementation of a “sustainable cease-fire.”
Whether Russia and the West will reach agreement on the Minsk accords remains to be seen. Russian troops and equipment are still in Ukraine. The Panel of Eminent Persons on European Security as a Common Project, chaired by Wolfgang Ischinger, has offered recommendations, and the OSCE framework, currently under German chairmanship, puts forth a proposal for facilitating progress on the Minsk accords.
In addition to western policy, Russian public opinion may shape Moscow’s actions. According to a recent Levada Center poll, support for Putin’s strategy in Ukraine has dropped from 64% last summer to 45%.

Middle East

Tensions between Russia and the West have become more pronounced in the Middle East.
In our 2014 report, the North America and Europe chapters treated the Syria issue
differently than the Russia chapter. North American proponents of “deep engagement” *

with Russia pointed to U.S.-Russian cooperation on Syria as an example of how continuous U.S. engagement with Moscow could yield worthwhile deliverables. The European chapter, for its part, argued that while Russia could “meddle unhelpfully in Syria...it lacks both the will and the capacity to confront the West or to project long- range power.” Trenin’s paper, by contrast, maintained that, “an ad hoc diplomatic alliance between Russia and the United States on Syria was unlikely.” He predicted that, “Syria, Iran, and other Middle Eastern issues will be at the center of U.S.-Russian relations,” that Russia is likely to take a more active position on these issues,” and that “the Syrian civil war will negatively impact Russian-Western relations.”
Recent events support Trenin’s position. Russia is pursuing a centuries old drive to acquire access to the Mediterranean and secure a military, political and energy presence in the Middle East. To that end, Russia is waging an aggressive military campaign against the U.S.-backed Syrian opposition. Moscow’s intervention has bolstered the Assad regime and is highlighting the consequences of western inaction in the conflict.
The Syria conflict is one of several issues that have drawn Russia closer to Iran. The North America chapter of the 2014 report mentioned U.S.-Russia cooperation on Iran as a relative bright spot of the Obama Administration’s “Reset,” specifically citing Russia’s decision to ban the sale of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran. Again, Trenin was prophetic in his analysis that “Russia may become more sympathetic toward Tehran in its protracted stand-off with the United States and Israel.” After the signing of the Iran nuclear deal, Moscow announced that it would deliver the S-300s to Iran. Cooperation on Iran’s ballistic missile program is among the more concerning aspects of the deepening strategic ties between Moscow and Tehran.12

Turkey

Our 2014 report hardly mentioned Turkey. In hindsight, it is clear that we underestimated not only the importance of Russia-Turkey relations on global security, but also the extent to which Russia would impact the outcome of the conflict in Syria.
Tensions are running high between Ankara and Moscow after Turkey, in November 2015, downed a Russian SU-24 fight jet for violating Turkish airspace. Stoltenberg has called on Russia to “fully respect NATO airspace,” reaffirming that “NATO stands in solidarity with Turkey and supports the territorial integrity of our ally, Turkey.”
NATO policy on the current crisis could have profound consequences if it shakes Turkey’s confidence in the alliance. As the European chapter of the 2014 report warns, Turkey “might as yet be tempted to go nuclear in the absence of the NATO umbrella.”
Refugees are another source of tension between Turkey and Russia. Russia’s air campaign against the rebel-held Syrian city of Aleppo is producing a new wave of refugees into Turkey. Ankara is facing pressure from the European Union to open its border after Turkey announced that it is no longer capable of accepting more refugees.

Pivot to Asia

Russia’s pivot to the Asia-Pacific has continued, with very uneven results.13 On the one hand, falling energy prices have impeded China-Russia energy cooperation, and Russia’s development of the Far East more generally. And as the Asia chapter of the 2014 report pointed out, the China Silk Road Project (OBOR) may prove problematic for Moscow if it strengthens ties between Beijing and the Central Asian states at Russia’s expense. On the other hand, the visit in December 2015 by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the signing of sixteen agreements in defense and other strategic areas signal that Russia-India ties can endure amid tensions between Russia and the West. The fact, moreover, that the Russian energy company Gazprom secured a $2.17 billion loan from the Bank of China in March 2016 – the largest single bank credit in the company’s history – is an indicator of how sanctions are bolstering Asia as a funding alternative to the West.

Policy Recommendations

The U.S. presidential campaign has featured a wide array of views on U.S.- Russian relations. The outcomes of both the Democratic and Republican primaries remain uncertain as of this writing.
Regardless of who prevails in the elections, a return to deep engagement between Russia and the West will not, in all likelihood, be feasible so long as Russia’s global ambitions and grand strategy remain unchanged. In both Russia and the West, the debate is principally between those who favor a return to containment versus those who advocate a more transactional relationship -- selective engagement with selective containment. How far Russia is willing to go in mending fences with the West will depend, to a large extent, on how serious it perceives the United States to be in defending the liberal world order.

We encourage the Trilateral Commission to deliberate on the basis of the following assumptions:

• The international community should uphold and defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and its right to decide on its own constitutional order. The creation of a lasting “gray zone” in Ukraine is not in anyone’s interest. The establishment of a “Friends of Ukraine” task force – an international contact group comprised of civil society – would help in facilitating economic reforms and anti-corruption initiatives in the country.
• The situation in Syria is a matter of common concern among the trilateral countries, including Russia – a reality that may allow for some degree of cooperation on the crisis. However, this cooperation is greatly handicapped by Russia’s support for President Assad, and, more generally, by its support for Iranian ambitions for regional dominance.
• Given the numerous international treaties to which Russia is a party and which oblige it to respect human rights and the rule of law, the international community has a legal right and moral responsibility to monitor the status of democracy and human rights, and hold Moscow to account whenever it falls short of full compliance with its obligations.
• Concerted efforts are needed to strengthen ties with Russian civil society. As we note in the 2014 report, “The international community can support those who feel isolated by the current government by promoting the cross-fertilization of ideas between Russian citizens and the outside world.”
• Last but not least, the trilateral countries should not allow potential differences on Russia sanctions and other issues to undermine their fundamental unity in upholding respect for the liberal international order that has preserved peace, security, and stability since the end of World War II.

2 Russia Monthly Economic Developments, World Bank, January 2016, available at: http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs...ussia-Monthly- Economic-Developments-January-2016-eng.pdf
4 Anders Aslund, “What Falling Oil Prices Mean for Russia and Ukraine,” New Atlanticist, 22 January 2015, available at: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...l-price-means- for-russia-and-ukraine 5 Dmitri Trenin, “Russia Needs a Plan C,” Kyiv Post, 16 December 2015, available at: http://www.kyivpost.com/article/cont...-c-404311.html
6 Alexey Eremenko, “Falling Oil Prices, Plunging Ruble Hits Regular Russians Hard,” NBC News, 30 January 2016, available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/busi...ices-plunging- ruble-hits-regular-russians-hard-n505701 7 Olga Tanas and Anna Andrianova, “Kudrin Says Russia Can Draw on Well of Social Calm for Two Years,” Bloomberg Business, 22 January 2016, available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...f-social-calm- for-two-years
8 See Kathrin Hille, “United Russia shores up defences as public mood darkens,” Financial Times, 8 February 2016, available at: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/93f2ddb4-cd9b-11e5-92a1- c5e23ef99c77.html#axzz3zkGvCTiC
* 9 Vladislav Inozemtsev, “Putin’s self destructing economy,” Washington Post, 17 January 2016, available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1/17/0803598e- bb97-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html
10 To note Russia’s absence at the Washington Nuclear Security Summit on April 1, 2016
11 Michael Schmidt, “NATO to Expand Military Presence in Europe to Deter Russians,” New York Times, 10 February 2016
* 12 Boris Zilberman, “Nuclear Deal Paves Way for Iran-Russia Ballistic Missile Cooperation,” Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Policy Brief, 3 February 2016, available at: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media...r-iran-russia- ballistic-missile-cooperation/
13 Kathrin Hille, “Russia and China: friends with benefits,” Financial Times, 5 February 2016, available at: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f8959...44.html#slide0

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by Stonius

Stone's law;

"The number of replies in a thread is inversely proportionate to their relevance to the subject of that thread."

So what's the post count to satisfy Godwin's law on this thread?

Probably not too high methinks.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Example? Can't think of a single benevolent dictator. The temptation to enforce ones will is just to great, it seems. Even the benevolent "All Mighty" threats to smite your arsenal if you defy him...

Singapore is a democracy in name only, and it has worked wonders for them. Compare the place to the surrounding countries.

[xelasnave]

Clive excellent effort to distill the mash.
Everyone wants waterfront the Russians should have it.
Containment won't work, driving a populace to lower living standards is stupid.
If I stand on your neck I should not not be surprised if you wriggle and want to break my leg.
Who is really behind the Syrian mess?
I recall some happy to support the rebels without even knowing what they stood for or who they were.
If any say they would use a bomb if they had it give them one and bring it on.
Bring all the enemies together arm them and let it rip.
When over peace must follow.
You can't have peace and prosperity without war.
Seriously one world government seems the only way to go.
Alex