Carlton Supporters Club

I think that is a little unfair, most of those disputes have a social genesis older the the USA!

Western societies being relatively new think of family as a house full of people, in Iran or Iraq "A Family or Clan" can in effect be tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of individuals. More than a Sicilian family, I suppose when you have a history of polygamy / polygyny it is a lot easier to have huge lists of relatives even without political alliances!

Not exactly correct Thry.

The Netherlands hasn't filled the gap but has proposed that nations with more enlightened views contribute funds to make up the shortfall created by the Trump executive order.  The US allocated $620M for family planning and reproductive health in 2017.  Of course, not all of that is allocated to organisations subject to the Trump ban, but there will be a significant shortfall to be made up by other nations.  If Australia is to chip in, there will have to be an equivalent cut in another aid program.

Apart from the ancient disputes between Islamic sects, the European carve up of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of Israel are root causes of much of the conflict.

I think that is a little unfair, most of those disputes have a social genesis older the the USA!

Western societies being relatively new think of family as a house full of people, in Iran or Iraq "A Family or Clan" can in effect be tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of individuals. More than a Sicilian family, I suppose when you have a history of polygamy / polygyny it is a lot easier to have huge lists of relatives even without political alliances!

If you have a look at the activities of the Anglo American oil companies , their associations with the Moslem Brotherhood (among others), the involvement of British intelligence and later the CIA, starting after WW1 and going on until the present day  you will be surprised, maybe even shocked. I won't go into it on here as it's a long and totuous tale, but it's fascinating and worth a bit of your time.

As I said above it's fair to claim countries like the USA and Russia are only involved due to self-interest, but I think it's unfair to claim the war only persists because of them. It's an even longer bow to draw if you are claiming all would now be good if they had departed or not started, history says otherwise!

btw., Who does Trump actually back, in rhetoric and action?

On Trump, Dems, Hillary etc,

Start at 35.00 odd if you like.....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-05/national-press-club-address:-kinky-friedman/7905594

Well I guess you're entitled to your own opinion. I've said all I wanted to say on this now.

PS. I think it's more fruitful to look into who's backing Trump. That will tell us who he's backing.  

Good point Cookie....this bloke isnt backing him and he knows a thing or two about making money....

 Warren Buffett attacked Donald Trump's business acumen, saying a monkey could have done far better running a public company...

Good point Cookie....this bloke isnt backing him and he knows a thing or two about making money....

 Warren Buffett attacked Donald Trump's business acumen, saying a monkey could have done far better running a public company...

  THE protests against Donald Trump are so extreme that it’s clear what’s got many on the Left so mad. It’s democracy. They hate it.

This is the most frightening thing about the campaign to stop the new US President from doing just what voters elected him to do.

We already know the modern Left hates free speech. Now we see it’s not keen on a free vote, either — if the “wrong” person gets elected.

The Left is becoming not just more violent but more totalitarian, and Trump has exposed that. Even before he formally took over as President, there were protests against Trump’s election in many American cities, including some in which police were bashed. These were, in fact, protests against the result of a free and fair election.

Now, after just his first week as president, Left-wing publications are already discussing ways to remove this duly elected leader from office.

The Washington-based Foreign Policy magazine published a guide: “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020”.

The Sydney Morning Herald contributed “Four Ways they can get rid of Donald Trump sooner rather than later”, which included this astonishing line: “The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup …”

RootsAction.org has 500,000 signatures on a petition to impeach Trump. Change.org has 200,000.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the US Senate vowed to reject any judge Trump nominated to sit on the Supreme Court, and are now considering a mass boycott of Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on February 28 in an attempt to delegitimise him.

Not in living memory has a president faced such a concerted attempt to stop him — even sack him — even before his first week is out.

Yes, it’s perfectly fine for people to protest against what Trump is doing, and many Trump haters are doing no more than that.

But there is undeniably more going on.

That is clear from the hysterical reaction against Trump’s decision to temporarily ban visitors from seven jihadist-plagued countries.

What Trump has done is what he promised to do before the election. It is almost certainly lawful and makes sense, even if it was implemented chaotically.

All that Trump has said is that travellers from those countries — Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia — are banned for 90 days until his administration works out better ways to vet them.

Most of those countries are on a list drawn up by the Obama administration of failed states battling jihadism or are led, in the case of Iran, by jihadists. The US struggles with each one to get the information it needs to check the background of people coming to the US.

It is not surprising then that a Rasmussen poll last week found that Trump’s plan had overwhelming support from Americans — 56 per cent in favour to 32 per cent against.

Yet see how the Left — and its media allies — reacted to a policy that was reasonable, popular, an election promise and almost certainly legal. Thousands of protesters choked the airports and demanded authorities free any travellers detained.

The acting attorney-general, an appointment of former president Barack Obama, defied her new boss and ordered staff not to defend Trump’s law in the courts.

More than 200 US diplomats, meant to represent their government, signed a protest against Trump’s order.

These were government officials refusing to carry out government policy, as required by their elected president.

Aren’t the voters meant to be sovereign in a democracy?

It got worse. Hillary Clinton, the Democrat defeated in the election, sent a tweet saying “I stand with the people” demonstrating against Trump. Obama issued a statement, just a week after leaving the presidency, saying he “fundamentally disagrees” with Trump’s ban.

Here are a former president and presidential candidate offering, in effect, a rival leadership to that of the president. This is getting ugly.

The big picture is that the Left simply refuses to accept that Trump won the election and has a right — even duty — to put in place the policies he promised. There is a dangerous intolerance at work, as well as a sneering contempt for the kind of people who voted for Trump.

The result is that democracy is being trashed.

The Left is revealing itself as not just bad losers but bullies with a dangerous totalitarian itch — exactly what had so many voters support Trump in the first place.

Given that, bet on this: Trump will win out in the end.

Quoting Andrew Bolt ? Wow, there's a source you can rely on.

Quoting Andrew Bolt ? Wow, there's a source you can rely on.