Metal Reviews

agreed. I don't support homosexuality at all but I'm not against it either. You won't ever see me at a gay parade or with one of those rainbow facebook pictures but I don't really care about the issue at all. Let them get married, at least so we can finally quit talking about it! Haha!

In truth I don't care one way or the other whether they legalise gay marriage. My issue is the blatant disregard our Prime Minister has for parliamentary customs. A conscience vote is generally expected for matters such as these, many of his MPs have said they would cross the floor so Abbott forbids it publicly solely on religious grounds. Now I could be wrong but I believe there is meant to be a seperation of church and state for those lucky enough not to live in Utah?

agreed!

I love all of the judges in the US being like I'm not going to uphold the law and people being like but that's your job, you fucking idiot. If you don't like it, get a different job because that is what the new parameters of your job are.

Well it's their job unless there's a loophole which allows them to decide new laws and acts of parliament don't count. Then it's a case of too bad so sad we do as we like. Same thing happens with the High Court here - creating new laws and overturning old ones on a whim - though often the results are changes for the better.

Worst. Fucking. President. Ever.

While this pencil-necked pillow biting pantywaist was lighting up the White House in rainbow colors, Putin was planning his next move in Syria.
What a disgrace

Eliminating Syrian rebels under the guise of an attack on ISIS targets is something we should have expected from Russia though to be honest. We know how strong that alliance is after all. Meanwhile ISIS is laughing at the ease with which they seem to be advancing through the middle east. North and South Korea are teetering on the brink of war as well. The Taliban is rallying in Afghanistan as well. Can't respond to all three threats resources simply don't allow it.

Meanwhile in Australia our economy has been crippled by the previous government. Dollar has gone from above parity with the US to barely over 70 cents and is tipped to fall even further. No investment in national infrastructure under the previous PM meant the minute manufacturing and mining began to downsize their operations we were screwed. To make matters worse the opposition now insist on blocking the bills which could actually drag us out of the financial shithole they left us.

It's because Obama (and his administration is weak). Not only that, but he seems either outright incompetent or he simply doesn't care. He's more interested in inviting clock boy to the WH for another photo-op and trolling the Right as opposed to you important stuff like protecting our interests in the all important ME.

Interesting article on this specific situation:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... ks_on.html

Putin's posturing doesn't look so much like a grand strategy for Mideast domination, but rather a distraction at home from Russia's real problems. Russia's economy is tanking, badly, thanks in part, but not entirely due to low oil prices. It's economy has shrunk 3.4% so far this year, and according to the IMF, is not done shrinking. I've written on this site several times about the long-term negative trends running against Russian power, and their continued inability to diversify their economy further suggests a slide into global irrelevance is not too far off. Granted, Obama has never done well in personal diplomacy with Putin (he revealed too much of his personal dislike of Putin when he favored Medvedev publicly) but allowing Putin a freer hand in the Mideast is only encouraging him to waste more of their dwindling money reserves.

The Russian-Iranian axis, as odious it might be, is the only power willing to get its hands dirty (sometimes far too dirty) in fighting Sunni extremism. Does that mean the US/Obama should allow Russia and Iran to dictate those terms on fighting ISIS? No, but short of real Western intervention, which looks unlikely to ever happen, Russia and Iran are logistically much better positioned to fight Sunni extremism, the sort of Sunni extremism encouraged with one hand of the Saudi government, while the other hand has repeatedly taken millions and millions of dollars from its 'American ally'.

Ultimately it boils down to Russia having the resources ready to mobilise whereas the west are taking troops out of the region. If the west are serious about putting a stop to ISIS before they gain enough of a foothold to overrun the region. Of course there are other pressing conflicts in the region and elsewhere around the globe. It boils down to determining where the largest threat comes from and using resources to eliminate that threat. Best way to do that is working with Russia and Iran to launch a full-scale assault against ISIS. Aerial strikes on ISIS strongholds combined with a mobilisation of ground troops where ISIS is spread thinnest would probably do the job. Such a force could then be used to shatter the Taliban. On the other hand it is possible the continued western presence in the region is to blame for these radical organisations.

You both bring up good points.
Russia is reportedly bombing the rebels backed by the US, not going after ISIS (at least not yet). Russia wants to prop up Assad, so that makes sense.
On the other hand, for the past 50 years (at least) the US has worked on building and maintaining hegemony in the region. This obviously translates to keeping Russia (and China, the other potential predator nation at the table) out.
If the US had a strong leader, I doubt we would be talking about this right now. Based on Obama's past inaction (remember the "red line") plus the fact that he projects the image of a milquetoast lightweight (rainbow White House!?!?)... Putin correctly assessed the risk / reward ratio, and like a shark smelling blood (or smelling weakness, but I like the shark blood metaphor better so I'm using it) went in for the kill. Putin slapped Obama around like a two-bit whore, and frankly it's embarrassing. The fact is, whether we all like it or not, if the US hadn't gained dominance over the region, Russia or China would have. This hegemony is vital to retaining superpower status. The fact that Obama's reckless lack of any concrete plan to hold on to that dominance is sadly the result of electing a weak, incompetent community organizer to do a presidents job.
Bottom line, Russia, Syria and Iran win. The US and our allies lose. At least this round.
Another thing that should be kept in mind; a weak US really isn't good for anybody. Like it or not, the US is the one that is expected to keep the peace. An out of control Russia (or China, for that matter) grabbing land and extending her boundaries (Crimea, potentially Ukraine) should be a big red flag, especially for Europe. We can't just pretend the world is a safe warm place whilst we dream snugly tucked in bed.

That's certainly true but it's a case of asking are we better with the devil we know (Putin and Russia) or the unpredictable ISIS? Both have limited resources so won't be significant long-term threats unless they expand their borders and seize new lands. ISIS is probably the greater threat to the global economy if they control the Arabian oil lines it's a big problem for the west. Action certainly needs to be taken one way or the other. Australia and New Zealand face the added risk of a conflict in Asia between North and South Korea. It seems likely war will break out there in coming years and we have already pledged support for the South so fighting in the ME and Europe is a risky business for us. Considering our current economic state ensuring stability in Asia should be Australia's top priority particularly given most of our exports are to countries in the region.

Oh I agree that ISIS is bad news and has gotta go, but Vlad's motive isn't necessarily to just eliminate ISIS, but to protect Assad, which the US has made no bones about wanting out and with the deployment of Iranian troops, this forms a formidable counter to the West's influence in the region. I can see Cold War style proxy wars popping up, and that is dangerous in that region for obvious reasons.
In fact it's been reported that Russian bombs are landing on the CIA backed rebels (which is another tangled mess of a topic).
It could be even argued that the pullout from Iraq is a big factor in the creation of ISIS, therefore like it or not, our responsibility. What irks me is that (I confess to having a bit of nationalism in me) Putin made the US look weak and stupid. Or rather you could say, Obama / Kerry did.

Regarding the Asian problem, the US is obligated to defend S. Korea (and Japan, and Taiwan, we have a long list of countries we are obligated either by treaty or ally status to defend), but with a weak US president, I wonder how assured they feel? The world is cracking at the seams, we need strong upright people at the helm to deal with it, not limp noodle wristed selfie stick touting betas.

I'm not denying Putin has alterior motives. It's obvious to everyone when his bombings are taking place where Syrian rebels are strongest and ISIS is not believed to have any influence. I'll one-up you and suggest it is the wests continued violent presence in the region over the last 26+ years which is responsible for these radical extremist organisations. ISIS is a dangerous foe that must be dealt with however I can't say with confidence that eliminating ISIS won't just spawn another organisation. Similar to Vietnam the middle-eastern conflict seems unwinnable.

Who do you think fits this bill?

If we are talking about the current line-up, the only one that doesn't act like a complete eunuch is Trump.
That's on the GOP side. As for the Dems, well, as you can probably guess, I have no use for any of them. Sanders couldn't even defend his mic from those black lives matter scumbags, how is he supposed to defend the Constitution, let alone the country? He looked like a rain drenched wedding cake standing there with his head down while those two harpies shrieked and howled like paint sniffing idiots. Was a sad spectacle to behold.
O'Malley... who?
Hillary? She should be in jail, and the fact that she has the unbelievable gall to claim to be a "proud lifelong fighter for women’s issues", just shows how insane and callous (or oblivious) she actually is... remember dear ol' hubby Bill and all his shenanigans, not just in the white house and since then (and it appears he logged some flight time to and from Pedophile Island aboard the so-called Lolita Express with good friend Jeffrey Epstein), but all the way back to their salad days in Arkansas? Do her feminist supporters suffer from mass amnesia, are they just that stupid, or full of shit?

So, to answer your question, I would say as it stands right now, Trump.

Australia has a strong leader (now, took four leadership cues in five years across 2 elections to get there) but he's stonewalled by the opposition and the greens so can't actually pass any legislation that would make a difference. It's about now I long for a return to the days when both lower and upper house of federal parliament were majority liberal and federal government could do what needed doing. God Australians are stupid when election time rolls around.

They're certainly not alone in that matter.

That, at least, offers some comfort. Still thanks to the lazy and stupid majority our current government can't do much to fulfil their election promises. Because they can't do most of the things they promised come next election they'll get the boot. All because people don't seem to understand how democratic government works.

there's a canadian election in two weeks and somehow people are talking about whether women should be allowed to wear hijabs during their citizenship ceremony :\