Australians back the federal government’s decision to join the military effort against the militia group calling itself Islamic State, but believe doing so will make us “less safe”, according to a new poll.

However the poll found strong opposition to new anti-terror measures that could see whistleblowers and journalists jailed for reporting abuses of power, with more than four in 10 saying the laws went too far.

More than half of 1,000 Australians surveyed online in the past week said they supported the Abbott government’s decision to begin air strikes against Islamic state targets in Iraq, with one-quarter saying they opposed the decision.

Committing ground troops at America’s request was less favoured, with around 40% and the same proportion against. One in five said they weren’t sure, the poll, conducted by Factuality, said.

read more http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/11/poll-australian-action-in-iraq

------------------------------------------------

Polls are beasts. As soon as a larger proportion of opinion surpass others, we often assume that this is a valid opinion... It's not. All it does is reflect the power of opinion-makers, shock-jocks and information manipulation towards a specific outcome. There are far too many caveats in the sampling to actually give a reality on the value of the actions of the government. Of course, having the Labor Party being weako at the knees also gives the Abbott regime the extra boost it needs to push with a fake "humanitarian mission" which is a stupid war decorated with some distracting pussyfooting on the edges. It's a well calculated deception as if made "necessary" by lies all around. We've seen such lies before...

We are a civilised nation and yet we can't extricate ourselves from the old battlefields concept — a situation that seems to never stop us being silly dummies voting for the scarecrow to be chief-turd sending strawmen to his battles. It might have been different in the past.

So what is all this about?

There is no two ways about that IS (ISIL or Isis) is a nasty piece of work. But this nasty Wahhabi outfit is not so secretly sponsored by rich Saudis, rich Emirates, rich Qataris and other rich Muslim outfits. 

ISIL also a predictable resultant of the disastrous on-going Mission Accomplished in Iraq and our desire to confuse our issues by not fully analysing the follow-through of our actions. We'd like to see Assad of Syria be gone, but his enemies we might have thought supporting for a while are now our worst enemies and we did not see the threat coming... Why is that? We were blinded by our earlier desire to see Assad go? When did we loose our focus? Long time ago says Gus, even before going to war against Saddam, we did not understand the dynamics — nor did we try to understand — that having an easy war in Iraq would compound into a distrastrous result. As well, letting Assad go would be the destruction of our "Christian" brothers (and sisters) in Iraq and in Syria for the benefit of ruthless Sunnis. Which devil is the worst?... Do we want to see him go because he is supported by Iran — which, to say the least, does not want to get involved in the conflict against ISIL, despite being a religiously opposite — a bit like the catholics and the protestants in the median times of the previous millennium... 

Despite being a great civilisation, with lots on offer, the West is full of its own boots, always trying to solve other people's problems mostly by creating more problems that, should we have a brain, we would be able to see coming and avoid by being more alert. We can't stop ourselves acting like the powerful big bro with no brains... Actually, we act as if we care but we're mostly after protecting our "economic interests" in the region first... Plunder and divide seems to be the name of the underlying action, while the UN is waving the "humanitarian card" mostly because it has to pay the bill for yet creating more refugee camps...

The war against Saddam Hussein was a gigantic waste of time, waste of personnel and was illegal. On this alone, we should have been able to gauge the dynamics of the result. Blair, Bush and Howard should be in prison for war crimes, no doubt about this. They lied, mostly promoting some dubious "intelligence" about Iraq that a five year old dog would know as being false or inconclusive. How would such "intelligent" men, leaders of "intelligent countries" develop such blindness about their own desire to go to war, under various guises, from WMDs, "freedom" and "regime change"?

They did make a mess of things as they are now poised, naturally flowing on from bad decisions after bad decisions. Basically, these dorks misread the balance of population that could not and would not trust each other in large proportions, after a decade of sanctions that killed about 500,000 children — a price which Madeleine "Margaret" Albright thought the price was worth it. It was not. All it did was to create a sad confusion prior to more resentful confusion. Do we ever learn? According to John Howard always touting us the trio (of liars) did the right thing, I don't think these idiots ever learned — and we're dumb enough to let them get away with it... 

We don't learn from being stupid in the head. We don't assess the proper next, like say an Ike Eisenhower did, who for all his fault knew the price of peace. Or the greatness of the visionary Australian Labor party man, H. V. Evatt, who was a strong force in the creation of the UN for peace... 

Our present turd and his minister for foreign bodies, Julie Bishop, poopooed the UN and the push by Labor for a special seat in the security council and now these two saturated idiots are using it like pigs rolling in mud — to help declare war on anything that moves or farts...

The Saudis would be laughing. They possibly had secretly pushed the US into a war against Saddam. Remember that 19 out of the 21 personnel involved in the 9/11 attack on the twin towers were Saudis. Have we asked any real questions of them yet? For example where did these "culprits" came from, who they were? What families?... I don't think we ever saw any real information on this subject. 

Sure the Princes and King might presently play the game as if they "support" the West's involvement against ISIL, but can "we" trust their devotion to basically destroy their religious brothers, while being somewhat extremist themselves? I can see an ulterior motive here, including developing "moderate" fighters against Assad, in the future to then turn into radicals... The smart coup of ISIL which is quite an important coup here, is that ISIL declared a "Caliphate" which is kind of a "kingdom" alla Saudi, while, remember, in Egypt, the brotherhood (also a Wahhabi Sunni outfit) tried to be more like a "republic". The Saudis did not like that "democratisation" and quietly helped in the defeat of the "brotherhood". Now do you see a pattern emerging here? The word "Kingdom" being the key here?...

The art of reconstruction after any war is a messy business. After World War II, reconstruction of Europe was done with the help of the Marshall Plan, but there were a few hiccups, including having to deal with our former allies, the Soviets (who basically ended up on their own) and then the French who, under General de Gaulle, told the Yanks to yank off. Since then too, there has been some shenanigans with spying on each other as well as sabotage of the European Union by the US with the help of its "perfidious" Albion ally — all while posting a unified front for official photographs. 

Thus the West has developed some serious idiotic complexes, with the Yanks having a massive ego and the Europeans being unable to put a chook raffle together. The West has also tried to deal with his ruthless colonial past by being generous and offering freedom within its bosom, in a way which is likely to kill it. 

The West thinks as if everyone thinks the same... Nupe. The Arab nations do not think like the Western nations. They might use some of the West ideas in their value system, but they have a different kind of deception. The West's deception is within its own border as well as outside when we make excuses for new ventures that will become bad deeds in the long run. We think we are the big cheese, but often act like stupid chalk... 

Yes there is a major problem with ISIL and its ruthless decided gory decapitations. But when one bombs from 10,000 feet, the damage is often more gory than one head rolling in the sand. And we end up apologising for women, children and old people being murdered by accident... ISIL is not an Australian problem. Should we desire to help, we need to be smarter about it than going and throw bombs which are going to stir the hornets' nest, at home and overseas. By the West's intervention, more "radical" and more "fanatics" will get to war. 

The problem also lies with our own Muslim chiefs unable to condemn ISIL for its atrocities. These Muslim chiefs and our own rabid shock-jocks don't help by being in lalaland about religious hatred and in pushing for war which can only fuel the rise of more "radicals"... 

But one has to say, shock-jocks without the radicals would only be like a starving pack of crows crowing in the wilderness... We need to put the lid down on our aggression and make some mighty clever political moves that our stupid Abbott is unable to make because of his right-wing ideology and his desire to clamp down on the Australian people with new useless draconian laws. Idiocy reigns... Welcome to kingdom turd of Idiot country.

This is where the sad polls are in favour of: Turdy kingdom... imbecility is our currency and lead front pages of news... We need to be afraid, and the only thing we need to be afraid of is of doing something stupid — like wearing bright red underpants or going to war, with an idiot leading from the back.