Be careful what you wish for in Tunisia

While most kind hearted people would naturally rejoice at the implosion of a corrupt brutal dictatorship, when you scratch the surface at the goings on in Tunisia, you can't help but get the feeling that nothing will change for the better. This sentiment seems to be best described by The Independent columnist Robert Fisk. Ive linked his article here , but I'd just like to highlight some of his points that especially resonate with me;

The French and the Germans and the Brits, dare we mention this, always praised the dictator for being a "friend" of civilised Europe, keeping a firm hand on all those Islamists. Tunisians won't forget this little history, even if we would like them to.
Yes, we would like a democracy in Tunisia – but not too much democracy. Remember how we wanted Algeria to have a democracy back in the early Nineties?

Then when it looked like the Islamists might win the second round of voting, we supported its military-backed government in suspending elections and crushing the Islamists and initiating a civil war in which 150,000 died.

No, in the Arab world, we want law and order and stability. Even in Hosni Mubarak's corrupt and corrupted Egypt, that's what we want. And we will get it.

It's the same old problem for us in the West. We mouth the word "democracy" and we are all for fair elections – providing the Arabs vote for whom we want them to vote for.

In Algeria 20 years ago, they didn't. In "Palestine" they didn't. And in Lebanon, because of the so-called Doha accord, they didn't. So we sanction them, threaten them and warn them about Iran and expect them to keep their mouths shut when Israel steals more Palestinian land for its colonies on the West Bank.

Ben Ali has fled. The search is now on for a more pliable dictator in Tunisia – a "benevolent strongman" as the news agencies like to call these ghastly men.

And the shooting will go on – as it did yesterday in Tunisia – until "stability" has been restored.

So what is likely to emerge when the dust settles in Tunisia? Another pro west strong man, or if we let the people actually decide their own fate, they may elect the previously banned Islamic Party? Dear oh dear, indeed be very careful what you wish for.......

the cruelty of sanctions against Iran

While the (increasingly ineffectual and incompetent Obama led) United States pats itself on the back over its sanctions against Iran, today we can see the human cost of this sanctions regime. On January the 9th, Iran Air Flight 277 crashed killing at least 77 passengers. In fact 17 planes have crashed over the last 25 years killing approx 1,500 people, primarily because the US forbids Boeing to sell crucially needed parts to Iranian airlines.
But we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that these sanctions are actually achieving something, studies by serious academics tend to show otherwise.  According to studies by Akbar E. Torbat, "overall, the sanctions' economic effect on Iran has been significant, while its political effect has been minimal". So in other words, we've achieved nothing other than hurting innocent human beings?
So while the US tries its best to turn the proud Persian people into another Cuba, all they seem to be doing is strengthening the "security and military apparatus" of the State....and we know no good will ever come from that!

wikileaks placing troops in harms way?

While Wikileaks has gone out of its way to show that not one person has been physically harmed from the release of classified US documents in order to counter the US position that the documents pose a "potential risk" to US forces. I would go one step further however, I would argue that so what if US troops do get attacked?
If the US Government invades foreign nations, and classified documents subsequently reveal that they were acting with duplicity and were essentially unconcerned about the civilians of the conquered nation that they were slaughtering, and should this cause outrage and attacks on military targets that kill Americans, well I consider that fair game. It's a terrible thing no doubt, but as the Americans say, it's "collateral damage". Isn't it better that genuine military targets get fired on rather than an outraged suicide bomber blowing themselves up in Grand Central Station?

absurdity of being a Constitutional Monarchy

While it appears that Australians are completely comfortable with Australia remaining a Constitutional Monarchy and not becoming a Republic, what really riles me up is the insidious practice of creating a fiction to show that we're already an independent country with no legal ties (in reality) to the old country. Oh really? Well without rehashing the whole Republic debate here (the for and against arguments have been done to death over the last 15-20 years), I will just say that the Governor-General is NOT our Head of State, he is the Queen's Viceroy (as I call him), or if you prefer the correct description (as stated on my passport) "the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, being the representative in Australia of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second". The G-G does NOT receive the full class A diplomatic recognition as the Head of State, indeed he/she gets the B treatment as a mere "representative" of the TRUE  Head of State, our glorious benevolent Queen.
But if you think this is no big deal (in reality), what would happen then should the US ask us to be part of a "coalition of the willing" to invade a Commonwealth Country? Sound fanciful? It may've been airbrushed from the public consciousness, but the US invaded Grenada in 1983 (to the public disgust of the Thatcher Govt). The Queen is the "Commander and Chief" of the Australian armed forces, yet we would be invading ourselves under this scenario.
There's so many of these types of scenarios I could point to which show how ridiculous Australia being a Constitutional Monarchy truly is, but is there anything more absurd than invading yourself?