Australia Ignores Cowards and Joins United States

[Jedi Knight]

Australia said today that it will stand by the United States (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/13/1047431130038.html) and assist in the disarming of Iraq by military force if necessary.

It is as I said. Moral men will stand when it is time.

JK

[corplinx]

America had 9-11, Britain had the ricin plot, Australia had many killed in Bali. I think Australia knows that terrorism does not need a good reason to strike you. Even though Hamas does not target Australians now, doesn't mean they should stick their heads in the sand.

For the record, France had a ship bombed in the persian gulf a while back and I think its safe to say they have surrendered.

[LillyThePink]

Hard as this may be for you to understand, JK, not everyone who disagrees with the war is doing so because they are afraid of fighting. After all, a lot of the people who are against the war have nothing to do with the military and are unlikely to have to go and fight anyway.

Some anti-war sentiment, JK, is nothing to do with cowardice or morality. Don't kid yourself that the US is going to war for the moral reasons they're trying to convince the public of now that they've failed by other methods.... if it was such a moral crusade, why wasn't that the first thing mentioned?

Some anti-war sentiment, JK, is based on reasoning, logic, and an appreciation for the irony of counting some people who commit atrocities as allies and treating others who commit the same atrocities as foes. Because of this irony, none of the reasons given for going to war ring true - and that's what causes some people to question what their government spews out for them to digest. So much spin, so little time.

[richardm]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
if it was such a moral crusade, why wasn't that the first thing mentioned?


Well, to be fair, in the infamous "Axis of Evil" speech Bush made in January 2002, he said:

North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children

... So the people living in those countries have always been kept in mind. I suppose that the concentration was on the WMD because the politicians assumed that people are usually so selfish they'd not be interested in saving foreign people, only in saving themselves.

[LillyThePink]

And the Saudis are lovely to all their citizens.
And China has no human rights issues
And Israel isn't being run by a criminal
And we didn't just let the Taliban get away with it (hell, we even helped them get into power) until someone living in their country actually took the fight to American soil. Or did we?


It just makes me tired. Have they found Bin Laden yet? Coz that was the most important thing ever at one point - yet no one metions it now. Could this smokescreen be to cover this failing? Are those people still being held without charge in Gitmo Bay? Coz I don't see that getting a lot of press these days either.... something else lost in the smoke?

Further to the Iraq thing - how many more do you think we've killed with 12 years of sanctions? Our hands are dirty too.

[richardm]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
And the Saudis are lovely to all their citizens.
And China has no human rights issues
And Israel isn't being run by a criminal
And we didn't just let the Taliban get away with it (hell, we even helped them get into power) until someone living in their country actually took the fight to American soil. Or did we?


Yeah. They're all crap too.


Further to the Iraq thing - how many more do you think we've killed with 12 years of sanctions? Our hands are dirty too.

But Lilly, what are we supposed to do? We can't continue to impose sanctions on Iraq because it will continue to kill civilians (NB only because Saddam isn't spending the money he earns from selling oil in the areas the sanctions tell him he should spend it). And if you believe what you read in the papers, nobody wants to relieve Iraq by force.

That leaves us with is nothing but diplomatic pressure. And we know how much effect that has.

I know, we've all been around the arguments a thousand times.

[Zep]

Well, as usual, JediKnight has it all wrong, based once again on completely inadequate facts. And since he doesn't appear to live here down under, perhaps he has missed some of the more uninteresting by-play here of recent days. Like these recent examples from Sydney alone over the last few days:
Student peace activists skip school and hit the streets (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/05/1046826443811.html)
Iraqi Australians: War splits a family (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/06/1046826475141.html)
PM speech sad, disgraceful (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6121029%255E1702,00.html)
PM dancing to US tune (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6120995%255E1702,00.html)
Iraq no threat to anyone: ex-analyst (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6120463%255E1702,00.html)
War would 'make us terror target' (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6120981%255E1702,00.html)
(Yes, there are other reports on John Howard's pro-war speech, but they are all the same as the one JK linked.)

Look, we're not all stupid down here, JK. You may be interested to know that the Australian PM does not have the full support of the majority of the people in this little escapade with Dubya. A UN-sanctioned assault, yes. All the way with the USA alone, no. The recent popularity polls are telling him this, and he is one of those politicians that spins with the polls wherever the wind blows. In other words, he has no mind of his own, so he will follow Dubya like a pet puppy!

And don't get me started personally on Dubya either - this is not the forum for that sort of talk.

Zep

[richardm]

Originally posted by Zep
You may be interested to know that the Australian PM does not have the full support of the majority of the people in this little escapade with Dubya. A UN-sanctioned assault, yes. All the way with the USA alone, no. The recent popularity polls are telling him this, and he is one of those politicians that spins with the polls wherever the wind blows. In other words, he has no mind of his own, so he will follow Dubya like a pet puppy!



.. So on the one hand the Australian Prime Minister spins with the polls wherever the wind blows.

On the other hand, the popularity polls are telling him that he shouldn't side with Dubya.

On the third hand he has no mind of his own and will follow Dubya like a pet puppy?

One of these hands cannot be right.

[LillyThePink]

richard, I'm the first one to hold my hands up and say that I DON'T KNOW what the answer is, just as I don't know what the answer is to the Arab/Israeli crisis.


BUT I do know that history shows us our Crusades in converting the infidel fail. You cannot expect to impose Western ideologies on a country that has been bombed to the dark ages and back. Even if Sadaam has a penchant for Quality Street. And part of the reason why the Western nations are seen as an enemy by these people is because we keep trying to do just that.

This is like the wolf asking the sheep "why do you hate me?" Our foreign policies, including our support for Israel have made us the bad guy (unsurprisingly) and for every Arab that you bomb into submission, you recruit another 3 for martyrdom.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by LillyThePink:
This is like the wolf asking the sheep "why do you hate me?" Our foreign policies, including our support for Israel have made us the bad guy (unsurprisingly) and for every Arab that you bomb into submission, you recruit another 3 for martyrdom.

Sorry, don't buy this at all. Arab fundies hate us because we espouse liberal, secular and democratic values, rather than the Sharia. The 9/11 hijackers were from prosperous backgrounds, like Bin Laden. Israel and Palestine never entered the equation for Bin Laden. He was annoyed because of the US military presence in Saudi Arabia.

I wonder how many of those happy, smiling Afghans we saw on the streets of Kabul after the overthrow of the Taliban have joined Al-Qaeda?

For the record I know what the answer to Islamic terrorism is. First we convert everyone to Islam. Then we slaughter anyone whoe refuses to do so. Then we shut down all our legislative and administrative centres. Ditto all non-islamic centres of worship. We convert both to mosques.

There'll be regular book-burnings.

What size burkha are you, Lilly?

[Troll]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
And the Saudis are lovely to all their citizens.
And China has no human rights issues
And Israel isn't being run by a criminal
And we didn't just let the Taliban get away with it (hell, we even helped them get into power) until someone living in their country actually took the fight to American soil. Or did we?


It just makes me tired. Have they found Bin Laden yet? Coz that was the most important thing ever at one point - yet no one metions it now. Could this smokescreen be to cover this failing? Are those people still being held without charge in Gitmo Bay? Coz I don't see that getting a lot of press these days either.... something else lost in the smoke?

Further to the Iraq thing - how many more do you think we've killed with 12 years of sanctions? Our hands are dirty too.

I knew it. Give ya enough rope and you'd hang yourself. For years upon years the US were the only ones bitching about china's human rights issues. Nobody else. But when it suits you you bring it up? Well sorry love, that suit doesn't fit ya since we've been wearing it and stretching it out for years.

By the way, haven't seen or heard from ya for a while. How's things in LillyThePink land?

[LillyThePink]

Troll, I don't think I have hung myself - I'm merely pointing out inconsistencies in the rhetoric of why we should all bomb Iraq.

I'm fine thanks... I thought you'd given this place up to be fair, troll, after your hissy fit at BTK.... good to see you're still roving the land as a balance to that crazy right-winger JK ;)

Shaun - since you said He was annoyed because of the US military presence in Saudi Arabia.
can you tell me why the Americans have a military presence in Saudi? I don't know the background and would be grateful.

I'm not going to respond to your remarks about everyone converting to Islam, since I'm assuming that you're being facetious.

[Troll]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Troll, I don't think I have hung myself - I'm merely pointing out inconsistencies in the rhetoric of why we should all bomb Iraq.

I'm fine thanks... I thought you'd given this place up to be fair, troll, after your hissy fit at BTK.... good to see you're still roving the land as a balance to that crazy right-winger JK ;)

Shaun - since you said can you tell me why the Americans have a military presence in Saudi? I don't know the background and would be grateful.

I'm not going to respond to your remarks about everyone converting to Islam, since I'm assuming that you're being facetious.

twas no hissy with Billy. I offorded him a wake up. I don't think he took me up on it though. I've posted more since then than he has.:D

We have a precense in SA because they basically can't fight a war and feared Hussein and asked us to be there.

Point. During Gulf 1, the Saudis were among the nations doing a rotation at the border.

Point, The Brits were to replace the Saudis at the border the next day.

Point. The battle at Kagi, Kahgie, sorry for the lack of spelling on the place, came about and the Saudis retreated to have British tanks pointed at them and teling them to get back to fight their own battle.

What's this mean? Saudis like other arab nation militaries are wussies.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by richardm



.. So on the one hand the Australian Prime Minister spins with the polls wherever the wind blows.

On the other hand, the popularity polls are telling him that he shouldn't side with Dubya.

On the third hand he has no mind of his own and will follow Dubya like a pet puppy?

One of these hands cannot be right.

I hate to say this about my fellow countrymen, but the level of debate in Australia on most public policy issues is usually pretty low.

I think you would find that a majority of people take it as given that GW wants to "steal the oil" :rolleyes:

[Zep]

.. So on the one hand the Australian Prime Minister spins with the polls wherever the wind blows.

On the other hand, the popularity polls are telling him that he shouldn't side with Dubya.

On the third hand he has no mind of his own and will follow Dubya like a pet puppy?

One of these hands cannot be right.
Quite correct! Quite inconsistent behaviour by the man. His political career has been almost entirely poll-driven. Spin-doctors galore for the past six years telling him what he should do to keep us happy. You should have seen some of the reversals...:rolleyes:

However when it comes to this particular issue, while the populace is generally ambivalent or definitely opposed, he suddenly grows big testicles and wants to parachute into Baghdad with Dubya (and presumably John Rambo) to take out the bad-guy with the black moustache. I mean, really! He's such a wimp! :D

Then again, I suppose that is consistent for the guy - he always seems to tag onto the biggest bully in the playground so that he doesn't get hurt himself. Not foreman material...

Zep

[richardm]

Originally posted by Zep

Quite correct! Quite inconsistent behaviour by the man. His political career has been almost entirely poll-driven. Spin-doctors galore for the past six years telling him what he should do to keep us happy. You should have seen some of the reversals...:rolleyes:


Uh-huh, well, we've had a similar sort of thing here, and I don't understand the complaint.

For years, people have said "Politicians don't listen".

So the government says "We're thinking about introducing such-and-such, what do you think?".

Consternation! People think it's the worst idea they've ever heard. Disaster! Complaints! Letters to the editor! Panic in the streets!

So the government says "Fair enough - we'll not do that then, okay?".

Consternation! "Government U-Turn!" Weak ministers! Letters to the editor... Harrumph.

Anyway, on this particular subject: Yes. Your PM is a consummate politician. He tells people what they want to hear. Everything is spun to put the best gloss on things. If people don't like it, there is room to change.

On this subject alone, he is pressing on regardless, despite it being so unpopular that it may spell the end of his career? What does that suggest about the current situation? That he wants to go out in a blaze of glory, or that he's suddenly realised that this is the correct course of action for Australia and is sticking to it regardless?

Let's face it, Australia could sit this one out - they're not on the UN Security Council. But they're putting their money (your money ;) ) where their mouth is.

[Zep]

I hate to say this about my fellow countrymen, but the level of debate in Australia on most public policy issues is usually pretty low.

I think you would find that a majority of people take it as given that GW wants to "steal the oil"
Quite true on the first point - sometimes our level of political debate is no higher than a snake's belly-button. :)

But it's not entirely true on the second. An equally prevalent view is that Dubya is motivated to finish off what his father was not allowed to do, ie. bomb Saddam to hell and back.

Childishly simplistic, I know, but that one is also prevalent in the USA as well, so my contacts there tell me. Rational debate like this forum is NOT common in the communities of Smallville USA. They still believe what the TV says. :)

Zep

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Troll


twas no hissy with Billy. I offorded him a wake up. I don't think he took me up on it though. I've posted more since then than he has.:D



Looked like one from where I was standing... ranting about smugness and civility... ;)

anyhooo... about their armies being wussies... is that why your lot keep selling them weapons and weapons technology? Are trying to make them more effective?

[Zep]

richardm, perhaps I've conveyed the wrong impression. John Howard has never had an original political idea in his life! He has never initiated anything forward-looking at all, let alone something that we could possibly object to. It certainly appears that his method has been to wait until the general populace has clamoured for something (or for a situation to go really horribly wrong through neglect and in need of fixing), and then taken it on board as his "own idea".

Basically, if we like something then he likes it too. So he has never led the wave of change, he has just surfed it!

The problem on this Iraqi issue is that he is indeed trying to put on the tough-guy mantle like his "good mate" Dubya. But it definitely doesn't suit him and now he is looking simply like a sucker-fish around the mouth of a whale-shark - handy ally for the moment but a breakfast nibble otherwise.

Yes, Australia could indeed sit this one out. To be honest, we can't see Iraq invading Australia - we have much more sand than they do, and far less oil. But they are welcome as visitors any time for a barbecue (prawns, not shrimp!). Who needs to bomb them??!

Zep

[The Fool]

Ok, If little Johnny Howard has not got the support of the majority of Australians I wonder how he keeps getting re-elected.

Currently, the Australian oposition cannot come up with a leader that is more popular than influenza....seeing as Australian politics has mostly gone down the US road and the election is a popularity contest between two leaders, until the labor party can find a suitable replacement for thier current leader I suspect howard may die of old age at 95, still in office, sometime later this century.

As for following the US like a pet puppy? Tell that to the sons and daughters of the americans that died in the pacific, notably in the battle of the coral sea, saving our a#se from the japanese...

"All the way with LBJ" comes to mind, that little effort got me shot at a few times. In hindsight, it was a stinking cockup..... I very much doubt Iraq have the resources, motivation and trees that allowed Vietnam to hold off the USA (and us) until they lost thier will to fight..... This one is going to be a lot lot quicker.

I ask all those that say Johnny is a joke to vote him out, I've heard it all before, he's still there.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by LillyThePink:
can you tell me why the Americans have a military presence in Saudi? I don't know the background and would be grateful.

AFAIK the US has been there since the last Gulf War at the request of the Saudis, due in no small part to their fear that Osama would overthrow their regime otherwise.

I'm not going to respond to your remarks about everyone converting to Islam, since I'm assuming that you're being facetious.

I was deadly serious. What else do you think the Islamofascists want?

[crocodile deathroll]

I do not know why America is screeming about France using its power of veto when it used it 29 times for Israel.
As for this John Howard, he is just a little ass licker

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by LillyThePink:


Sorry, don't buy this at all. Arab fundies hate us because we espouse liberal, secular and democratic values, rather than the Sharia. The 9/11 hijackers were from prosperous backgrounds, like Bin Laden. Israel and Palestine never entered the equation for Bin Laden. He was annoyed because of the US military presence in Saudi Arabia.

I wonder how many of those happy, smiling Afghans we saw on the streets of Kabul after the overthrow of the Taliban have joined Al-Qaeda?

For the record I know what the answer to Islamic terrorism is. First we convert everyone to Islam. Then we slaughter anyone whoe refuses to do so. Then we shut down all our legislative and administrative centres. Ditto all non-islamic centres of worship. We convert both to mosques.

There'll be regular book-burnings.

What size burkha are you, Lilly?

Good points as usual Shane.

To Islamic Fundies the very fact that people exist that do not bow down and acknowledge Muhammad as the last true prophet of God is an "affront to Islam."

Shane's sarcastic answer is right on the mark in a sense then.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by LillyThePink

Shaun - since you said can you tell me why the Americans have a military presence in Saudi? I don't know the background and would be grateful.



The Saudis requested US presence after the US used faked sattelite pictures to convince the saudis that Saddam was preparing to invade Saudi Arabia.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by armageddonman:
The Saudis requested US presence after the US used faked sattelite pictures to convince the saudis that Saddam was preparing to invade Saudi Arabia.

I suppose Saddam's very real invasion of Kuwait didn't influence the Saudi request at all?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by armageddonman



The Saudis requested US presence after the US used faked sattelite pictures to convince the saudis that Saddam was preparing to invade Saudi Arabia.

Wasn't that from a christian science monitor article that had very little proof of its assertions?

[Crossbow]

Excuse me, but faked satellite photos were not shown to the Saudis in order to get them to agree to become an active member of the coalition in the '91 Gulf War.

Normally, when other countries are provided with US recon satellite photos, the photos are blurred and distorted so that these governments will not know just how good the data really can be.

In this case, the Saudis were first shown these types of photos and they were not connvinced by them. Therefore, President Bush provided them with the actual photos which clearly showed the lines of tanks that were set up against the SA/Iraq border (note: there is a long standing border dispute between SA and Iraq that has never been fully resolved).

These photos along with a personal pledge from President Bush that the US would go all the way in the event that hostilities were to result from the crisis enabled the Saudis to publicly join the colation forces and to use their country to attack Iraq.

The Bob Woodward book, The Commanders, explains these events in much more detail.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zep

Quite true on the first point - sometimes our level of political debate is no higher than a snake's belly-button. :)

But it's not entirely true on the second. An equally prevalent view is that Dubya is motivated to finish off what his father was not allowed to do, ie. bomb Saddam to hell and back.

Childishly simplistic, I know, but that one is also prevalent in the USA as well, so my contacts there tell me. Rational debate like this forum is NOT common in the communities of Smallville USA. They still believe what the TV says. :)

Zep

Too right! In fact, they re-ran Crocodile Dundee on TBS last night. What a hoot! I love Paul Hogan. You're lucky he's so talented, since he's the only actor from Australia, except for that goofy embalmed-looking broad who married Tom Cruise.

Which reminds me... how far can you throw a boomerang? How much Fosters do you drink daily? How many shrimp can you fit on your "barbie"?

And, when oh WHEN will Men At Work release another album?

Childishly simplistic, I know. And about as accurate as your idea that Americans don't debate both sides of this question, politely and impolitely, in big cities and "Smallvilles," young and old, conservative and liberal, informed and uninformed.

[Doctor X]

Do not forget Lucy Lawless!! [New Zealand.--Ed.]

What province of Australia is that?

For the record, France had a ship bombed in the persian gulf a while back and I think its safe to say they have surrendered.

The French have already surrendered?!!!!

Heavens to Betsy. . . .

--J.D.

[crocodile deathroll]

To think at one time I used to despise the French for their nuclear testing in the Pacific but now they have shown real courage in joining in to the coalition of the killing. I am ashamed to be an Astralian to be a party to joining in this coalition

The real "cowards" here are the Americans they are so terrified of carrying a couple of dozen body bags home they have to fight this war like sissies sending in Tomahawk cruise missiles from a distance and bombing them from a great height with B52s for an over extended long period before they got boots to the ground.
If they really fought the war in Afghanistan with boots to the ground a lot earlier they would of captured the most wanted man.
But instead they persisted in sissy warfare and let him slip through.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
To think at one time I used to despise the French for their nuclear testing in the Pacific but now they have shown real courage in joining in to the coalition of the killing. I am ashamed to be an Astralian to be a party to joining in this coalition

The real "cowards" here are the Americans they are so terrified of carrying a couple of dozen body bags home they have to fight this war like sissies sending in Tomahawk cruise missiles from a distance and bombing them from a great height with B52s for an over extended long period before they got boots to the ground.
If they really fought the war in Afghanistan with boots to the ground a lot earlier they would of captured the most wanted man.
But instead they persisted in sissy warfare and let him slip through.

You are being illogical. War is not a sport. The people who flew civilian aircraft into the WTC were not sportsmen. War is never fair. That you even think this way proves that you have not thought about the issue at all. Like most anti-war people you have read nothing of the subject. You exhibit no knowledge of what you are speaking so fervently of.

Here's something that I think will educate you on a level you are more likely to understand. Link (http://www.grouchymedia.com/die_terrorists_die_download.cfm) Click the first link on the left and let it stream. ;)

-zilla

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by rikzilla


You are being illogical. War is not a sport. The people who flew civilian aircraft into the WTC were not sportsmen. War is never fair. That you even think this way proves that you have not thought about the issue at all. Like most anti-war people you have read nothing of the subject. You exhibit no knowledge of what you are speaking so fervently of.

Here's something that I think will educate you on a level you are more likely to understand. Link (http://www.grouchymedia.com/die_terrorists_die_download.cfm) Click the first link on the left and let it stream. ;)

-zilla

Hey Rik. ;)

Thnx for e-mailing me that link. It is the most hilarious mini-vid I have seen in a long time. I am sending it to all my army buddies.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Rik, empty out your PM box. It is full and no one can PM you now.

JK

[NullPointerException]

"To think at one time I used to despise the French for their nuclear testing in the Pacific but now they have shown real courage in joining in to the coalition of the killing. I am ashamed to be an Astralian to be a party to joining in this coalition "

Whats an Astralian?

Also, please point out one bad thing, besides the fact that Bush will get credit, when it comes to disposing of Saddam. Hes a belligerent egomaniac and his retardation isn't limited by a term. At least we are garunteed to get rid of bush in at least 3 years, 2 if we are lucky. I figure hell be impeached by the democratic house/congress next time if he gets reelected.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
If they really fought the war in Afghanistan with boots to the ground a lot earlier they would of captured the most wanted man.
But instead they persisted in sissy warfare and let him slip through.

That is laughable and remarkably is the result of leftism. Now you may be surprised that I said that, but leftist whining and complaining created the very Air Force capability that the United States uses.

In Vietnam the left marched and protested because of "casualties" on the battlefield. The left marched so many times that the US government and military planners said: "OK, let's make a few adjustments to protect the troops on the ground more so the leftists don't whine about it."

But gosh, now leftists whine that not enough ground soldiers are dying on the battefield. That is pretty funny. Or maybe the only time troops from the US should die, according to the left, is when there is a Republican President in office. Then the left warms to US soldiers dying.

JK

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is laughable and remarkably is the result of leftism. Now you may be surprised that I said that, but leftist whining and complaining created the very Air Force capability that the United States uses.

In Vietnam the left marched and protested because of "casualties" on the battlefield. The left marched so many times that the US government and military planners said: "OK, let's make a few adjustments to protect the troops on the ground more so the leftists don't whine about it."

But gosh, now leftists whine that not enough ground soldiers are dying on the battefield. That is pretty funny. Or maybe the only time troops from the US should die, according to the left, is when there is a Republican President in office. Then the left warms to US soldiers dying.

JK

It is a cold hard fact that America's dream of succeeding with just air power alone is now dead in the water. They felt that after their successes in the Balkans they may get the emery to surrender an wave up their white flags before a single American boot stepped on the ground.

I am sorry, but that is an American fantasy, and they may have to have a long drawn out dirty urban guerilla war campaign on the streets of Baghdad with the bitter pill of American casualties before the war is over. Either that or just get out and leave it half finished they did with most of their past foreign incursions, Vietnam, Somalia the last gulf war etc etc

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


It is a cold hard fact that America's dream of succeeding with just air power alone is now dead in the water. They felt that after their successes in the Balkans they may get the emery to surrender an wave up their white flags before a single American boot stepped on the ground.

I am sorry, but that is an American fantasy, and they may have to have a long drawn out dirty urban guerilla war campaign on the streets of Baghdad with the bitter pill of American casualties before the war is over. Either that or just get out and leave it half finished they did with most of their past foreign incursions, Vietnam, Somalia the last gulf war etc etc

In 1991 Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world and US air-power brought it to its knees in 3 weeks. The Iraqi soldiers couldn't surrender fast enough.

When US forces surround the Iraqi capital the Iraqi army will surrender. There may be small pockets of resistance at the squad level, but US Army Rangers can deal with that easily.

Iraq will completely fall in less than 3 weeks, IMO, and the US soldiers that head into the capital will be celebrated by the Iraqi people as heroes.

JK

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
"To think at one time I used to despise the French for their nuclear testing in the Pacific but now they have shown real courage in joining in to the coalition of the killing. I am ashamed to be an Astralian to be a party to joining in this coalition "

Whats an Astralian?

Also, please point out one bad thing, besides the fact that Bush will get credit, when it comes to disposing of Saddam. Hes a belligerent egomaniac and his retardation isn't limited by a term. At least we are garunteed to get rid of bush in at least 3 years, 2 if we are lucky. I figure hell be impeached by the democratic house/congress next time if he gets reelected.

Excuse the spelling but.
It was also just a little family score he had to settle with Saddam with he attempted to assinate his dad
"He tried to kill my daddy http://216.40.249.192/s/otn/sad/mecry.gif he cried. (Sounds like part of script for a bad B grade western)

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight



Iraq will completely fall in less than 3 weeks, IMO, and the US soldiers that head into the capital will be celebrated by the Iraqi people as heroes.

JK

Maybe / maybe not, but what about Iran with their nuclear reactor?
Don't you think all this war business will get a little too expensive or does the American economy thrive on belligerent foreign policy?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


Maybe / maybe not, but what about Iran with their nuclear reactor?
Don't you think all this war business will get a little too expensive or does the American economy thrive on belligerent foreign policy?

I don't think the US military will even need to go into Iran. Iranian young people are ready to free themselves now. Iran could go any time.

JK

[Zep]

Hey folks! Isn't this thread a little bit too much off track now? I thought it was about Australian involvement in the current Middle East situation, not a discussion on US political will and military capability.

Too right! In fact, they re-ran Crocodile Dundee on TBS last night. What a hoot! I love Paul Hogan. You're lucky he's so talented, since he's the only actor from Australia, except for that goofy embalmed-looking broad who married Tom Cruise.

Which reminds me... how far can you throw a boomerang? How much Fosters do you drink daily? How many shrimp can you fit on your "barbie"?

And, when oh WHEN will Men At Work release another album?

Childishly simplistic, I know. And about as accurate as your idea that Americans don't debate both sides of this question, politely and impolitely, in big cities and "Smallvilles," young and old, conservative and liberal, informed and uninformed.

Ho ho! :) Obviously you missed the irony... OF COURSE there is no such thing as the "average American", the same way ol' grandpa Hogan is not your typical Aussie (nor is that Crocodile Clown, incidentally). OF COURSE there is intelligent political debate in the US - more than there is here most of the time anyway. But the IMPRESSION HERE is that Dubya is getting his political feedback and positioning data from naive little "Smallville", not from the centres for intelligence. And that means it is a political issue internally, not just US foreign policy and security.

Of course, JK comes to the wrong conclusions from inadequate data AGAIN. OK, Iraq may be the "fourth largest army in the world", but by what measure? If you count the actual bodies "recruited" then you count much of the eligible male population of Iraq - that's a few million, I understand. But if you count the well trained and armed core services then it's only tens of thousands at most.

This certainly explains the droves of Iraqi soldiers surrendering in 1991 - they were all under-clothed, under-fed, under-armed conscripts who were forced to serve at gunpoint by their own officers. They knew they would actually be allowed to live off US largesse and ultimately go home if they surrendered. A highly practical and obvious solution under the circumstances!

So yes, Baghdad will fall rapidly if attacked by the US. Yes, the special forces will have to mop up a few diehards. No, they will have no real answers for the smart-bombs and stealth aircraft. Of course some civilian casualties will occur, but that's Saddam's fault, not the US. Yay for the Marines, Semper Fidelis, etc, see you in Baghdad next week.

But what's the expected result? A population currently indifferent for the most part with the US will have their worst nightmares realised and become a pain in the ass for the occupation forces. The US will have to continue to commit forces and resources to the arena to even maintain the status quo of "peace". The neighbours will not like the new tenants next door either - they already don't like the sound of them before they arrived. And finally, just like Bin Laden, there is no guarantee the "bad guy" will be caught or even have his wings clipped - he's a cunning and ruthless robber-baron who has outwitted much more crafty attempts on his life than this one.

So surely there are better solutions to this than just smart bombs? To be honest, there's nothing "smart" about a "smart bomb" either. It is, after all, a bomb, and it does what bombs do best - goes BANG and destroys stuff and people. Is that the answer to everything these days - blow them away?

Zep

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
To think at one time I used to despise the French for their nuclear testing in the Pacific but now they have shown real courage in joining in to the coalition of the killing. I am ashamed to be an Astralian to be a party to joining in this coalition

The real "cowards" here are the Americans they are so terrified of carrying a couple of dozen body bags home they have to fight this war like sissies sending in Tomahawk cruise missiles from a distance and bombing them from a great height with B52s for an over extended long period before they got boots to the ground.
If they really fought the war in Afghanistan with boots to the ground a lot earlier they would of captured the most wanted man.
But instead they persisted in sissy warfare and let him slip through.

Of course makes perfect sense...
The US should never use its technology in warfare. To prove we are not "sissies" I urge our troops to fight with swords and suits of armour. :p

[Skeptic]

The real "cowards" here are the Americans they are so terrified of carrying a couple of dozen body bags home they have to fight this war like sissies sending in Tomahawk cruise missiles from a distance and bombing them from a great height with B52s for an over extended long period before they got boots to the ground.

Well, this wins "idiotic statement of the week", for obvious reasons...

[Skeptic]

Of course makes perfect sense...
The US should never use its technology in warfare. To prove we are not "sissies" I urge our troops to fight with swords and suits of armour. :p

And BLINDFOLDED!

And with ONE HAND TIED BEHIND THEIR BACK!

Hey, what are the lives of a few lousy soldiers, compared to the awful shame of some Australian idiot calling the USA "sissies", because they don't fight like in those cool Rambo movies?

I mean, how would US honor ever recover from THAT?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


In 1991 Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world and US air-power brought it to its knees in 3 weeks. The Iraqi soldiers couldn't surrender fast enough.

When US forces surround the Iraqi capital the Iraqi army will surrender. There may be small pockets of resistance at the squad level, but US Army Rangers can deal with that easily.

Iraq will completely fall in less than 3 weeks, IMO, and the US soldiers that head into the capital will be celebrated by the Iraqi people as heroes.

JK

The Iraq army fell so quickly because, while saddam may be able to inspire terror in his citizens, he can't inspire loyalty.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Zep
So surely there are better solutions to this than just smart bombs? To be honest, there's nothing "smart" about a "smart bomb" either. It is, after all, a bomb, and it does what bombs do best - goes BANG and destroys stuff and people. Is that the answer to everything these days - blow them away?

Zep

What solutions has leftist "enlightenment" provided? Leave Saddam in power so he can supply terrorist groups with WMD to attack the United States?

I think the left was becoming more and more addicted to seeing innocent Amricans and Jews in Israel being blown apart in a variety of ways by radical islamist terrorists and the nation-states like Iraq that support them.

Leftist inaction and indecision is latent hate for the United States. If the left wasn't so indecisive, the world wouldn't be at the the blowing point it is now. The problems with North Korea and the middle east are holdovers from leftism.

That said, it is dishonest to protest the use of bombs, since leftism created the conditions requiring their use.

JK

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I don't think the US military will even need to go into Iran. Iranian young people are ready to free themselves now. Iran could go any time.

JK

What makes you so sure of that after GWB's idiotic comment about naming Iran as one of his so called "axis of evil"

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The Iraq army fell so quickly because, while saddam may be able to inspire terror in his citizens, he can't inspire loyalty.


I guess Saddam never read Machiavelli.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


What makes you so sure of that after GWB's idiotic comment about naming Iran as one of his so called "axis of evil"

President Bush's comments about Iran were simply a perfect truth.

Now if a leftist were to "scold" Iran (that is all Iran would get no matter what type of behavior the nation-state expressed), the left would say: "Oh Iran, how have we angered you? Yes, we can make sure all of the US citizens are told over and over why it is America's fault. Even we are not really sure why you think it is America's fault, but since you are a foreign culture and we are leftist Americans, simply by your country saying there is a problem requires us to kick in our brain-washing "celebrate" the "multiculturalism and diversity" agenda on every American because it must be America's fault. So how about we give you $100 billion for nothing, ignore your arms shipments to the terrorist Hezbollah organization in Syria, ignore your nuclear enrichment plant you just constructed and "celebrate" your culture's absolute hatred and call to action to destroy the state of Israel. We will "celebrate" anything that you do, no matter how outrageous." (leftist thought in a nutshell about Iran and other axis of evil states)

That is why President Bush is the man, and why leftism must be tossed into the garbage can of bad ideas.

JK

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Rik, empty out your PM box. It is full and no one can PM you now.

JK

Done...my "sent" box was full....didn't know to chk that one :o

[Doctor X]

I must confess I find it singularly vulgar and cowardly to sit safe and secure behind a computer screen and speculate irresponsibly about the courage of men fighting a war.

If one is "unhappy" with the results of aggression against a greater military power then one would do well to behave better.

--J.D.

[Zep]

I must confess I find it singularly vulgar and cowardly to sit safe and secure behind a computer screen and speculate irresponsibly about the courage of men fighting a war.

Wrong target sighted.

The courage and the will of the US soldier and military is not in question here. The question is whether it is actually a "war" yet on which their undoubted courage, and that of their allies too, SHOULD be spent just now.

Get this straight: No-one, with very few exceptions anywhere in the world, supports or even likes Saddam Hussein. The guy is an utterly ruthless, conniving and lying two-faced robber-baron thief and deserves every bit of retribution coming to him. But it should be the Iraqis giving him the bullet (literally). They probably have the strongest grievances of all - how many of them have been forced to flee their homeland or have died at his hand? Literally tens of thousands - they come to America and Australia and Britain and other places simply to live.

So when GWB produces solid hard public evidence then I'm sure the US will find a lot more willing allies ready to add their own courageous soldiers to the list as well.

Zep

[Doctor X]

Unfortunately, my target was correct.

Get this straight:

I required no redirection.

No-one, with very few exceptions anywhere in the world, supports or even likes Saddam Hussein.

Other than the French, Germans, . . .

I am afraid their support of him, yes support, rather impeaches their credibility.

The guy is an utterly ruthless, conniving and lying two-faced robber-baron thief and deserves every bit of retribution coming to him. But it should be the Iraqis giving him the bullet (literally). They probably have the strongest grievances of all - how many of them have been forced to flee their homeland or have died at his hand?

Ah, yet this is an argument to deal with him. With regards to the Iraqis "dealing" with him, unfortunately, the man is not a fool when it comes to his security. "We" cannot wait for them to take care of him.

So when GWB produces solid hard public evidence then I'm sure the US will find a lot more willing allies ready to add their own courageous soldiers to the list as well.

He rather has. It seems that France is more than happy to make this an issue about whether or not she can protect her economic interests and hem-in American power.

Furthermore, other countries know that the "cops"--US and Britain and Co.--will, should "something bad happen" take care of the problem for them.

Appeasement is easy when one is not the first to suffer the consequences of its foolishness.

Now, to return to my targeted comment, I find questioning the valor of soldier in such a manner, from such a position of ignorance, rather unseemly.

--J.D.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


President Bush's comments about Iran were simply a perfect truth.

Now if a leftist were to "scold" Iran (that is all Iran would get no matter what type of behavior the nation-state expressed), the left would say: "Oh Iran, how have we angered you? Yes, we can make sure all of the US citizens are told over and over why it is America's fault. Even we are not really sure why you think it is America's fault, but since you are a foreign culture and we are leftist Americans, simply by your country saying there is a problem requires us to kick in our brain-washing "celebrate" the "multiculturalism and diversity" agenda on every American because it must be America's fault. So how about we give you $100 billion for nothing, ignore your arms shipments to the terrorist Hezbollah organization in Syria, ignore your nuclear enrichment plant you just constructed and "celebrate" your culture's absolute hatred and call to action to destroy the state of Israel. We will "celebrate" anything that you do, no matter how outrageous." (leftist thought in a nutshell about Iran and other axis of evil states)

That is why President Bush is the man, and why leftism must be tossed into the garbage can of bad ideas.

JK

Would you prefer to drop the United Nations charter altogether and replace with a world that is ruled by an American military police force?

BTW, I would trash this into the garbage can of bad ideas.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


Would you prefer to drop the United Nations charter altogether and replace with a world that is ruled by an American military police force?

Certainly! After all, evey succesful UN "peace keeping" action, EVER, was due to the "UN" force being mainly american.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Certainly! After all, evey succesful UN "peace keeping" action, EVER, was due to the "UN" force being mainly american.


East Timor?

[mbp]

Originally posted by Skeptic

After all, evey succesful UN "peace keeping" action, EVER, was due to the "UN" force being mainly american.
Has any "peace keeping" action ever been mainly american?

[Zep]

Doctor X: Other than the French, Germans, . . . I am afraid their support of him, yes support, rather impeaches their credibility.

Sorry, but I do fear you have confused "lack of support for the USA" as being the same as "support for Saddam Hussein". The old "if yer not with us then yer agin' us" mentality. Sure, France and Russia were quite negative about being involved in this fracas, and true, they have oil deals with Iraq. But the USA has oil deals with Iraq too, the latest of which was apparently made just before the war started (guess what the Bush family does to earn money!). So why does this make France and the others not credible? What about ALL the other countries that were similarly not supportive? Are they not credible too?

Ah, yet this is an argument to deal with him. With regards to the Iraqis "dealing" with him, unfortunately, the man is not a fool when it comes to his security. "We" cannot wait for them to take care of him.

Umm, who is "we" and what are "we" waiting for that is so urgent all of a sudden that we absolutely need to invade another country by military force? Terrorists? Know why snakes don't get trodden on by elephants? They hear them stomping along from miles away and hide REAL good... I'll bet there isn't a single genuine terrorist within thousands of miles of Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

Appeasement is easy when one is not the first to suffer the consequences of its foolishness.
Well, my first comment would be about the Christian ethic, of which GWB is so enormously and publicly proud, of turning the other cheek, but anyway...:rolleyes:

Where did I say anything about appeasment? Where did I say nothing should be done? What I have been trying to find out is why there have been no intermediate measures between an easily fooled and ineffectual UN inspection charade and an all-out national invasion and war. Surely there must have been a range of effective but far less drastic measures that could have been taken? Even a political assassination or two would have been easy to arrange, and less fuss and bother (and way less expensive and dangerous). Which leads me to the conclusion that this war was intended as an object lesson for somebody ... although I'm not sure for who! ;)

Yes, Doctor X, I do think you need redirection. I repeat: I'm not calling the valour, courage or reputation of the US fighting soldier into question here. His political masters, sadly, are a different matter.

Zep

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Zep

Where did I say nothing should be done? What I have been trying to find out is why there have been no intermediate measures between an easily fooled and ineffectual UN inspection charade and an all-out national invasion and war. Surely there must have been a range of effective but far less drastic measures that could have been taken? Even a political assassination or two would have been easy to arrange, and less fuss and bother (and way less expensive and dangerous).

You know, this is one of the common suggestions by the anti-war people... "There must be another way". But, I've never heard of any credible suggetions. (Most suggest an increase in inspections, but 2 almost-useless inspectors are not much more likely to find something as 1 almost-useless inspectors.)

You figure with on a planet with billions of people, and millions of politicians and other leaders, if a good suggestion was out there, someone would suggest one.

A few people here have made suggestions, but I don't really think they're practical. For example, in your 'assasination' suggestion, if you knock out Saddam (if you were ever able to), you would likely end up with one of his sons in power (and they are probably as bad as he is.)

Originally posted by Zep

Which leads me to the conclusion that this war was intended as an object lesson for somebody ... although I'm not sure for who! ;)

I think there may be some truth to that (although I doubt its the main reason). Could be a message to Syria or Iran, or even Saudi Arabia... "quit supporting terrorists"

[Zep]

Segnosaur: You know, this is one of the common suggestions by the anti-war people...
I wonder why they would do that...
Segnosaur: You figure with on a planet with billions of people, and millions of politicians and other leaders, if a good suggestion was out there, someone would suggest one.
There have been, in fact, quite a number of alternatives offered - some inane, some silly, but also some with potential. But the point is: Would people like Dubya be listening??? The media, also, loves a good war! Ratings will soar!
Segnosaur: A few people here have made suggestions, but I don't really think they're practical. For example, in your 'assasination' suggestion, if you knock out Saddam (if you were ever able to), you would likely end up with one of his sons in power (and they are probably as bad as he is.)
What is the difference between blowing up the whole Hussein family in one place with a single cheap explosive, and spending billions on bombing the s--t out of the whole country, to achieve exactly the same goal???

The CIA and other US agencies have been arranging very cheap and successful overthrows of undesirable governments and tinpot dictators for decades (so they tell us, anyway!). What makes Saddam so different that he requires a full-scale military invasion? Are we THAT scared if him?

Segnosaur: Could be a message to Syria or Iran, or even Saudi Arabia... "quit supporting terrorists" I don't think they will be taking any notice of such threats. Such "logical thinking" is purely a Western psychology, not that of the Middle and Far East. In fact, invading a next-door Islamic neighbour, enemy or otherwise, may have created more tension and vengeful thoughts in these regions, not calmed them down.

Zep