I don't think Iraq has any banned weapons.

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power
Only because your Prime Minister is sensible. He knows the world will eventually come around and support the United States and Britain, so why not jump on the bandwagon now and look like a true friend? It'll probably help down the line.

I'm talking in broader policy sense, rather than a 'war on terror' sense.

Australian focus has moved significantly away from South East Asia in the last six years - in terms of economic, relations, intelligence and a host of other areas.

As a result, Al Qaeda infiltration through the region has occured effectively right under our noses - and we never saw it coming until October this year.

With regard to your other comments - it would be interesting to see the response. We have the advantage of being far enough away to be out of range, but in terms of Europe I think you'd find it would strengthen resolve, particularly for NATO partners. I think you'd also find the Arab countries would shut right up if something like that happened - cripes, could you imagine the rhetoric then?

Israel, and possibly Iran, are going to be the targets...

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man
I'm talking in broader policy sense, rather than a 'war on terror' sense.

Australian focus has moved significantly away from South East Asia in the last six years - in terms of economic, relations, intelligence and a host of other areas.

Although since I live here in the midwest and we only hear stuff about America, from what I've heard in the last few years, Southeast Asia is basically quiet -- especially in comparison to the situation in Israel. Granted, the Bali bombing was a bit of a wakeup call, but there's not many terrorist attacks still going on. The countries in the area are getting poorer, though, and Australia seems more well-off. Perhaps Australia is pulling a Volkswagen and moving upmarket.

With regard to your other comments - it would be interesting to see the response. We have the advantage of being far enough away to be out of range,

True, of missles ('weapons of mass destruction'), which I still think Saddam does not posess, but there's always the threat of that one sarin attack, or that one suitcase nuclear weapon -- and not only in Australia, of course, but in Europe and North America.

but in terms of Europe I think you'd find it would strengthen resolve, particularly for NATO partners.

I don't. I think British citizens would want Blair's head. "You put us in Iraq and then this happens..." blah blah blah. I don't even think the initial response would be strengthened resolve. I think it'd immediately be "pull out."

Israel, and possibly Iran, are going to be the targets...

A friend of mine was talking about how the Arab world should unite and put an oil embargo on President Bush and "seriously get things started" as he said it. Although I told him that Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait would never ally, and that that would turn into a world war, if it were done it might seriously make President Bush question the power he's grown to love.

He's only in his first term and he's already power hungry.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power


Although since I live here in the midwest and we only hear stuff about America, from what I've heard in the last few years, Southeast Asia is basically quiet -- especially in comparison to the situation in Israel. Granted, the Bali bombing was a bit of a wakeup call, but there's not many terrorist attacks still going on. The countries in the area are getting poorer, though, and Australia seems more well-off. Perhaps Australia is pulling a Volkswagen and moving upmarket.

A friend of mine was talking about how the Arab world should unite and put an oil embargo on President Bush and "seriously get things started" as he said it. Although I told him that Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait would never ally, and that that would turn into a world war, if it were done it might seriously make President Bush question the power he's grown to love.

He's only in his first term and he's already power hungry. [/B]

I wouldn't worry too much about them uniting - look at OPEC.

In terms of South East Asia, there's been a large increase in religious violence over the last three or four years, particularly boming of churches and mosques. There continues to be a power vacuum in Indonesia post Suherto (sp? I couldn't be bothered looking it up), and the archipelago landform of the region from the Phillipines south lends itself to clandestine travel.

 

[slip2rock]

Speaking as a Brit the general feeling over here is we really don't want to do this. We don't want to go to war and going in to Iraq without reasons other than "they may have this or that" and "he's a nut" so we have to take him and his weapons out kind of sticks in our throats. However, if there's going to be a war then we would prefer to go along and get it over with and make sure it was done properly.

On a point raised earlier, I was rather under the impression that there was likely to be very little (if any) collusion between the Taliban and Iraq. I know they're both Muslim, but the Taliban have major issues with Saddam and are as likely to kill him as anything / anyone else.... Prehaps someone has comment or links supporting / negating this?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by slip2rock

On a point raised earlier, I was rather under the impression that there was likely to be very little (if any) collusion between the Taliban and Iraq. I know they're both Muslim, but the Taliban have major issues with Saddam and are as likely to kill him as anything / anyone else.... Prehaps someone has comment or links supporting / negating this?

Eh. Compared to Saddam, the Taliban are ineffectual, disorganised, and pathetic. Saddam could wipe them all off the face of the Earth.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man
I wouldn't worry too much about them uniting - look at OPEC.

The major problem, of course, is that we get ALL our oil from the Mideast. Venezula sucks, yes Venezula sucks, because Hugo Chavez is unable to control anything that occurs within its borders, and for some reason Russia hasn't tapped the oil within its borders. What happened to ANWR?

In terms of South East Asia, there's been a large increase in religious violence over the last three or four years, particularly boming of churches and mosques. There continues to be a power vacuum in Indonesia post Suherto (sp? I couldn't be bothered looking it up), and the archipelago landform of the region from the Phillipines south lends itself to clandestine travel.

Pfft, I don't hear anything about that. The media is more concerned with Israel. When I lived in the area of Southeast Asia (for seventeen years) I guess I becamed so accustomed to it that it became nothing when I moved out here so I thought nothing was going on.

 

[slip2rock]

Originally posted by M5Power
Eh. Compared to Saddam, the Taliban are ineffectual, disorganised, and pathetic. Saddam could wipe them all off the face of the Earth.

Hmmm... which might suggest that the US might like to ask Iraq to do it for them seeing as the US has had only partial success so far?



joke!

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by B Campbell
Huh? I didn't make any claims in the message you quoted. I just asked you a question. Maybe you're not reading very thoroughly; in fact, that would explain quite a bit.

I was just basically saying I'm not wasting my time anymore with this or with people who can't behave according to the rules set forth by the forum moderators. I was saying it in terms you seem to understand. Maybe I should have taken off the last part of the sentence about the claims but I'm guessing you would have slammed me for not quoting him correctly.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by B Campbell
edit: Thanks Talentless, though I'm curious as to why you never corrected DGB in his several typos of that same word earlier.

I first put up the correction to whomever in post 96.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Concept
Yes, to my knowledge they do. Either Germany or Russia. The United States of America has over 17,000 weapons of mass destruction. Why are other countires not attacking us? I know why, because their leaders are not stupid like Bush is.

No. It's because they'd be dead.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by Concept
I think Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. So what if they do though? Why don't we attack a country like Germany or Japan? Both of them have weapons of mass destruction. I don't see why we are just focusing on Iraq. Why does it matter anyway? I wish Bush would just leave everyone alone and worry about his own country and quit trying to govern others.

Because not everyone can be trusted, and a universal policy is fantasia and arrogant. Were undesirables to acquire these weapons, interests could be hampered, even destroyed.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by M5Power
If Saddam was really smart, when he got attacked "unilaterally," he'd immediately turn around and use his weapons on, not Israel, not the US, but instead countries like France, Great Britain, and (sorry vat_man) Australia. What this would do is cause these nation's people to fall into two categories:

- A: "We got attacked, so let's fight back harder"
- B: "We got attacked. We should have never gone in in the first place. Let's pull out before more citizens die."

Maybe I underestimated Aussies, the French, and Brits, but I have a feeling most would fall into group B. Scary, isn't it?

Nah. I don't think those countries would recoil from Saddam, or anyone for that matter. It's analogous to WWII; America didn't want to get into the European war but Japan's surprise attack and Hitler's declaring war on America helped drag us in. We didn't just run and hide and I don't think any self respecting nation would.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by M5Power
Here's what I hear about the media in Iraq. "The media portrays Saddam Hussein as a hero"... "The media says the United States is evil" ... "The media says Saddam hides nothing."

So what do I hear from my own media? CNN, FNC, etc? "George W Bush is a hero to the American community" ... "Iraq is evil" ... "President Bush spares nothing in pursuing Hussein, who obviously has the weapons."

Both sides are so obviously biased, it's hard to get past the crappy spin that goes on constantly. President Bush, though, has made it clear that no matter what Hussein does, he believes that Hussein has weapons and refuses to show them to him. Where, then, are they? I'm sick of the deceiving!

Who isn't sick of the deceit? It's nothing new.Bush and Saddam are nothing special. It's just a big pissing contest with millions of lives at stake.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by M5Power
Here's what I hear about the media in Iraq. "The media portrays Saddam Hussein as a hero"... "The media says the United States is evil" ... "The media says Saddam hides nothing."

So what do I hear from my own media? CNN, FNC, etc? "George W Bush is a hero to the American community" ... "Iraq is evil" ... "President Bush spares nothing in pursuing Hussein, who obviously has the weapons."

Both sides are so obviously biased, it's hard to get past the crappy spin that goes on constantly. President Bush, though, has made it clear that no matter what Hussein does, he believes that Hussein has weapons and refuses to show them to him. Where, then, are they? I'm sick of the deceiving!

Bias is inescapable. Simply because objective reporting can be seen as biased. But the factor which may help some is whether or not the media is state-controlled or independent. Too many people assume independent means truth. Independent means that you cannot pin down what the bias is until you've read a fair bit. State-controlled means it says what will keep the state strong or make the state stronger.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by Concept
Again, I wish Bush would just leave Iraq alone. Did they do anything to us? No. To be honest, I am sort of scared about going to war with Iraq. They have weapons of mass destruction, no doubt about it, whose to say they won't use them in the war?

There are always negative consequences that can occur. But unless you believe all the nations with or seeking wmd to be disinterested in picking fights with the US, waiting can have worse, unstoppable consequences.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Concept
Again, I wish Bush would just leave Iraq alone. Did they do anything to us? No. To be honest, I am sort of scared about going to war with Iraq. They have weapons of mass destruction, no doubt about it, whose to say they won't use them in the war?

If they are stupid enough to use them then they will most certainly suffer the worst of all consequences. It's called "deterent." America could utterly incinerate Iraq and all it's allies many, many times over. And I believe Bush would do it if sufficiently provoked. That's why nobody else can have WMD. It would disrupt the balance of power (which is slanted toward the US and it's allies). How is the US supposed to allow that? Frankly I'm glad we're not allowing it. It would be totally irresponsible to allow. America got it's WMD in a totally different context and for totally different reasons than Iraq or N. Korea. America's WMD are a burden now. If we just got rid of them all then someone else would make some and then we'd be at their mercy. Screw that.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by M5Power
If Saddam was really smart, when he got attacked "unilaterally," he'd immediately turn around and use his weapons on, not Israel, not the US, but instead countries like France, Great Britain, and (sorry vat_man) Australia. What this would do is cause these nation's people to fall into two categories:

- A: "We got attacked, so let's fight back harder"
- B: "We got attacked. We should have never gone in in the first place. Let's pull out before more citizens die."

Maybe I underestimated Aussies, the French, and Brits, but I have a feeling most would fall into group B. Scary, isn't it?

It's understandable, though. Each wants to protect its own, even at the risk of their own honor. But lives matter so much. Oh, well.

So many seem to be passive diplomats. Thank goodness the US exists to at least provide a strong balance or we would have all policy done through a dovish mentality.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by Concept
Wow, I never thought aboutt hat Doug. Scary though, it's amazing how some people can be so evil.

I would not call it evil, myself. Though it is not much better a term, cowardly seems more appropriate. But that still seems to be unfair. I would say scared.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by M5Power




He's only in his first term and he's already power hungry. [/B]

Well duh... they're power hungry for just wanting be elected.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by vat_man
Firstly I don't think US will go in without UN backing - simply because it's not going to be worth the heartache in Europe and the Middle East. Well, that and the US shouldn't, really.

That said, I think you'll find that if there are WMDs (when did that become a 3 letter acronym?!?) in Iraq's position they'll be heading for Israel - as a symbol of Arab nationalism, and also I don't think they have weaponry capable of delivering payloads significant distances - although if I was anywhere within range I'd be concerned.

You're probably right on our response - public response here is already wavering on this issue (and is adamantly opposed to any action without UN backing). The Bali bombing has focussed Australian attention to South East Asia (where, frankly, it should have been in the first place except for our Prime Minister's dog-like devotion to following US foreign policy).

Absolutely, the fewer problems for Europe and the Middle East, the better. Now if only we could do something about the headache the rest of the world gives us.

I have no certain idea of the range of their scuds, and whatever else, but I agree with you on the targets. I doubt Iraq would attack countries that are permanent Security Council members, not if they want empathy in the future if they survive this round.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by M5Power


The US won't - they'll wait for UN backing. That doesn't stop the scenario I've suggested, though.



They will be heading for Israel, but they probably shouldn't. When they attack Israel, it'll provoke America more, and it will surely draw some of the leaning attack/not attack countries like France into battle. No-one likes an innocent country being slaughtered. Remember the countries -- even the Arab neighbors -- that came to Kuwait's defence in 1991?

[/b]

As it should be. It's the logical Colin Powell-type reaction. But it doesn't matter anyway -- even 'wavering' countries like China, France, and Russia supported the inspection resolution in the end. The situation is so that no country could, in good conscience, not support.



Only because your Prime Minister is sensible. He knows the world will eventually come around and support the United States and Britain, so why not jump on the bandwagon now and look like a true friend? It'll probably help down the line. [/B]

Not many like Israel. I would not count on it.

There are many reasons for supporting anything. It may not be true or fair to point out, but it is nonetheless strange that countries so ethically opposed to beating war drums would vote against the grain. Either they are convinced of the need to thwart Saddam, or would rather not anger the US.

Or hurt.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by M5Power


Although since I live here in the midwest and we only hear stuff about America, from what I've heard in the last few years, Southeast Asia is basically quiet -- especially in comparison to the situation in Israel. Granted, the Bali bombing was a bit of a wakeup call, but there's not many terrorist attacks still going on. The countries in the area are getting poorer, though, and Australia seems more well-off. Perhaps Australia is pulling a Volkswagen and moving upmarket.



True, of missles ('weapons of mass destruction'), which I still think Saddam does not posess, but there's always the threat of that one sarin attack, or that one suitcase nuclear weapon -- and not only in Australia, of course, but in Europe and North America.



I don't. I think British citizens would want Blair's head. "You put us in Iraq and then this happens..." blah blah blah. I don't even think the initial response would be strengthened resolve. I think it'd immediately be "pull out."



A friend of mine was talking about how the Arab world should unite and put an oil embargo on President Bush and "seriously get things started" as he said it. Although I told him that Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait would never ally, and that that would turn into a world war, if it were done it might seriously make President Bush question the power he's grown to love.

He's only in his first term and he's already power hungry. [/B]

I think that region has had terrorism for years.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by M5Power


The major problem, of course, is that we get ALL our oil from the Mideast. Venezula sucks, yes Venezula sucks, because Hugo Chavez is unable to control anything that occurs within its borders, and for some reason Russia hasn't tapped the oil within its borders. What happened to ANWR?



Pfft, I don't hear anything about that. The media is more concerned with Israel. When I lived in the area of Southeast Asia (for seventeen years) I guess I becamed so accustomed to it that it became nothing when I moved out here so I thought nothing was going on. [/B]

Environmentalists.

I think Russia needs help with their drilling equipment and refineries.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power
Pfft, I don't hear anything about that. The media is more concerned with Israel. When I lived in the area of Southeast Asia (for seventeen years) I guess I becamed so accustomed to it that it became nothing when I moved out here so I thought nothing was going on.

Being on the receiving end of a couple of US news channels, I don't doubt that for a moment. As I mentioned, a lot of this has come post-Suherto in Indonesia - many of the provences are split along religious lines (Aceh and the recently independant East Timor being examples).

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
Nah. I don't think those countries would recoil from Saddam, or anyone for that matter. It's analogous to WWII; America didn't want to get into the European war but Japan's surprise attack and Hitler's declaring war on America helped drag us in. We didn't just run and hide and I don't think any self respecting nation would.

That's true, but America should've gotten involved in the War a long time before we had -- it's all about being proactive. Had we been proactive in the War, Pearl Harbour probably would've never been bombed.

America had no reason not to get involved in WWII. France, Britain, and Australia do have reasons not to get involved in The War Against Terror, namely that they haven't been attacked, and in France and Britain's case, the fact that so many Arabs live in the country.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Talentless
Environmentalists.

I think Russia needs help with their drilling equipment and refineries.

ANWR needs to be tapped, and once you've heard my views on National Parks, you'd think it'd be okay for President Bush to do.

Russia doesn't need help. Putin is so greedy he'd figure out how to do it if he himself had to.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Talentless


I have no certain idea of the range of their scuds, and whatever else, but I agree with you on the targets. I doubt Iraq would attack countries that are permanent Security Council members, not if they want empathy in the future if they survive this round.

I think even President Hussein is smart enough to figure out that Iraq will never get any support unless there is a true regime change in his country, no matter how hard he tries and how many weapons he dismantles.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Talentless
Not many like Israel. I would not count on it.

Not only did not many nations like Kuwait in 1990, but not many nations even knew what it was. You'd be surprised how fast countries rise to support innocent nations being attacked, whether allies or not.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by M5Power
That's true, but America should've gotten involved in the War a long time before we had -- it's all about being proactive. Had we been proactive in the War, Pearl Harbour probably would've never been bombed.

America had no reason not to get involved in WWII. France, Britain, and Australia do have reasons not to get involved in The War Against Terror, namely that they haven't been attacked, and in France and Britain's case, the fact that so many Arabs live in the country.

The current perspective on war and preventing it was shaped by WWII. The notion of like-minded nations banding together is supposed to discourage tyrannical assholes. Just think if governments thought like that in 1939. Germany invades Poland, and in return, France, Brittain, America, Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain... all attack Germany. But that was not meant to be and we learned from almost destroying the world.

This may be off topic but maybe not...

I was watching a documentary about the Nazi occupation of a city in Poland. They had completely barricaded the city; nobody allowed in or out, including any food or essential supplies, except for the Nazi troops. After many months of this the population was starving to death, dying of disease in their own filth. The Nazis looked on either indifferently or with glee. Orphaned children starving in the streets, once normal people now corpses stacked in the gutter, corpses hanging from windows and trees... all of this on the sidewalk you may have taken to market each day, or on the way to your church. The world had become Hell. And thankfully someone got color film of it so that we may begin to comprehend the meaning of the word atrocity. I don't think most of us do or really even see the necessity for that kind of hard understanding. I almost had to turn it off and, all alone, late at night, I sat on the couch and cried for sixty three years ago. It's so hard to imagine. It's even harder to see for yourself. Saddam Hussien has caused similar scenes in his own country. And that is how we know what human life is worth to him. He and all rulers like that need to go, permanently. The world apparently has not learned enough. And for all those who blame the world's problems on The West in general and America in particular might want to notice that all America aims to do is ensure that such hell never finds home in the world again. Maybe it's an overreaction. Maybe it's heavy handed. But Western nations that criticize should find something else to whine about because if we did nothing, and had been doing nothing all this time, the world may very well be a terrible place.

Sorry if that sounds preachy but what I saw really moved me in a deep way. If people have to die, if governments have to fall for that kind of cruelty and brutality to cease then so-be-it. How do you think Eisenhauer (sp?) felt talking to the D-Day troops in Britain immediately before the invasion, knowing most of them were already dead, and knowing the world's future was at stake? The burden of saving the world sucks. That kind of courage is almost looked upon with disdain in this age of liberal guilt. And that's sad, to me.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
The current perspective on war and preventing it was shaped by WWII. The notion of like-minded nations banding together is supposed to discourage tyrannical assholes. Just think if governments thought like that in 1939. Germany invades Poland, and in return, France, Brittain, America, Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain... all attack Germany. But that was not meant to be and we learned from almost destroying the world.

We have learned nothing. If the United States had been proactive when President Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Walker Bush were president -- from the seventies to 9/10/01 -- The World Trade Center would still be standing. I named two Democrats and three Republicans. This isn't partisan. This is common sense. We knew terrorism was bad, yet we had to lose 3000 citizens in order to finally get our God damned act together and fight it. Inexcusable.

I was watching a documentary about the Nazi occupation of a city in Poland. They had completely barricaded the city; nobody allowed in or out, including any food or essential supplies, except for the Nazi troops. After many months of this the population was starving to death, dying of disease in their own filth. The Nazis looked on either indifferently or with glee. Orphaned children starving in the streets, once normal people now corpses stacked in the gutter, corpses hanging from windows and trees... all of this on the sidewalk you may have taken to market each day, or on the way to your church. The world had become Hell. And thankfully someone got color film of it so that we may begin to comprehend the meaning of the word atrocity.

Power breeds corruption. The Nazis didn't care, plainly. About anything but their own power. But in today's world, that rarely happens, especially in well-developed countries.

I don't think most of us do or really even see the necessity for that kind of hard understanding. I almost had to turn it off and, all alone, late at night, I sat on the couch and cried for sixty three years ago. It's so hard to imagine. It's even harder to see for yourself. Saddam Hussien has caused similar scenes in his own country. And that is how we know what human life is worth to him. He and all rulers like that need to go, permanently. The world apparently has not learned enough. And for all those who blame the world's problems on The West in general and America in particular might want to notice that all America aims to do is ensure that such hell never finds home in the world again. Maybe it's an overreaction. Maybe it's heavy handed. But Western nations that criticize should find something else to whine about because if we did nothing, and had been doing nothing all this time, the world may very well be a terrible place.

I would call this the best post ever, but I already made the best post ever a month ago. So this is second.

Sorry if that sounds preachy but what I saw really moved me in a deep way. If people have to die, if governments have to fall for that kind of cruelty and brutality to cease then so-be-it. How do you think Eisenhower felt talking to the D-Day troops in Britain immediately before the invasion, knowing most of them were already dead, and knowing the world's future was at stake? The burden of saving the world sucks. That kind of courage is almost looked upon with disdain in this age of liberal guilt. And that's sad, to me.

Say no more. But I think it's the other countries that force America to have such 'liberal guilt' rather than America itself.