Declaring war on Iraq [Archive]

Bloodstained Angel

13 Jul 2002, 14:03

gee Frodo do you honestly think the American's would send forces to help us out if Indonesia invaded Norrthern Australia ?

(oh and btw - Indonesia has much more oil than us - why would they come down here looking for more ?)

I would respectfully suggest they would baulk quite badly at giving us direct assistance on the goround.

Plenty of electronic and intelligence assistance, maybe the odd airstrike - but ground troops ?

never.

Remember East Timor in '99 ? Who were the first to provide us with direct and immediate assistance at the coalface?

Our old friends the New Zealanders (immediately pledged a battlion) and the British (immediately dispatched two warships, sent two more later)

The Americans, on the other hand provided intelligence and surveillance back -up but were never-ever gonna deploy one single American Citzen anywhere near where they could get shot at.

The USA will only intervene where and when they see some kind of gain for them is at stake.

and going to war with the biggest Muslim Nation on Earth over AUSTRALIA - well, gee you do the sums Frodo and put yourself in the position of the Mandarins at the Sate Dept. and the Generals in the Pentagon.

They wouldn't touch us with a barge pole

cheers

carlyp

13 Jul 2002, 14:27

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
gee Frodo do you honestly think the American's would send forces to help us out if Indonesia invaded Norrthern Australia ?

(oh and btw - Indonesia has much more oil than us - why would they come down here looking for more ?)

I would respectfully suggest they would baulk quite badly at giving us direct assistance on the goround.

Plenty of electronic and intelligence assistance, maybe the odd airstrike - but ground troops ?

never.

Remember East Timor in '99 ? Who were the first to provide us with direct and immediate assistance at the coalface?

Our old friends the New Zealanders (immediately pledged a battlion) and the British (immediately dispatched two warships, sent two more later)

The Americans, on the other hand provided intelligence and surveillance back -up but were never-ever gonna deploy one single American Citzen anywhere near where they could get shot at.

The USA will only intervene where and when they see some kind of gain for them is at stake.

and going to war with the biggest Muslim Nation on Earth over AUSTRALIA - well, gee you do the sums Frodo and put yourself in the position of the Mandarins at the Sate Dept. and the Generals in the Pentagon.

They wouldn't touch us with a barge pole

cheers

I agree BSA..the only reason The Yanks ever step in is because its going to be good for them. They US only stepped into Kuwait because of the oil supply that Kuwait had..not because they believed what Sudam Hussein was doing was wrong. Were going to have to rely on ourselves for protection. It'll be a long time coming before the Yanks help us!

Shinboners

13 Jul 2002, 17:07

I can't see any reason why our troops should be going over to Iraq to help Bush's election chances....sorry, I mean, liberating all that Iraqi oil....oh, sorry.....I mean toppling a dictator.

It's almost as if the Americans and Howard think that we've got an infinitely large defence budget.

Bloodstained Angel

13 Jul 2002, 19:47

Funny you mention that Shinboners.

If today's media is to be believed, Howrad has committed troops that we, er, don't actually have ...:rolleyes:

cheers

iceman

13 Jul 2002, 19:55

I think its a joke. Firstly, i think that Bush is trying to finish what his daddy started so many years ago. Iraq have had huge sanctions placed on them for years and their people have suffered considerably.

Australia has no reason whatsoever to support the US by sending troops. During the Gulf War the US had the majority of the larger nations on side but if it decides to strike this time, there will no doubt be a lot of backlash from countries such as China, Russia etc (not that it'll make a difference)

Another example of us running up Americas ass and doing whatever they tell us

ian_rocks

14 Jul 2002, 09:45

Damn meddling USA! They supported Hussein when he was gassing the Kurds to test his biological weapons in '88 but as soon as he doesn't give them a good price for oil >BAM< they denounced Hussein and waited for their oppurtunity to strike which was the Kuwait thing.

Since the end of the gulf war the embargo imposed upon Iraq has resulted in the deaths of 1.675 million (mostly working class children). Once again the Real Evil Empire has proven they still have the ability to kill civilians in their millions!

I personally think it would be ludicrous to send in troops seeing the people's militia in Iraq reaches as many as 1 million Kalashnikov toting men in times of bombing raids with many millions more in solidarity plus the standing army is well equipped because of aid the United States provided them in the Iran-Iraq war and years after. If Australia does send troops I wouldn't be suprised to see many casualties and P.O.Ws.

I won't be supporting any action against Iraq and may well be protesting again the foolish government. Iraq is already preparing for war so I see those ignorant yanquis being given a run for their money unless the yanquis, which they no doubt will do, carpet bomb, like what happened at Dresden.

ian_rocks

14 Jul 2002, 09:53

YAY! 50 posts! It's taken me from December 2000 until July 2002 (20 months) but I made it!

wagstaff

14 Jul 2002, 14:38

Originally posted by Frodo
for their oil, why not Indonesia go for ours? And without the USA or UK to back us up we are sitting ducks.
Support has to be mutual.

Support is based on the country's own finanical interests. All the talk about Hussein being the new Hitler or whatever from the American media-government doesn't stack up too well when one knows that the American government supported Iraq in its war against Iran in the 1980's and gave the initial impression to Hussein in 1990 that they would be comfortable with him leading an invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Of course Hussein didn't realise that the US government would use this invasion to justify their involvement in the area to secure the enormous oil resources located in the area.

As an English PM once said, there are no permanent friends, just permanent interests.

Sydneyfan

14 Jul 2002, 17:29

I see an American war on Iraq as a very risky situation for the Americans and I definitely don't like having Australia involved in this. Over the last few months, the US has removed any doubt that they are not an impartial party in the Israel-Palestinian crisis, they've got bogged down to a degree in Afghanistan not achieving their ultimate objective (the death of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda), while Al-Qaeda still pose a real threat to the US and its allies.

The Islamic world, indeed a large section of the whole world, are becoming increasingly wary of what exactly are America's intentions in their continuing war on terror. I think that a war against Iraq could prove risky because the Americans face a chance of getting bogged down in a messy and costly war which could, in worse case scenario, bring in other nations in the region too. It has the potential to become another Vietnam scenario for the Americans particularly if they choose to continue strking nations which they believe have terror cells operating within.

Personally, I think China would be happy if the US got bogged down in a war in Iraq because it would enable them to continue their march towards superpower status whilst the only current superpower stagnates.

iceman

14 Jul 2002, 23:03

Originally posted by Sydneyfan
The Islamic world, indeed a large section of the whole world, are becoming increasingly wary of what exactly are America's intentions in their continuing war on terror. I think that a war against Iraq could prove risky because the Americans face a chance of getting bogged down in a messy and costly war which could, in worse case scenario, bring in other nations in the region too. It has the potential to become another Vietnam scenario for the Americans particularly if they choose to continue strking nations which they believe have terror cells operating within.

I agree, i dont think that the US will have major backing for its attacks like it did in the Gulf War. In my opinion if things get out of hand for Iraq, all they need to do is attack Israel.
That'll really **** off America

ah_19

15 Jul 2002, 14:12

bush's grandfather funds hitler, has his assets taken away
bush's father was (probobly still is) in business with saddam
bush has ties to unocol, unocol is a big oil company, unocol is getting afghanistans oil, the "president" of afghanistan was a board member of unocol.
us intervines in 30 countries since ww2, ZERO end up with a democracy
as somene said
how many barrles of oil is your life worth

Shinboners

15 Jul 2002, 14:30

With the possibility of the U.S. attacking Iraq with Australian troops in support, I still had a chuckle over Bob Brown's comments in Meet The Press (reproduced in today's edition of the Australian). He said, "Australia has lost its independence, we're losing our right to be an independent nation, to have independent policy".

I wonder if this is the same Bob Brown who wants Australia to sign up to various U.N. treaties, join the Kyoto Agreement, and bleats about so-called "world opinion" on any government policy he disagrees with (notably our refugee policy).

Pessimistic

15 Jul 2002, 16:08

This is just plain wrong. Can anyone see that ?

How would the US invading Iraq be better than Iraq invading Quwait ?

And the only country to haqve actually used "weapons of mass dee-struction" as bush likes to say is the US itself.

I wish it was Bush's father still in charge

And Frodo, Indonesia invading Australia ?

Watch out guy, the chap in the next desk to you is a subversive and he's out to steal your pens.

Frodo

15 Jul 2002, 16:22

Originally posted by Pessimistic
This is just plain wrong. Can anyone see that ?

How would the US invading Iraq be better than Iraq invading Quwait ?

Just maybe Kuwait wasn't developing nuclear and biological weapons for use against the west!!!!!!!!!
Maybe Kuwait wasn't funding Palestinian and Al Qaida terrorism!!!!

I bet you would have though Chamberlain was fantastic when he returned to England with the'peace in our time' agreement with Hitler!

Pessimistic

16 Jul 2002, 10:36

I was there when chamberlain came back from hitler - and people like you thought he (hitler) was good at the time. I saw through chamberlain and I see through you.

Here's another scenario.

The US invades Iraq with no support from the international community.
The very next day China invades taiwan. The US is in no position either morally or practically to do anything about it.

It would be an invitation for all other states with a disput to go on the offensive.

Welcome to WW3 my friend.

Slax

17 Jul 2002, 01:46

I find all this kind of funny actually, because when you look behind the facard of the actual attack and local at the socio-economic agenda it is there for you get a completely different answer to some questions.

Why did the USA attack Iraq in 1990?
Political answer - to protect Kuwaits sovereignty as a nation.
Socio-economic - if Iraq was allowed control of the Kuwait oil fields it would become the largest supplier of oil in the world and could control the oil price. With the USA and the rest of the OECD economies slowing and a recession imminant a large expense on war is good for morale and helps generate internal spending due to govt expenditure and public support.

Why attack in 2002?
Poltical - because he is part of the terror network.
Socio-economic - both the UK and USA economies are stagnant at the moment and need a large injection of expenditure. Unfortunately the war will not have the desired effects on the UK as the USA. The war will again make people the USA believe they are all powerful and spend money plus allow the government to run the budget at a large deficit to finance it.

The war on terror is not about sovereignty or about revenge it is purely about money and keeping the economy growing which keeps people happy.

Shinboners

17 Jul 2002, 08:56

Originally posted by Slax
I find all this kind of funny actually, because when you look behind the facard of the actual attack and local at the socio-economic agenda it is there for you get a completely different answer to some questions.

Or you could look at it from the viewpoint that Hussain is a few marbles short and a few years away from getting a nuclear weapon - would you really trust him with nuclear weapons?

The U.S. hawks do have a point. In the mid 80s, Libya was thought to be the launching pad for terrorist action. One U.S. military strike (in '86) later and they've more or less kept their noses clean. They are probably using the same line of thinking with Iraq now - although I'm convinced that there is a Bush electoral bonus in the White House thinking.

Pessimistic

17 Jul 2002, 10:33

Originally posted by Shinboners

Or you could look at it from the viewpoint that Hussain is a few marbles short and a few years away from getting a nuclear weapon - would you really trust him with nuclear weapons?

The U.S. hawks do have a point. In the mid 80s, Libya was thought to be the launching pad for terrorist action. One U.S. military strike (in '86) later and they've more or less kept their noses clean. They are probably using the same line of thinking with Iraq now - although I'm convinced that there is a Bush electoral bonus in the White House thinking.

Interesting one that. The 'reason' for the Libya atack was quoted as a nightclub bombing - later we found the perpretrators were from Iran, and the US was not only not blaming them but supplying them with arms in the 'contra' deal.

Also the majority of the sept 11 bombers were from saudi - no need for repercussions there ?

Shinboners

17 Jul 2002, 10:43

Originally posted by Pessimistic

Interesting one that. The 'reason' for the Libya atack was quoted as a nightclub bombing - later we found the perpretrators were from Iran, and the US was not only not blaming them but supplying them with arms in the 'contra' deal.

Point acknowledged, but you have to remember that Libya was a country that was helping terrorist causes at the time. I think that the only thing they've done since then was to supply weapons to the IRA.

Oh, and as for the arms to Iran, they were at war with Iraq and the US were probably supplying Iraq as well. I remember reading a comment from someone in the US government saying that the only pity about Iran vs Iraq was that it probably wouldn't go on forever.

Also the majority of the sept 11 bombers were from saudi - no need for repercussions there ?

Were the s11 bombers supported by the Saudi government?

Pessimistic

17 Jul 2002, 12:58

Originally posted by Shinboners

Point acknowledged, but you have to remember that Libya was a country that was helping terrorist causes at the time. I think that the only thing they've done since then was to supply weapons to the IRA.

They are not the only ones there. Its like a 3d spiders web when you get into it - an that's just the stuff we actually know about.

I agree with you mostly but I do worry about the legitimacy of an assault on Iraq. Bush sr. deliberately held to the UN resolution in 1990 and should be admired for that, given how bloodthirsty some of his colleagues would have been.

Could Bush jr get UN backing ? I doubt it. what would be the reason. Not allowing weapons inspections ? If the US is planning a full scale invasion then why would they say where all their defences are ?

If the US were to invade 'illegaly' then they would not have the spare forces or moral stance to do anything if, for example, china invaded taiwan. Just last week it was reported that there is a chinese military build-up.

Shinboners

17 Jul 2002, 16:30

Originally posted by Pessimistic

They are not the only ones there. Its like a 3d spiders web when you get into it - an that's just the stuff we actually know about.

It's very hard to split any of this into simple good/evil terms. In the end, I will back the U.S. over Iraq, however, where is the U.S. moral authority if they're willing to break their own "implied" moral and ethical codes to get rid of someone they don't agree with. It will make the U.S. just as bad as their enemies.

I agree with you mostly but I do worry about the legitimacy of an assault on Iraq. Bush sr. deliberately held to the UN resolution in 1990 and should be admired for that, given how bloodthirsty some of his colleagues would have been.

The only thing that is holding Bush Jr. back is that Colin Powell and his staff are against a military assault on Iraq. It's ironic considering that Powell was Bush Jr.'s choice for running the military. I'm pretty certain that as long as Powell has some say, an assault on Iraq won't happen. However, that does not preclude the possibility that the US, either themselves or via Israel, will attack any Iraqi facility that might house a nuclear weapon.

Could Bush jr get UN backing ? I doubt it. what would be the reason. Not allowing weapons inspections ? If the US is planning a full scale invasion then why would they say where all their defences are ?

I doubt it. The only European nation that is following the U.S. lead is England - the rest have reservations. I'm not sure whether African, Asian, or South American nations will follow in step with the U.S. either. However, the media have reported that U.S. representatives are in Turkey, possibly laying the groundwork for a military strike from their bases in that country.

If the US were to invade 'illegaly' then they would not have the spare forces or moral stance to do anything if, for example, china invaded taiwan. Just last week it was reported that there is a chinese military build-up.

It's never been about moral authority....remember Grenada? It's all about what you can get away with. Whenever the U.S. has captured a Soviet fighter, they would pull it apart to look at the technology. When the Chinese captured a U.S. spy plane the other year, note how much the Americans whinged and complained and talked about "international law".

Bloodstained Angel

17 Jul 2002, 18:07

Shinboners

It may dismay you to know but El-Quaida and the Taliban have enjoyed tacit and not so tacit support from the highest levels of the Saudi Government, Royal Family, Clergy and Business Community.

but the Saudis appear to be 'untouchable'

why ? - coz they say so silly !

Shinboners

17 Jul 2002, 18:31

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
It may dismay you to know but El-Quaida and the Taliban have enjoyed tacit and not so tacit support from the highest levels of the Saudi Government, Royal Family, Clergy and Business Community.

Al-Quaida and the Taliban also received support from the U.S. when it was convenient for U.S. interests.

Hezzbollah (spelling?) received financing from the Israeli government as their way of destabalising the P.L.O.

Funny how these things come back to bite them on the arse.

but the Saudis appear to be 'untouchable'

why ? - coz they say so silly !

I'm shocked that you've underestimated my cynicism. :( ;)

ah_19

18 Jul 2002, 16:41

frodo
palestinian terrorism?
Hamas was empowered/funded by isreal, every time israel needs an excuse not to talk and to take more land hamas is there, and officially in thier "incursions to get those nasty terrorists" they officially LEAVE hamas alone. read some history.

al quawhatever terrorism? it was created by the US just like OBL.
officially (check fbi website) there is ZERO evidence linking s11 to al quaeda/OBL/afghanistan to s11,almost half of the "suspects" werent even on the plane.... yet evidece that does exist that links s11 to mossad is "classified". read fbi website thx.
the US killed 5000 people min in afghanistan and geoge bush's family gets richer thx to thier involvment with the carlyle group,
American Terrorism is more like it, stop beleiving what youre told.

www.whatreallyhappened.com

Slax

18 Jul 2002, 23:05

I think that any country who wanted to support the USA if they attacked Iraq would be making a very bad political decision. The USA would also have to consider the problems that might occur inside Saudi Arabia.

The growing discontent with the US is growing inside Saudi Arabia in particular and with their finances they could even request that the US remove trops from its soil. If the Saudi's want the US off their land the US will have to leave. This would make it impossible for them to have any influence in the Middle East effectively. Egypt said in 1990 it did not want US troops or planes on its soil, which does not leave any alias except Turkey.

An attack could make dealings with Islamic nations difficult. John Howard has to stay away from this one.

Visro

19 Jul 2002, 12:29

Did anyone watch a show about 3 weeks ago on the Bosnian war and America's involvement? I think it was on SBS, Dateline or something or like that.

Anyway, apparently according to the show, America supplied weapons to the Bosnians behind its "allies" backs which would explain why they refused to supply ground troops, they wanted the war to continue...

Maybe someone else who watched the show can give a better run down, thats all I really remember.

Joe Mama

19 Jul 2002, 23:52

Originally posted by ah_19
frodo
palestinian terrorism?
Hamas was empowered/funded by isreal, every time israel needs an excuse not to talk and to take more land hamas is there, and officially in thier "incursions to get those nasty terrorists" they officially LEAVE hamas alone. read some history.

al quawhatever terrorism? it was created by the US just like OBL.
officially (check fbi website) there is ZERO evidence linking s11 to al quaeda/OBL/afghanistan to s11,almost half of the "suspects" werent even on the plane.... yet evidece that does exist that links s11 to mossad is "classified". read fbi website thx.
the US killed 5000 people min in afghanistan and geoge bush's family gets richer thx to thier involvment with the carlyle group,
American Terrorism is more like it, stop beleiving what youre told.

www.whatreallyhappened.com

You better check under your bed tonight, ah19. There could be a Mossad agent under there, also it would help if you cover your scalp with aluminium foil, so that the Mossad, FBI & CIA sattelites can't interpret your thought patterns:rolleyes: .

Pessimistic

22 Jul 2002, 08:40

Originally posted by Wayde Petersen

You better check under your bed tonight, ah19. There could be a Mossad agent under there, also it would help if you cover your scalp with aluminium foil, so that the Mossad, FBI & CIA sattelites can't interpret your thought patterns:rolleyes: .

Does foil really work ? I might try it tonight.

evade28

22 Jul 2002, 11:28

how many ppl do america have?

approx 285 million

how many do we have?

approx 20 million

does howard need me to do the sums here?
they dont NEED us. they might WANT us, just cos they dont want their people to get shot up.

if america wants to poke their nose in all this then let them, why should OUR soldiers have to go over to these strange countries just to satisfy howard the little bastard. maybe they should send him over for a day and let him know what its like to have a job where if you slack off you could die. actually that doesnt sound like a bad idea... off u go johnny!

iceman

25 Jul 2002, 15:06

Just bringing this topic to the top; on the news yesterday it said that all Australians are being advised to leave Iraq as an attack seems imminent

Say hello to WW3

Sydneyfan

25 Jul 2002, 15:33

Originally posted by iceman
Just bringing this topic to the top; on the news yesterday it said that all Australians are being advised to leave Iraq as an attack seems imminent

Say hello to WW3

Interesting news. I was also surprised at the US Government's reaction to the Israeli attack on the Hamas leader which killed and injured civilians, where the US did not agree either with Israel's actions or Sharon's comments after the incident. It surprised me because it's been the first time in a long while that the US have been critical of Israel's actions in their conflict with the Palestinians.

Maybe the US Government (in preparation of their Iraq attack) have decided to try to distance themselves from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the hope that other nations in the region don't get drawn into their war with Iraq? :confused:

Hollypig

30 Jul 2002, 18:28

Jim Boy

30 Jul 2002, 22:33

Cosgrove's statement today about how Australia should not have gotten involved in Vietnam is probably his way of telling Howard, that blindly following the US into every battle is not necessarily wise. Especially if the battle seems to have no more point that the letting some bloke settle a few scores that involved his dad.

IMO a campaign in Iraq is inherently risky and stupid, not so much in the logistics of the battle itself, which may go OK, despite the Iraq's being a hell of a lot better prepared than the Taliban. But more to do with the aftermath.

It's clear that the US intend to replace Hussain with a more compliant thug and certainly not with a democratically elected government. A new shah of Iraq. It's the only way the US knows.

This will of course lead to greater resentment and more recruits for radical factions. Which would be really unfortunate, as Iraq today is a moderate country in terms of religion, but the US will push it towards radcalism. But even resentment in Iraq is nothing compared to the real danger, Saudi Arabia. This country is run by a deeply unpopular government which governs brutally with the backing of the US. However with the death of King Faud imminent, factional infighting amongst the princes will lead to big trouble. An unpopular US led war on Iraq, and it would be very unpopular, would probably lead to the death knell of this shaky regime. Fundamentalist schools and thought are rife in Saudi Arabia, most of the funding and recruits came from there in the S11 assaults. A popular fundamentalist revolt is a worryingly real proposition there.

The US would probably commence there own counterstrike on the regime. They'd have to as S11 type activities would be, if not promoted, then tolerated in such a new state. But attacking Saudi Arabia would really be a mistake. Saudi Arabia is the holiest of the holies for Muslims, the place of Mecca. Many so far uninvolved countries may feel obliged to participate in a campaign to prevent US action that would threaten the sanctity of Mecca. Then it would be on for young and old.

If all this was to happen, you would hope that it happens between cricket season and the new footy season. You could ditch the Wizard cup and there would still be plenty of interest on TV.;)

eagleskickass

1 Aug 2002, 01:13

I am getting sick of us doing whatever the US says, we are sucking up to them in the hope if we get attacked they would help, we thought the same with Britain, fought EVERy war they were in, and then when we needed them in WW2 a) they couldn't help us and b) probably didn't care.
Same will happen with the US. We NEED to learn to defend ourselves, we proved in WW1 and WW2 we can fight well, why not use this to our advantage. SCREW the US, they are just money hungry, be ourselves, be our own country, not little kid who the US says to jump and we reply "How High"!

ah_19

4 Aug 2002, 02:12

*YAWN*
thanks wade
sarcastic replies to factual arguments usually stem from some level of insecurity/cowardice, rocking your boat a bit too much?

america has no choice but to invade, the econnomist magazine stated that if not for s11 the american dollar wouldnt be worth the paper its printed on right now, it will just delay the inevitable.
the "axis of evil" all just happen to be 3 (the only 3?) countries in the world that dont accept american dollars. The war will let the illusion live a bit longer while those that are smart enough bail out. Already the us reserver is selling gold reserves to keep the price of gold down. If the masses see gold as a better invesment than the us dollar and start abandoning it before the elite can finish sucking them dry they wont be happy. Predicted rise of gold in 12 months is 15%, over the next few years, about 66%.
Forbes recommends the euro above the us dollar for the first time.

US debt has in the last few months exceeded its assets for the first time in history, calling in on the loan will result in instant bankruptcy of the US economy, this loan is owed to the private instutution run by a few elite people known as the Federal Reserve Bank of America.
Ever wonder how come every contry in the world is in debt, including australia?

An invasion of iraq will pump a few more dollars through the system, but it will make the inevitable chrash all that worse, and it will let the people blame someone else for their troubles, rather than themselves.

Iraq had one of the (possible highest %age) of middle class citizens in the world, having more books per capita than any other country in the world , as well as enough water to supply the demands of almost the entire middle east. Almost all the water is now polluted, and the middle class almost non existant. Every challenge to the ruling elite has stemmed from the middle class. Saddam didnt destroy his greatest threat, america obliged for him, that is why he is now more powerfull and richer than ever.

America created saddam, saddam did what helped america/israel, gassing the kurds/iranians, and now still does. The gulf war has allowed america to have an excuse, the last 10 years have let them destroy the greatest threat to israel in the middle east, everything that sadam has done or is doing has benefited america/israel more than anyone. He was an american ally before the gulf war, i have every beleif that he still is.

countries that america has intervened in for "freedom and justice"
approx 30
countries which ended up with a democratically elected government afterwards
0
countries which ended up better of afterwards
0
countries which got poorer, more opressed more exploited
all of them

check un figures

iceman

4 Aug 2002, 11:20

last night on the news its reported that saddam has allowed UN weapon inspecters in; because he's fearing an attack from the US

Now, after this move by Saddam, can the US still attack??

*they probably will anyway*

a4brianp

5 Aug 2002, 12:26

Im prepared to support the attack on Iraq when Howard is prepared to committ his family to the war and join his son up in the defence forces. but until that happens no way.

See he still wont admit tha Nam was a mistake probably wasnt from where he sat.

Sherman

7 Aug 2002, 02:50

What is Australia's source of oil?

Sherman

8 Aug 2002, 03:06

OK, from what I find very quickly, it appears Australia produces about 70% of its oil domestically. It also appears about 10% of your total imports come from the middle east.

Does that sound about right?

Jim Boy

9 Aug 2002, 03:07

It would be good to know why Howard insists on pursuing US coat tails. The only other country following the US led war on anything not American is Britain.

I don't suppose it's anything but coincidence that these two countries news medias are dominated by Rupert Murdoch who is trying to stay sweet in the eyes of the US legislators?

The Bush administration have plenty to go for war for. Public attitude still seems to be very hawkish and blindly patriotic. An oil crisis is good news personally for dubya. His connections in the oil business, the same people who fund his campaign would reap huge profits should the price of oil skyrocket. By the way, America produces enough of it's own oil not to have to worry about Middle-East oil. The defence force industries will also benefit hugely from war. And a war gives Bush the old 'you're either with the US or an enemy of the US' type crâp.

But Australia? We have plenty to lose, certainly it doesn't enhance Australia's International reputation, makes us look like US lap dogs. We could certainly attract a few enemies. At the moment I don't think Australia registers as much of a target for the ire of fundamentalist causes, but that seems to be changing. And does Howard really hate wheat farmers that much? Iraq is a major importer of Australian wheat with imports worth almost a billion. This could also lead to a bit of solidarity amongst Iraq's middle eastern who may decide that Australia, like the US, is just war mongering for no real globally benefial reason. Australia, unlike the US, can also not afford an oil crisis. We'll all be paying through the nose for that one.

Danny Chook Fan Club

9 Aug 2002, 14:22

Originally posted by Shinboners
where is the U.S. moral authority if they're willing to break their own "implied" moral and ethical codes to get rid of someone they don't agree with. It will make the U.S. just as bad as their enemies.Is there any real argument about this? They've been using all means, fair and foul, to get rid of people and governments they don't want for the last sixty years. Even their own presidents aren't safe on that score.

Hawkforce

9 Aug 2002, 21:20

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
gee Frodo do you honestly think the American's would send forces to help us out if Indonesia invaded Norrthern Australia ?

They wouldn't touch us with a barge pole

cheers

The suggestion that the USA would allow Australia, a fellow democratic capitalist nationstate, be invaded by Indonesia is, quite simply, ridiculous.

THis thread is about serious geopolitical issues, yet almost every post betrays a general ignorance and credulity.

Zombie

10 Aug 2002, 02:46

Sending Australian forces should occur if the U.S requests it, that is not to say that Australia should not just let them tell us what to do but if we expect the U.S to back us up if we are in need then a very small contribution is the least we can do.

Evade28 if you think that the U.S simply uses other international forces as cannon fodder then you really don't have a clue. Australian forces are used because they have a high quality special forces (SAS, etc), Australia and other international forces are not just given to U.S to slaughter, they are controlled by their own superiors.

The amount of personnel that Australia would provide would be minimal, the U.S, Britain and France would contribute the majority of the alliance forces and the small amount we provide in miniscule compared to theirs. This small contribution to ensure our freedom is worth doing, it would not be "Australian" to help out one of our "mates" when they are ensuring are future freedoms.

If anyone wants to read any books on the Gulf War I reccomend Storm Command which is a British view of the War written by the British commander Peter de la Billiere. Bravo Two Zero and The One That Got Away are also good SAS books on the Gulf War from the infamous Bravo Two Zero SAS mission that went wrong.

Jim Boy

10 Aug 2002, 06:38

Originally posted by Zombie
Sending Australian forces should occur if the U.S requests it, that is not to say that Australia should not just let them tell us what to do but if we expect the U.S to back us up if we are in need then a very small contribution is the least we can do.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the world has moved on a bit from this rather antique viewpoint. Australia really isn't at any sort of threat from any other country and it's pretty inconceivable that any any future threat within a reasonable time threat would arise. And even if there was a threat to Australia, you would have to be pretty naive to think that the yanks and no other powers, such as the UK, would come to our rescue. The US isn't the worlds police force. In fact helping America now may even harm future relationships. This war is very much a political one waged by the Republicans to keep the Democrats out of office. If we help the Republicans, the Democrats may not be so sympathetic later. Besides, we also have plenty of credit left with the yanks, they will not at all be keen to see any threats to their communication stations located here.

America really only acts when it is in it's own interests.

Evade28 if you think that the U.S simply uses other international forces as cannon fodder then you really don't have a clue. Australian forces are used because they have a high quality special forces (SAS, etc), Australia and other international forces are not just given to U.S to slaughter, they are controlled by their own superiors.

The amount of personnel that Australia would provide would be minimal, the U.S, Britain and France would contribute the majority of the alliance forces and the small amount we provide in miniscule compared to theirs. This small contribution to ensure our freedom is worth doing, it would not be "Australian" to help out one of our "mates" when they are ensuring are future freedoms.
Alliance Forces? Now you really are dreaming. Their is no chance that any French or other European country except Britain, will provide any support. And Britain is looking less and less likely by the day. The only other countries that may support the US are the tin pot economies who will be bullied into it. Oh, and Australia.

And what do you mean by ensuring are (sic) future freedoms. Are you suggesting that Saddam is intending restrict our freedoms? The US have not freed a country since the second world war. Were the Kuwaiti's freed? Did they have an elected government before, do they have one now? Even now, the US seeks to usurp popular elections and democratic processes. Do you know what's happeing in Bolivia, do you know who is the main supporter of the unelected government of Saudi Arabia? But what would you expect from a country whose president received less votes than the loser and less than a quarter of eligible votes. If the US push Saddam out, don't hold your breath waiting for elections, they just want a more compliant thug in charge.

You're right that Australians wouldn't be cannon fodder, but they would hardly be needed from an operational point of view. Indeed intergrating the Australians may prove to weaken the mission. Indeed the real need for Australia to participate would be to give some sort of legitimacy to this fiasco. I'm sorry, but there are some things that you don't for your mates

Docker_Brat

12 Aug 2002, 03:38

Already Iraq have cancelled millions of dollars worth or wheat exports because of the Howard government's lap dog approach.

I can see reason if Iraq were occupying another country for other to go in, but to invade another country because the Americans don't like its leader just isn't on.

They US say they want to bring democracy to Iraq, don't be fooled by their retoric, the US are giving lip service to the 'democracy for all' stance, they only want puppet governments who toe the US line. You can't honestly tell me that the US cares about another country's citizens.

The US seem to think that the Iraqi citizens will rise up against Saddam if they invade, I doubt this also. They thought the same with Cuba and the Bay of Pigs fiasco soon proved them wrong.

Briedis

12 Aug 2002, 15:21

Porthos

12 Aug 2002, 21:11

As the Australian prime minister, I would draw on our great French heritage and make oaths and promises about assistance, but not actually send any because the US is doing something that I just decided we don't like.

Preferably this thing will be something that they don't want to change, but that sounds very important to the Australian media, like wheat tarriffs. Then you get your choice of two moral high-grounds....either no war and sticking up for Australia as the underdog, or strengthening ties with the US and a jumbo bonus to the Australian economy.

I'd probably prefer the previous case though, and after tarriffs were conceded, I'd concede a few specialist troops, but then come up with another demand.

Now finally, if Indonesia invaded Australia, America would be in here like a shot, whether we did much previously to support their military attacks or not. We don't need to play Orcini and jump on their bandwagon in time for the **** to hit the fan. (I love mixed metaphors)

The Ewok

12 Aug 2002, 23:21

Saddam will be OK, he has the support of Natasha Stott-Despoya after all

ian_rocks

13 Aug 2002, 14:17

Check this out not a close connection but a connection nonetheless-

"In 1979, Bush’s first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden.
http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm

iceman

13 Aug 2002, 15:33

Originally posted by Jim Boy
Alliance Forces? Now you really are dreaming. Their is no chance that any French or other European country except Britain, will provide any support. And Britain is looking less and less likely by the day. The only other countries that may support the US are the tin pot economies who will be bullied into it. Oh, and Australia.

From all reports France has no intention of assisting the US in any attacks against Saddam. Britian is a debatable one and may be one of the few countries that do

Pessimistic

13 Aug 2002, 18:03

I am finally becoming proud of mankind in that opinion polls are condemming US/Bush plans as stupid.

Opinion polls in the US and Britain and Europe.

Most people will not have seen serious wars (just a few pointless ones) so it is even more comendable

Docker_Brat

13 Aug 2002, 19:40

Even Britain seem a bit hesitant this time.

Slax

13 Aug 2002, 21:07

Originally posted by Docker_Brat

Even Britain seem a bit hesitant this time.

Britain is receiving a lot of pressure from the rest of the EU not to attack. France, Germany, belguim and Holland are against it. This could lead to the English being more hesitant about the attack and the US reconsidering it's position as it is losing support rapidly for not pulling Iseral into line.

A major component of any European support lies with Bush being able to pull Sharon into line. Europe view Sharon as no better than Hamas as their retaliations are indiscrimate and they do not seem to care if they kill civilians.

I do not support any attack on Iraq at all. The American governament created Saddam Hussain through their military support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. The Us want the attack to bolster the economy and to increase Bush's personal approval rating. Saddam is not the biggest player in terrorism, the USA and it's allie Iseral are. After all the US hold more chemical and Biological weapons in strorage despite the fact that they signed the Geneva convention after WW1. Until the US destroy their own stock pile I can not support hippocrites, and Howard is just an opportunist, he will do anything it takes to stay in power even if it means costing Australian farmers and industry millions in exports.

Pessimistic

14 Aug 2002, 10:18

Originally posted by Slax

Howard is just an opportunist, he will do anything it takes to stay in power even if it means costing Australian farmers and industry millions in exports.

This is so true and sad. He's only interested in working families because there are votes in it.

gbear

14 Aug 2002, 16:06

Australia should not get involved just because the US requests. Until the people of Iraq realise what a bastard Saddam is, his regime will not be defeated as he has millions of people at his disposal to act like human shields.

clucas91

14 Aug 2002, 17:43

I think that the US really should think this through, I have to admit they are getting a little big for their boots, let's not forget that they refused to sign the United Nations plan to charge soldiers who commit war crimes in an international court, so something must be going on there!

I dislike what the Americans are doing to the world, all they are trying to do is create a global economy with every part of the world having some kind of Democracy as their form of government.

George Bush is a scary little man and I can't wait for the end of his term.

Hawkforce

14 Aug 2002, 18:46

Originally posted by Slax

Europe view Sharon as no better than Hamas as their retaliations are indiscrimate and they do not seem to care if they kill civilians.

I do not support any attack on Iraq at all. The American governament created Saddam Hussain through their military support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. The Us want the attack to bolster the economy and to increase Bush's personal approval rating. Saddam is not the biggest player in terrorism, the USA and it's allie Iseral are.

Europe view SHaron as no better than Hamas because Europe has centuries of anti-semitic sentiment that even the holocaust failed to quench - a harsh and controversial statement perhaps, no less so because its true.

Saddam Hussein was around decades before the 80's war with Iran. Please show me how the US "created" him. But that might involve actually understanding geo-politics, not to mention history - rather than relying on third hand X-files type bunkum.

THINK. UNDERSTAND. INFORM.

Or shut the phark up. This is too important an issue for such glib throwaway sentiments as "The US are bigger terrorists than blah blah blah". You imply that the leaders of the Western are MONSTERS, whose tyranny is worse than that of dictators.

If you truly feel that way then rise up and cast that tyranny down - you have the right to a free vote. The people of Iraq don't.

Slax

14 Aug 2002, 20:50

Originally posted by Hawkforce

Europe view SHaron as no better than Hamas because Europe has centuries of anti-semitic sentiment that even the holocaust failed to quench - a harsh and controversial statement perhaps, no less so because its true.

Saddam Hussein was around decades before the 80's war with Iran. Please show me how the US "created" him. But that might involve actually understanding geo-politics, not to mention history - rather than relying on third hand X-files type bunkum.

THINK. UNDERSTAND. INFORM.

Or shut the phark up. This is too important an issue for such glib throwaway sentiments as "The US are bigger terrorists than blah blah blah". You imply that the leaders of the Western are MONSTERS, whose tyranny is worse than that of dictators.

If you truly feel that way then rise up and cast that tyranny down - you have the right to a free vote. The people of Iraq don't.

My first question are you Jewish? Because if you are it explains some of the bull**** in the above statement.

Europe is not anti-semitic, this is just a word that the Jewish community use when they feel presure for other groups and cornered. Iseral is RACIST they are more RACIST than Europe. Iseral is performing ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories.

Saddam is also racist against Kurds in Northern Iraq. I am aware that Hussain has been in power since before the Iran-Iraq war. But this war which ragged for 8 years saw him increase his power and enable him to build up his military and weapons stock piles. The US provided him with the expert know how to build weapons of mass destruction, just as they provide the weapons to Iseral that kill Palestians.

Anti-semitism exists but so do the anti-islamic groups, so think about the crap you spin mate before you type. Defending Sharon by using this old line has no weight with me, I think you will find that Europe is not anti-semitic just well informed and receive independent reports not the American TV shlt that you get in Australia.

Hawkforce

14 Aug 2002, 21:50

Originally posted by Slax

My first question are you Jewish? Because if you are it explains some of the bull**** in the above statement.

Europe is not anti-semitic, this is just a word that the Jewish community use when they feel presure for other groups and cornered. Iseral is RACIST they are more RACIST than Europe. Iseral is performing ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories.

Saddam is also racist against Kurds in Northern Iraq. I am aware that Hussain has been in power since before the Iran-Iraq war. But this war which ragged for 8 years saw him increase his power and enable him to build up his military and weapons stock piles. The US provided him with the expert know how to build weapons of mass destruction, just as they provide the weapons to Iseral that kill Palestians.

Anti-semitism exists but so do the anti-islamic groups, so think about the crap you spin mate before you type. Defending Sharon by using this old line has no weight with me, I think you will find that Europe is not anti-semitic just well informed and receive independent reports not the American TV shlt that you get in Australia.

No I am not Jewish. Think about why you had to ask that question though. You might find some interesting answers.

The suggestion that Europe is not anti-semitic would be laughable if blind ignorance was a funny subject. Do you think the Nazi's were alone in performing genocide? PLEASE LEARN HISTORY BEFORE MAKING SUCH RIDICULOUS AND ILL-INFORMED STATEMENTS.

Iraq would already have nuclear weapons if the Israeli's hadn't acted arbitrarily and taken their reactors out in the early 80's. Who was supporting who then? International politics is a little more complex than you realise.

I never defended Ariel Sharon. I live in London. Every assumption you have made about me is incorrect.

I can assure you that your assumptions about this issue are probably incorrect as well.

Anyway, arguing with you is patently a fruitless exercise. Why don't you do as I suggested and use your democratic right to cast down the forces of tyranny that rule the West and stop their use of "terror" against kindly middle-east despots. I'm sure the people of Iraq will be grateful.

You wanna reduce this subject to infantile status - let's go the whole hog!

wagstaff

14 Aug 2002, 23:40

What has to be made clear on this topic is that it's an absolute certainty that America will invade Iraq in the very near future and achieve an easy and brutal victory.

Put simply, US imperalism desperately needs the natural oil reserves that Iraq has at its disposal, apparently the second largest in the world. Even if polls showed that a large majority of Americans are uncertain about invading Iraq (which isn't the case anyway), the US government would go ahead because it desperately needs the kick to the fracturing US economy and stock market.

The only debate that's going on at the moment in US political circles is how to 'sell' this to the American people and the world. I'm sure it will be a good one.

The real red herring in all of this is the talk about there being a large amount of American casualties (or for that matter Australian casualties). The might of the American military is so strong as opposed to the weakness of the Iraq military that the greatest danger to American troops is death by friendly fire.