Do you support Aus bombing/'PBOTG' in Iraq and/or Syria?

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Can someone explain how these bombing campaigns aren't acts of terrorism?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Can someone explain how these bombing campaigns aren't acts of terrorism?

Because they're done by the folks who write all the rules?

 

[stormee]

Can someone explain how these bombing campaigns aren't acts of terrorism?

Because bombing savages who massacre Iraqi Shias and decapitate their bodies, rape Yazidi women and are generally bad people certainly doesn't look like terrorism to me.

 

[Gough]

It's a bit hard to know what's going on here. On one hand we have the PM saying that we have been invited by the Iraqi government to become involved in this and that we are just waiting on the some legal issues before starting with the airstrikes and yet on AM this morning we have the Foreign Minister saying the the Iraqis are yet to issue an invite. Somebody is lying here and my money wouldn't be on the Foreign Minister.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I am supportive of most lifestyle choices, but really don’t see the strategic advantage of putting balls on the gays.

 

[The Coup]

Because bombing savages who massacre Iraqi Shias and decapitate their bodies, rape Yazidi women and are generally bad people certainly doesn't look like terrorism to me.

If the bombs were only landing on Is I'd completely agree with you.

But bombing is not surgical. We will kill about 95 civilians for every 5 IS we kill. And that's based on the recent wars civilian casualty numbers, considering ISIS is only anticipated at being 40k blokes worldwide, there's every chance we'll be kill hundreds of civilians for every fighter (via bombing) and actually just making ISIS a bigger threat.

Of course there's a reasonably cluey contingent of war nerds and history buffs who think this is all bullshit, and that most of the bombing is going to be focused on Assad's targets in Syria (with some "show bombs" in Iraq to push IS into Syria - Obama has CONFIRMED THIS) whilst bolstering the Syrian resistance (Obama has CONFIRMED THIS) to take on Assad.

We were meant to be in Syria by now, but when the chemical gas attack happened (And I think we all know that is a very sketchy situation as to who was actually responsible) Russia/Syria outfoxed Kerry by agreeing to his demand for Syria to hand over all their chemical weapons. It robbed the USA of their platform for war (Kerry ****ed up, basically). Then they go away for a while, put the Baath party in contact with IS, Israel give IS a nice little home base in the FREAKING GOLAN HEIGHTS WITHOUT EVEN BOMBING THEM and everyone gears up for the real fight (Syria). Americans, Al Quada, IS, UAE, Israel all fighting alongside eachother. How beautiful.

 

[madmug]

Because bombing savages who massacre Iraqi Shias and decapitate their bodies, rape Yazidi women and are generally bad people certainly doesn't look like terrorism to me.

Gawd it sounds like the Vietnam war all over again. Does anyone think that ISIL will just stand up & keep getting blown up? No, they will start to blend in more with locals. They will undertake more guerrilla tactics. It will then need BOTG. Whose boots is the big question.

This has a long way to go yet. They cant both fight ISIL & al-Asaad in Syria, it leaves another power Vacuum.

We should not be involved. It is a regional conflict that may yet involve both the USA & Russia. Turkey may soon also have no choice but to act as well.

This is a NO WIN for us. Once again a PMs ego is dragging is into conflict that will do us NO good at all.

How can you preach peace & unity but be so bloody enthusiastic to go to war?. Some troubling psychology going on their.

 

[The Coup]

For the purposes of global unity and our alliance with the USA and NATO, we have to be seen to be a regular and willing ally.

I hate it, but that's where we are. We are the de facto attack dog of the Anglo Club. When Canada, NZ and UK say no, we still say yes. That's our role, unfortunately. And eventually yes we'll probably see a terror attack at home (I really hope not obviously) partially due to this role.

But we're on the winning team, and we all benefit from that materially. It means we're going to end up in shitty wars for no real reason other than American prestige (much like when we followed the British around as their own empire was failing), but it means we'll avoid the bombs ourselves, and there aren't many independent nations in the world that have our level of resources - if we weren't on this team, we might be next on America's hit list. I know where I'd rather be.

 

[madmug]

For the purposes of global unity and our alliance with the USA and NATO, we have to be seen to be a regular and willing ally.

I hate it, but that's where we are. We are the de facto attack dog of the Anglo Club. When Canada, NZ and UK say no, we still say yes. That's our role, unfortunately. And eventually yes we'll probably see a terror attack at home (I really hope not obviously) partially due to this role.

But we're on the winning team, and we all benefit from that materially. It means we're going to end up in shitty wars for no real reason other than American prestige (much like when we followed the British around as their own empire was failing), but it means we'll avoid the bombs ourselves, and there aren't many independent nations in the world that have our level of resources - if we weren't on this team, we might be next on America's hit list. I know where I'd rather be.

Yep. I understand what you say.

However, our role is what we choose. I'm saying, for our own good, we need to a bit more selective than continuing on like an obedient lap dog all the bloody time. We will not be respected for being such a cheap tart.

Also I doubt very much that it will mean we 'avoid the bombs'. In a very real sense our security is the poorer for not being just slightly more independent.

However, more than ever IMO, this PM is THE most divisive person we've ever had in the job. He is thriving on it. Thats a big worry.

Working to keep local nutters from going to or coming back from fighting should be our main contribution to this latest maelstrom in the ME. That & continuing humanitarian support for areas of Iraq we helped to destroy.

 

[The Coup]

I think our role will bite us when there is a true power shift to the east, but not as much as you'd think. The Chinese understand what we are. They know we'll never be best friends, but they don't blame us for siding with the USA considering WW2 and our similar histories (though not nearly as similar as some capitalists believe).

But imagine the alternative right now. We would be overpowered economically (with the threat of military action) by one power or another, or more likely their multinational companies. We'd have less of a say in our own future and our own policy.

We'd need a serious domestic shift politically (i.e. we'd need to seriously look at becoming more nationalist in our approach to our resources and banking industries, and more socialist in our domestic economy) and attempt to portray ourselves as something of a neutral or non combatant like Sweden or Switzerland. But for one of the most warlike nations in history on a per capita basis, we'd need to prove ourselves consistently by staying out of wars for 20-30 years before anyone would take it seriously.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I think we should adhere more closely to the principles of AUTMA.

 

[madmug]

I think our role will bite us when there is a true power shift to the east, but not as much as you'd think. The Chinese understand what we are. They know we'll never be best friends, but they don't blame us for siding with the USA considering WW2 and our similar histories (though not nearly as similar as some capitalists believe).

But imagine the alternative right now. We would be overpowered economically (with the threat of military action) by one power or another, or more likely their multinational companies. We'd have less of a say in our own future and our own policy.

We'd need a serious domestic shift politically (i.e. we'd need to seriously look at becoming more nationalist in our approach to our resources and banking industries, and more socialist in our domestic economy) and attempt to portray ourselves as something of a neutral or non combatant like Sweden or Switzerland. But for one of the most warlike nations in history on a per capita basis, we'd need to prove ourselves consistently by staying out of wars for 20-30 years before anyone would take it seriously.

Reasonable view.

I think China has a lot more internal 'difficulties' to worry about than getting too big too soon into some kind of economic 'imperialism'.

The British empire was developed on the end of a gun. Survive in a competitive Europe or die was the driving force. The US on the basis of a freer economy & the 'benefits' of two world wars without too much of the costs.

China is trying to balance massive & world changing, economic growth, massive pollution, social change & still maintain its one part state. That is one hell of a job. It could be messy if it fails with any of these actions. Hong Kong is a real worry to the central committee.

Historically China was hurt by Imperialism. It has a great pride so wants (IMO) to take a preeminent position in the world. We were the first to recognise China thanks to Gough Whitlam. They respected that.

By showing a more even handed foreign policy, that would hold us in better stead what ever the future holds.

Short term small minded political machinations is not helping us at all. Both internally & externally.

Economically I think our headlong rush to destroy out own manufacturing base is so so so short term. When the Oz$ hits 75c then we will wish we had some of these industries again. We need to invest in a more balanced economy. Even if it has some cost, it is safer to have that 'security'.

 

[stormee]

If the bombs were only landing on Is I'd completely agree with you.

But bombing is not surgical. We will kill about 95 civilians for every 5 IS we kill. And that's based on the recent wars civilian casualty numbers, considering ISIS is only anticipated at being 40k blokes worldwide, there's every chance we'll be kill hundreds of civilians for every fighter (via bombing) and actually just making ISIS a bigger threat.

See this is the key reason there needs to be SF/JTACs on the ground even if embedded with the Pesh or Iraqi Army - they can effectively target and deconflict to minimise civ casualties.

 

[The Coup]

See this is the key reason there needs to be SF/JTACs on the ground even if embedded with the Pesh or Iraqi Army - they can effectively target and deconflict to minimise civ casualties.

We never intend to minimise civilian casualties in bombing campaigns though.

 

[Bosun]

I can't say if I do or don't support it. I have no qualms in seeing the murderous thugs ISIS wiped from the face of the planet and most importantly I want to see protection and security for the ancient tribes who have fallen victim: the Yazidi, the Christians, Kurds, pretty much any local tribe that do not have the means to protect themselves against them.

My military strategic skills are pretty below par so I can't say if air strikes, ground force methods would achieve this.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Because they're done by the folks who write all the rules?

I'd say it is because the bombing is done by the folks who control the televisions and the 'schools'.

But we're on the winning team, and we all benefit from that materially. It means we're going to end up in shitty wars for no real reason other than American prestige (much like when we followed the British around as their own empire was failing), but it means we'll avoid the bombs ourselves, and there aren't many independent nations in the world that have our level of resources - if we weren't on this team, we might be next on America's hit list. I know where I'd rather be.

Jesus H Christ.

 

[The Coup]

SB, I'd rather be on the peaceful (at home) warmongering side, than an independant resource rich nation that is isolated from the rest of the world.

That was my point. Obviously this is still a bad situation, but for us personally its better (relatively) than being say, Iraq or Libya (considering our current socio political climate)

 

[Smiling Buddha]

SB, I'd rather be on the peaceful (at home) warmongering side

Except that we are not 'peaceful' at home. Our population is being terrorised in a coordinated psyop and even though there are plenty of people who see through the propaganda, the masses are generally taking it hook, line and sinker.

Look what happens to somebody when they merely question why NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED to verify the claims made by gov/media/police re the shooting of the 18yo man the other day. People are so terrified by their gov/msm/police that they are demanding their civil liberties be removed from them. Tell them that somebody had an ISIS flag at home and they want that person dead, no courtroom required. It is sheer lunacy and it is being driven by the same powers who are driving us to war.

than an independant resource rich nation that is isolated from the rest of the world.

False dichotomy. And why does any of what you say necessitate sending troops to war? Are you seriously suggesting that the US would bomb us if we did not partake in another middle-eastern campaign?

 

[The Coup]

No I'm just saying we play our role in international politics.

Its very dirty and I'm not cool with it either, but its part of a wider MIC campaign that we're fundamentally a part of.

 

[clogged]

Neither. Anyone who thinks military intervention is happening for humanitarian reasons is a moron.

 

[Power Raid]

yes and no

yes, we created a mess and thus we have an obligation to see the mission through and fix it
no, we can never fix the problem. so will killing more people achieve anything.

The harsh but true reality is the middle east needs to have a civil war and sort out its own issues. we may see the end of the oil flow, but that is the price to pay for a long term gain.

 

[KGBeast]

What else are we gonna do with all our bombs. Blow those heathen murderers to smithereens I say and if there's any left then dump em on Moscow, or Beijing not fussed.

 

[Juddism]

It's a bit hard to know what's going on here. On one hand we have the PM saying that we have been invited by the Iraqi government to become involved in this and that we are just waiting on the some legal issues before starting with the airstrikes and yet on AM this morning we have the Foreign Minister saying the the Iraqis are yet to issue an invite. Somebody is lying here and my money wouldn't be on the Foreign Minister.

13 years ago we were invited by Bush...and look where that got us, now we're waiting for another invite, this time from Iraq, I can only imagine where this is going to end up. We've spent the better part of 12 years there and achieved sweet FA.

unless we're sending ground forces, wtf are we doing there? I'm fairly certain the US & UK can handle the air strikes on their own.

 

[The Coup]

yes and no

yes, we created a mess and thus we have an obligation to see the mission through and fix it
no, we can never fix the problem. so will killing more people achieve anything.

The harsh but true reality is the middle east needs to have a civil war and sort out its own issues. we may see the end of the oil flow, but that is the price to pay for a long term gain.

If we left the ME alone tomorrow, Iran would have de facto control of the ME in about a month.

IS are 40,000 fighters that would run at the sight of the Sadr Brigade, let alone Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Iraq would fall overnight and the Iranian military would not have forgotten what the Baathists did to them during the Iraq-Iran war. It would be brutal.

It comes down to Saudi Arabia vs Iran (the two biggest powers by far in the ME). Lets compare:

Iran - 80 million people (plus a massive Shia diaspora in Southern Lebanon and Syria that would be 100% on side with Iran)
Saudi Arabia - 30 million people (most of whom hate the royal family, and the ones that don't are too fat to serve in the military so they hire Pakistani mercenaries instead).

Iran and the Shia will win, if everything else was square/even. They even have their own drones capable of tracking American ships and flying into Israel without being detected.

there's just no way America would let that happen.

 

[Richard Pryor]

What else are we gonna do with all our bombs. Blow those heathen murderers to smithereens I say and if there's any left then dump em on Moscow, or Beijing not fussed.