Declaring war on Iraq

[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

 

[Slax]

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]

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]

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 .

 

[Pessimistic]

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 .

Does foil really work ? I might try it tonight.

 

[evade28]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Hollypig]

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 .

Outstanding

 

[jim boy]

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]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

What is Australia's source of oil?

 

[Sherman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I think they work for the same company as the WorldCom "auditors"!

 

[Portia]

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]

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