If it's over quickly

[Pessimistic]

I reckon I'm going to come in here and find someone 'proving' it was all Simon Crean's fault.

Its not a game you guys. it's war. Its stupid, its's ugly and people die.

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by Pessimistic


Its not a game you guys. it's war. Its stupid, its's ugly and people die.

It's all of that and more.

But it exists.

And sometimes it's necessary.

ANd fewer Iraqi's will die in this war than died in "peace"time Iraq over the last year.

Because the last 12 years have been stupid and ugly.

And unless you have a better solution, I'll go with the plan that will lead to Iraq being a prosperous, viable nation

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Hawkforce
It's all of that and more.

But it exists.

And sometimes it's necessary.

ANd fewer Iraqi's will die in this war than died in "peace"time Iraq over the last year.

Because the last 12 years have been stupid and ugly.

And unless you have a better solution, I'll go with the plan that will lead to Iraq being a prosperous, viable nation

\

Yes but where do we look for assurance the Iraq will become a 'shining example of democracy and prosperity"

Afghanistan perhaps ?

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
\

Yes but where do we look for assurance the Iraq will become a 'shining example of democracy and prosperity"

Afghanistan perhaps ?

You prefer Afghanistan under the Taliban?

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
a habit I haven't been able to get out of.........just like I tend to separate sentences the same way.........

Fair nuff.

 

[Dr.Grouse]

Originally posted by Fred
Typical Alf reply - nothing but insults. I've seen you complain bitterly about almost everything that happens but I don't recall you ever saying what you would do.
Tell us exactly what, if anything, YOU would do about Iraq.

That's simple.

Iraq is an Arab problem.

An Arab problem needs an Arab solution.

Their weapons were no threat to us. They are NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

What would I do?

I'd ignore them ... and let them sort their own domestic problems out by themselves. And if they venture into neighbouring countries like they did in 1990, let the neighbouring Arab states sort them out.

It's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS what happens in the Middle East.

We've got no right to assume that we have a God given duty to impose our values on them. If they want democracy etc etc ... then let them sort it out for themselves.

Same with the Israeli-Palestinian thing ... Let them sort it out themselves. By propping up the Jews at the expense of the Arabs we're just making it worse. Stuff Israel. Let them fight their own battles.

The only reason the Arabs have got it in for us is because we keep poking our American noses into their affairs.

Leave them alone and they'll leave us alone.

ARAB SOLUTIONS TO ARAB PROBLEMS ... YANKEE GO HOME.

 

[Fred]

Thank you - now I know where you are coming from.
Have there been any occasions in the past when you would have agreed with Australian troops being involved? Were we wrong in getting involved in the conflicts that became world wars?

 

[Dr.Grouse]

Originally posted by Fred
Thank you - now I know where you are coming from.
Have there been any occasions in the past when you would have agreed with Australian troops being involved? Were we wrong in getting involved in the conflicts that became world wars?

Well ... World War 1 was a complete waste of time, effort and lives. We could have certainly done without that. That was the sort of war that, if no one had turned up to fight it, it would have been cancelled due to lack of interest.

World War 2 ... I guess that's the difficult one. Hitler seemed hell-bent on world domination (which Saddam clearly isn't). And he had armed forces at his disposal that could have probably done the job. The poms were in it up to their ears and our cultural links with them were strong. But then by racing off to help them we made ourselves vulnerable to the subsequent Jap attack. So, really ... I'd have to say I don't know. Of course, by the time the Japs got into the act we WERE involved, whether we liked it or not.

If there was EVER a time we needed to fight, that was it.

Boer War: we were doing Britain's dirty work.

Korean War: we were doing America's dirty work, in response to the "reds under the bed" paranoia of the time.

Vietnam : ditto

Gulf War 1991: Classic case of blood for oil. Saddam and his armed forces were a lot stronger then. But I don't think his ambitions extended beyond the Middle East. There was no justification for committing our troops to rescue a few filthy rich Kuwaitis. That was definitely a situation which called for Arab solutions to Arab problems.

I know these views probably make me sound like I'm apathetic to the problems of others. Maybe I am. But I just can't see how American/Australian intervention in these situations has actually improved things. Do we provide a solution ... or do we just make ourselves part of the problem ... which then becomes a much bigger problem BECAUSE we've got ourselves involved.

I don't think I'm being overly simplistic or naive to suggest that, if it weren't for America's constant meddling in the disputes of other countries (with Australia tagging along behind them), the September 11 attacks would not have happened, the Bali bombing would probably not have happened ... and we in Australia wouldn't be living in a constant state of fear, waiting for our turn.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by Hawkforce

ANd fewer Iraqi's will die in this war than died in "peace"time Iraq over the last year.

This could easily be tested.

Please let us know how many Iraqies died in the last year.
(I assume you mean via Hussein, so subtract those who died from preventable diseases because of US sanctions).?

 

[Fred]

Dr Grouse

A possible analogy to war is a bushfire. If one breaks out well away from you that poses no immediate threat your choices are:

1/ Ignore it.
2/ Keep a close eye on it, being prepared to act if it threatens.
3/ Go and try to put it out before it gets any closer.

1. would seem the most dangerous option. Before you know it you could be surrounded with no way out and no way for help to reach you.

2. probably seems the best option but still leaves the problem of deciding when to do something about it. Get it wrong and you're back to 1.

3. is probably the safest option but things can still go wrong and you lose anyway.


It all comes down to weighing up the options and making a decision. Some will be right and probably just as many will be wrong. As in traffic accidents, someone made a decision that probably seemed right at the time but in hindsight wasn't.
Nobody gets it right all the time but that's no reason to stop making decisions.
In my opinion, the vast majority of politicians, especially in the so-called free world, no matter what their political persuasion, have the best of intentions in their decisions. Sometimes, in hindsight, they get things badly wrong.
That's human nature.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by Dr.Grouse
Well ... World War 1 was a complete waste of time, effort and lives. We could have certainly done without that. That was the sort of war that, if no one had turned up to fight it, it would have been cancelled due to lack of interest.

World War 2 ... I guess that's the difficult one. Hitler seemed hell-bent on world domination (which Saddam clearly isn't). And he had armed forces at his disposal that could have probably done the job. The poms were in it up to their ears and our cultural links with them were strong. But then by racing off to help them we made ourselves vulnerable to the subsequent Jap attack. So, really ... I'd have to say I don't know. Of course, by the time the Japs got into the act we WERE involved, whether we liked it or not.

If there was EVER a time we needed to fight, that was it.

Boer War: we were doing Britain's dirty work.

Korean War: we were doing America's dirty work, in response to the "reds under the bed" paranoia of the time.

Vietnam : ditto

Gulf War 1991: Classic case of blood for oil. Saddam and his armed forces were a lot stronger then. But I don't think his ambitions extended beyond the Middle East. There was no justification for committing our troops to rescue a few filthy rich Kuwaitis. That was definitely a situation which called for Arab solutions to Arab problems.

I know these views probably make me sound like I'm apathetic to the problems of others. Maybe I am. But I just can't see how American/Australian intervention in these situations has actually improved things. Do we provide a solution ... or do we just make ourselves part of the problem ... which then becomes a much bigger problem BECAUSE we've got ourselves involved.

I don't think I'm being overly simplistic or naive to suggest that, if it weren't for America's constant meddling in the disputes of other countries (with Australia tagging along behind them), the September 11 attacks would not have happened, the Bali bombing would probably not have happened ... and we in Australia wouldn't be living in a constant state of fear, waiting for our turn.

So I take it you wouldn't have touched East Timor either, Doc ? On your rationale, that certainly wasn't OUR problem.

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
So I take it you wouldn't have touched East Timor either, Doc ? On your rationale, that certainly wasn't OUR problem.

THere's nothing wrong with a "head in sand" viewpoint as long as you are able to live with yourself while watching genocide on TV.

As for myself Rwanda and Bosnia were enough.

I would also suggest that the world is now too small for this type of thinking to have any real basis in reality. Internet, Globalisation, let alone international terrorism.