TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- Do you support a war with iraq?
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Do you support a war with iraq?

Does anyone see that this is so pointless? and there im thinking that the world has changed.

I do with or with out un support.

I dont. I bet most people here agree with me, I hope!

yeah I agree...war is bullshit..

I think that all the leaders (esp. mister bushes and mister howey) want to go to war only because they can just send people to do it for them. imagine if they have to wear those tight army pants and don the army boots and pick up mp5, m16 or ak then i bet you any money they will think about it. look at our mates howey for example, he sent like 5000 troops over to iraq, and the next minutes he'll open a can of VB and buy a piece of pie, sit and watch TV. Look, it's not that I hate howey, it's just that we don't need to lick yankie bush's arse and pretend to support them, while all we want is better relationship.

war is bad...innocence life will be lost...and imagine the soldier's wife and children...government only pay them $36,000 compensation if their husband is dead. is life really = $36,000 i don't fucken think so.

please...say no to war...it's bad....mmkaayyy..

meh :/

Politics is bad and im going to avoid stating my opinion so i dont tread any toes.

why not state your opinion? this isnt stalins russia.

oh and the reason whe are sucking yanki doodle is because we want a free trade agreement

I don't, i support Iraq and Korea in this war more...

don't tell me why.

quote:

Originally posted by Tsunami One oh and the reason whe are sucking yanki doodle is because we want a free trade agreement

Point taken, but there is a far greater reason for sucking yankie cock. Basically, without the yanks we would be completely screwed left right and centre. Just look at us? Pissy little island. Small population. Even smaller military force. There is no way we would ever be able to defend ourselves if it wasn't for the yanks. You know how close we came to being completely overrun in WWII? My grandmother was General MacArthur's private secretary (if you don't know who he was, he was Supreme Allied Commander of the South Pacific), and trust me, we came *this* close to being invaded. And that was *WITH* the yanks. Without the yanks, in a nutshell, we'd be completely fucked. Now you'd have to be a fool to think that there was still a threat from Japan (I mean Japan depends on the west to fund its economy), but I'm certain there are still potential threats throughout the region. North Korea, Indonesia come to mind. It's nice to know we'd have the peace of mind that should we ever come under threat again, we'd have the world's most powerful military on our doorstep within a couple of days, kicking some serious ass.

So essentially, we owe a lot to those yanks. We might hate them. We might think they have a stupid accent and can't speak English. We might think they have a crazy president, who's war hungry, needs oil and wants to win votes for the coming up next election, but essentially, John "W" Howard giving Bushy his daily dose of fellatio is a very good thing for us. We send over 60 SAS, a couple of intelligence people, a couple of thousand ground troups. If we ever get threatened, US sends back the world's most powerful army. It's a very uneven relationship. One that works, extremely well for ourselves.

So, essentially that is an argument for why we should support Bushy, no matter what path he chooses.

Now on to the issue of whether or not the US should have a war with Iraq.

We all know that "Saddam is insane" has chemical weapons. After months of asking "where's the evidence", Collin Powell went fuck yas all and handed over the most frightening evidence that Iraq does in fact have a fully operating chemical weapons industry. He also provided some evidence that Saddam has been backing Osama and his holy war against the west. Now we know all about this Holy war. Remember Bali? Just to let you know, a friend of a friend of mine died there (remember the football team from Adelaide). That was frightening. Islamic groups, funded by $25,000 from Osama, killed hundreds of Australians in Bali. Now look at this.

That is a picture of a person infected with smallpox. That is what Suddam is producing. That is what Suddam will undoubtedly be giving to the similiar "Jihads" that bombed Bali. It is a thousands times more frightening than anything that ever happened in the world trade centre, or Bali. All it takes is one crazy islamic extremist to inject himself with this, take a flight to Australia and he could potentially infect literally thousands of people before dying himself. That's fucking scary. And that's why we need to disarm this crazy mother f*cker dictator.

So basically, I think that Iraq should and must be disarmed of its chemical weapons. This should happen, with or without UN support. And I think Australia should back whatever decision the US makes, simply for strategic allegiance reasons.

Well Dowlz

I agree that we need America, Australia doesn;t have the best relationship with Indonesia and the likes, and we arte absolute sitting ducks. I think we kind of have to support America (only with UN backing) to cover our own asses. I hate saying this cause I hate America, and what Bush stands form but I think it's a catch 22. We have no choise, just to protect our own safety.

Howver Dowlz, you say that Suddam is producing this stuff. Where is the evidence? He didn;t say "we are producing smallpox" or anything. This is just American War Mongering, and Bush's Jingoistic attitude.

Havent ypu learnt.

The first casualty of War is the truth!

In other words, do not ever blindly beilve what , especialy America is telling you. There are 2 sides to every story, you cant take one or the other without hearing them both, and we never get to hear Iraq'a side. Another way of trying to convince us to dive into war. Cencorship.

But for now I say War with Jugde Jules @ Two Tribes.

I could try to place a neutral opinion in the face of such blinding hysteria on both sides but i don't think i can. When hunting a monster it is important not to become one ourselves. Saddam is not a nice person, and i don't think he should be allowed to hurt his own people or anyone else for that matter. However i think Bush is on a very similar footing. He has already commited many horrible war crimes. This is not conjeture this is fact. The willfull mass murder of the civilian population of afganistan cannot be tolorated, nor can the constant threat of mass destruction by the country with the most horific weapons (I'm talking about the US here). How come it is amazingly bad for iraq to have scary weapons but fine for the US? The US are just as likely to use them. They used nuclear agents in the gulf war (first bush) ie depleated uranium. We also have to look at who is the alternative for iraq? A US puppet? The US won't support the only real alternative to saddam, the iraq communist party because well, they are communist and the US haven't quite got over the last pet hate they had. Has any one else seen the scary cycle here? The US always need someone to hate, to beat to be scared of and to dominate. They suggest no other option just anger. Choose peace.

Haha War on Judge Jules. I'm up for that! I reckon I'd get English backing too!

Trancey Ash, actually there is now declassified info which Colin Powell presented to the UN security council which shows the scope of the chemical weapons program and the links to Al-Qaeda.

Checkout the key points of Colin Powell's speech here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sp....txt/index.html

BBC, have the full text here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2729525.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2730855.stm

Some highlights include this...

"Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit, about this amount - this is just about the amount of a teaspoon - less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shut down the United States Senate in the fall of 2001.

This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope.

Iraq declared 8,500 litres of anthrax, but Unscom estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 litres."

and this...

"Iraq today harbours a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons.

When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosives training centre camp. And this camp is located in north-eastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp.

The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch - imagine a pinch of salt - less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.

...

In 2000 this agent offered al-Qaeda safe haven in the region. After we swept al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today"

the US were the ones that actually sent Iraq the Anthrax in the first place

In any case even if it is in Australia's interest to go along with the US for a free trade agreement or whatever (which we are unlikely to get because the agricultural lobbies in the US are way too strong) what kind of country are we to advocate killing thousands of innocent people so we can get a free trade agreement?

I find it interesting that people who have said "no lets not war" have made no point about why we shouldnt go to war. Other than war is bad.

Sure we could let saddam sit back and build a large cache of weapons or we could stop it from the get go before he has the chance to do that, before he has the chance to sell them to fundamentalists, before he has the chance to threaten anyone with them.

Some people argue that is purely for the oil. This is a half truth, yes bush would love to get his grubby little hands on the oil. But if it were purely for the oil, then there are other countries he could, and would go after since they have more oil reserves (such as the saudi's).

Dowls, you cant 100% believe powells speech. While it does have some merit, i think a lot of the points he made were hugely over exagurated and he was simply trying to get some UN support.

I dont think that war is necessary. But, I think that we should fight the easier war now, with much less casualities, than wait 5 or 10 years until iraq has built its forces up and actually trained them.

In response to radicools point, people join the armed forces with (hopefully) the idea that one day they may have to fight. So saying its not the politicians that have to fight and thats why they do it is wrong. Any person in the armed forces today could have chosen a different path and been a politician, but they didnt. I dont think that we would have to worry about conscription either. Americas army prides its self on being the best trained army in the world. I doubt they would want some inexperienced Australians among their ranks.

I would also like to that I fully support a war on judge jules.


This has been an escee production spoken by escee for the tranceaddicts party canberra

there's a political discussion thread for this kind of essay writing!

quote:

Originally posted by Teknoscaper. there's a political discussion thread for this kind of essay writing!

So true!!!

BTW, if you want to watch Colin's hour and half presentation, you can view it on bbc world

australia and usa = allies

when your allies need your help, you goto their aid. when we need theirs, they will come to us.

i believe we have something similar in the australian society, it's called 'mateship', some of you should look it up.

"Americas army prides its self on being the best trained army in the world. I doubt they would want some inexperienced Australians among their ranks."

you will actually find that the australian army, in particular our special forces, are among THE best trained in the world. Ever wonder why the SASR are always being deployed? cos the yankee's are always asking for the best, and that's exactly what we give em.

im proud to support a war against iraq with or without the fagets from the UN condoning it, and make no mistake, the sassys are ready to play their part.


side issue:

what is really bugging me currently and in the more recent past, is the fact that the aus media is so 'anti-war'. they may not come outright and say 'we are anti-war', but i've noticed the amount of stories they run of anti-war statements/sentiments/demonstrations/etc are numerous every night on the news, as opposed to the pro-war or even support-war/the US in which the total number of stories usually tally 0 minutes. so what happens is, if the only thing people hear or see is anti-war, then eventually, whether they know it or not, become anti-war themselves.
i just wish there could be some sort of balance, so that people could make up their own mind, instead of regurgitating the popular anti-war rhetoric that they saw on last nights tv.

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r you will actually find that the australian army, in particular our special forces, are among THE best trained in the world. Ever wonder why the SASR are always being deployed? cos the yankee's are always asking for the best, and that's exactly what we give em.

well duuuuhhhhhh, but he wasn't talkin bout them, he was talkin bout conscription, i dunno bout u but the only experience i have with this stuff comes from Counter-strike and Rogue Spear, hence the inexperienced part


on the whole war thing, all i have to go on is the crap the media feeds us, but i do think war is somewhat justified purely because it'll save a lot more bloodshed in the future, esp if bush & co are right

War on Terror ? America is promoting terror by attacking Iraq, this is only adding Fuel to the fire to a situation which will become out of control. Another key issue to remember is the underlying fact that the American economy is on the brink of major recession and its only resolution to solve this problem seems to be the rich oil resource we all know exists in Iraq.

Innocent people all around the world are not responsible for any wrong doing I think terrorism is committing any crime against the peoples of ANY nation. Peace Out and long live the beautiful creation of TRANCE. if everyone in the world appreciated Trance as much as us TA's do then I think this world would be a much brighter place

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic well duuuuhhhhhh, but he wasn't talkin bout them, he was talkin bout conscription, i dunno bout u but the only experience i have with this stuff comes from Counter-strike and Rogue Spear, hence the inexperienced part

rogue spear eh, clan/alias? :P

there's really nothing to fear from conscription, it simply isnt going to happen with this war, and i doubt ever in the future unless it was a major world war. there would be just too much public outcry, society is far different today than it was back in the first half of last century. the aus army isnt looking for soldiers, i know, because i've been waiting since july last year. now they're saying they might open up applications in june/july this year, who knows :\

quote:

im proud to support a war against iraq with or without the fagets from the UN condoning it, and make no mistake, the sassys are ready to play their part.

i wouldnt call the un a bunch of fagots. i dunno but it seems that without a governing body such as this there would be alot more trouble round the place. the americans influence the un so much i doubt they give a crap whether or not the un bless it
im making an unjustified comment here but around times of conscription the population would have been alot less than it is today so it shouldnt happen again..and with conscription you put at lives the risk of men that die needlessly because they have no skills
imo that is why so many ppl died in the other wars

side note: anyone ever play paintball skirmish? its mad fun but think about it....if its so easy to get hit in games like this, you come to realise that it can be so easy to get shot by a real gun

i agree theres a threat but wtf
why now if the threat is so serious why not 5 years ago.

and while all this crap is going on you know
there is serious issues with korea..... that could end up being the worst of the lost... especially cause the us is tied up with iraq
crazy shit

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r rogue spear eh, clan/alias? :P there's really nothing to fear from conscription, it simply isnt going to happen with this war, and i doubt ever in the future unless it was a major world war. there would be just too much public outcry, society is far different today than it was back in the first half of last century. the aus army isnt looking for soldiers, i know, because i've been waiting since july last year. now they're saying they might open up applications in june/july this year, who knows :\

Umm, dude, say this war gets really bad, which is likely, the media will be pumping out so much war propaganda that most, normal people will think we have to send more troops, to defend australia. I mean look at Vietnam. Why did we send Conscripts? Because we were afraid that communism would follow the domino theory and come down and eventually take over Australia. Looking back now that is a totally ridiculous theory. Communism could not take over Aus, as the deographic stats of this country do not work with those needed for communism.

It doesn't matter what's actually happening, it's what your being told that's happening. If people think that Australia is under threat in any way they will do anything they could to defend it eg. Conscription.

Basically if it ever looks like coming in I'll have to get some desperate chick and get married til the war is ever then divorce her. Married men don't have to go (Or I'll just go to prison )

Personally, I think that the way Bush has deflected the world's anger from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein has been one of the greatest public relations efforts in history.

I agree that Saddam isn't the nicest bloke in the world, and if he is found to be producing/selling WOMD then he probably should be ousted. However, I haven't seen any evidence of this.

Remember that British intelligence "dossier" that they released a few months back? Colin Powell said it was a "fine paper" and "describe[d] in equisite detail Iraqi deception activities." Trouble is, more than half of the text was stolen straight out of the pages of magazines. (See here if you don't believe me).

Also, the US came straight out a few weeks ago and said "this factory is making chemical weapons." Satellite photos and all. Iraqi officials took Western media to the factory - the damn thing was destroyed and had been nothing but crumbling concrete for several years.

In 1998 the US launched a cruise missile attack on a factory in Sudan, claiming it was chemical weapons and had links to Osama bin Laden. The factory was hit by several Tomahawk missiles and destroyed. It turns out the factory was making aspirin, not weapons, and that there was no connection bin Laden at all. (Again, click here for evidence).

My point is that you cannot believe everything the US (or indeed Australian) government says.

Also, alliances are (or rather should be) symbiotic relationships. Co-dependance. I don't see our alliance with the US in this fashion. If we were as an important an ally as they say we are (or as important as we'd like to believe), then surely they would take our opinions into consideration, which I don't see happening. To bastardise networking terminology, it's a client/server relationship, not a peer-to-peer relationship.

And from their perspective, why not? What do we have to offer them that isn't an actress or dangerous animal? Very little. I'm not suggesting we should end the US alliance, far from it, but the position we are in at the moment doesn't exactly scream strength.

We stand on the brink of war in Iraq (because war will happen in the next month or two, however much we argue and debate). Australian servicemen and women are going to die, so the US populace can feel slightly safer until the next public enemy is announced.

Personally I see this as a conflict that has nothing to do with us. We are a long way out of the range of the WOMD that Saddam supposedly possesses (of which there is still no solid proof). Even if the Saddam/al-Qaeda link is proven (which it still isn't), regional terrorist groups like Jemaah Islamiah pose a much greater threat to us.

So to sum up a long post (sorry about that ), we shouldn't go to war in Iraq because:

- Iraq has nothing to do with us, we should worry about our own region

- Being a part of what is seen in the Muslim world as a war against Islam will increase the likelihood of terrorist acts in and against Australia exponentially (I might remind everyone that the world's largest Muslim country is just to our north)

- Bush has still left the big questions unanswered. Why is Saddam a much graver threat now than he was five years ago? Why can't we take several months to carry out thorough weapons inspections in Iraq (which ironically could help the US if the inspectors find the "smoking gun" Bush so desperately needs)?

Looking in a different light, this whole debate doesn't really matter. We can argue the ins and the outs of war until we are blue in the fingers from typing, but the world is going to be plunged into war anyway for one simple reason - America can do what it likes and there is nobody to stop them. I find the whole "single superpower" world to be quite terrifying, in that Bush really can do what he likes, so long as the American people are on his side. During the cold war, the USSR acted as a counter-balance, ensuring that the US didn't always (or often) get its own way, eg Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Berlin etc. That counter-balance is now gone. I'll leave you all to ponder that

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r side issue: what is really bugging me currently and in the more recent past, is the fact that the aus media is so 'anti-war'. they may not come outright and say 'we are anti-war', but i've noticed the amount of stories they run of anti-war statements/sentiments/demonstrations/etc are numerous every night on the news, as opposed to the pro-war or even support-war/the US in which the total number of stories usually tally 0 minutes. so what happens is, if the only thing people hear or see is anti-war, then eventually, whether they know it or not, become anti-war themselves. i just wish there could be some sort of balance, so that people could make up their own mind, instead of regurgitating the popular anti-war rhetoric that they saw on last nights tv.

watch cnn then.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.