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

Huge post webmeister.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister 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.

Werd to that. In his state of the union address he didnt mention osamas name once. However, if he would have is scaring people, but since he didnt he is ignoring the failure of the war in afghanistan, damned if you do, damned if you dont.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister 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.

I disagree. I think if the north korea problem does actually come to fruition then america would be the first one here helping us. Before britain for sure. Military i think they would support us if we needed their help. However trade wise we are getting reamed with the tariffs that the us impose on our imports. Perhaps our help in this war could make trade easier for us, and benefit our economy (in other not war related ways). This is another reason why I Think that GWB is keen on getting this war started. The economy is going down the toilet (Dow jones lost around 250 points this week) and Wars help every economy out of times of trouble. If they win that is.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister 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.

I beleive war will be declared very soon. The sooner it is declared the easier the war for the US army since as the year goes on the temperatures in Iraq will rise. With Johnny H going over there today. As well him meeting Koffe Anan, and Tony Blair, I think the announcement will come soon. I hugely disagree that australian men and women will die simply to make the US feel better.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister 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.

The weapons that saddam has are even out of range of the US. But, thats unimportant. The fact that he has them and could use them is enough. Sure he may not attack australia, or america with these supposed weapons. But what about Iran? What about other neighbouring countries? what about the kurds that he as already used these types of weapons on? Why wait until he has the capability to attack western countries? To me at least it makes sense to stop the problem before it occurs.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister - 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)

I think thats a little harsh. Thats sort of implying that we have country full of fundamentalists just to our north. Not every muslim interprets his holy book as war to the west.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister - 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)?

Several more months of dicking around? Moving weapons? Cleaning sites? The fact that saddam took a good month to let the inspectors in says something I think.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister 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

I disagree. The UN will act as the counter balance. France and Germany have challenged and slowed the US's rush to war. Significantly I think. That is only 2 countries. If america got out of hand then other countries would object too. Im sure that britain and australia would also change their point of view.

Lots of quotes, sorry about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancey Ash 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.

thats just plain silly

1) the media will not turn into a war propaganda machine because the way news is structured on commercial channels in australia is such that even if it's major international news, it can still take a back seat to national and even local news. the war in iraq is quite a distance away, therefore the doctrine of media in australia (and other places) dictates that only what the people or viewers want to see will get shown. typically, viewers only 'care' about what affects them directly, ie. local, state, national news. we wouldn't see regular bulletin updates on the news about how we are winning small battles/victories everywhere. it simply won't pull the ratings, instead whichever popular australian figure is embroiled in some love triangle will, thus the news will be structured accordingly.

2) conscription is used when the troop requirement is greater than the recruit/volunteer intake. if they find millions of recruits signing up, then there won't be a need for conscription. on the other hand, if no recruits are signing up, then conscription would be used if the troop requirement was high. however, the war with iraq, being in iraq, with australia playing a minimal role (mostly our highly trained personel only being involved), means that conscription wont occur with this war. and to a further extend, nor would it be used in north korea, because it is a far more widely recognised threat by the collective world, that the naysayers of iraq (eg france and germany) would be willing to commit their troops too, leaving australia in a minimal role too. the only way conscription will occur is if there is a another world war, with the majority of countries involved in fighting. i just dont think this will happen, with europe seemingly more united than ever (moreso with iraq).

quote:

Originally posted by OLi_A 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

answer me this, if the USA so heavily influences the UN, then why aren't we at war ALREADY?
because that misconception is wrong.


and yer, whatever escee said.

Man Im itching to get invovlved in this debate, some very nieve remarks coming forward, but ill refrain. Politics is BAD!!!!!
It creates heated and un needed arguments lol

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.

That's so true! Our SAS are one of the best in the world. I wouldn't say as good as the UK SAS, but certainly the second best in the business.

Have you heard about the "37th brigade" (there is no such thing btw, it's a nickname). I have a mate who's an SASer and when he was over in Afghanistan, 400 yanks had got themselves stuck in a valley and they were sitting ducks to the Taliban who had dug themselves in nicely on top of the ridges. I think the yanks were delta squad or something pretty poorly trained.

US tried to send in a helicopter and rescue them. Completely screwed up, helicopter got shot down. So they sent in 12 Australian SAS guys (one of them who's my mate). I kid you not. These guys fired 37 bullets between them. That's an average of 3 bullets per guy. They managed to strategically kill all the leaders and the rest got so pissed scared they ran off home. Rescue the 400 Americans from a completely hopeless situation. Saved the day and were nicknamed the 37th brigade cause they saved the Americans with 37 bullets.

So in summary, our SAS rock, are one of the best (if not THE best) in the business and the Yanks love em.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Dowlz Have you heard about the "37th brigade" (there is no such thing btw, it's a nickname). I have a mate who's an SASer and when he was over in Afghanistan, 400 yanks had got themselves stuck in a valley and they were sitting ducks to the Taliban who had dug themselves in nicely on top of the ridges. I think the yanks were delta squad or something pretty poorly trained. US tried to send in a helicopter and rescue them. Completely screwed up, helicopter got shot down. So they sent in 12 Australian SAS guys (one of them who's my mate). I kid you not. These guys fired 37 bullets between them. That's an average of 3 bullets per guy. They managed to strategically kill all the leaders and the rest got so pissed scared they ran off home. Rescue the 400 Americans from a completely hopeless situation. Saved the day and were nicknamed the 37th brigade cause they saved the Americans with 37 bullets.

wow interesting story.

yah heard about that before dowlz, great stuff

didnt know the 37th brigade bit though :P

honestly, i dont think we even suffered a fatality over in afghanistan, i'm trying to think, but im fairly sure that there was no aussie loss over there.

another story is about a sas patrol over in timor (way back in, was it 2000?). anyway one of the guys was shot in the neck, but took cover, returned fire, and killed the ****** :P

...and lived

all this talk just makes me more pissed off that i'm not in the army yet
waiting sux.

p.s. thx for the pm

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r honestly, i dont think we even suffered a fatality over in afghanistan, i'm trying to think, but im fairly sure that there was no aussie loss over there.

That is correct, no SAS died in Timor (and I don't think any standard military either). Although my friend tells me that we did kill a civilian. He's one of the top pilots in the airforce (duxed his class at ADFA etc etc) and when he was doing the first air drop in timor (UN001), some kid ran out to grab the crate as it was falling from the sky and got killed. That was really unfortunate.

BTW, you know that whole Black Hawk incident? My SAS mate reckons it was just a game a chicken that went awfully wrong...

Apparently in Afghanistan some Canadian GI scored the longest-distance assault rifle kill ever. He capped a Taliban from 2 1/2 kilometres !!

He said he was really pumped up afterwards, so the Canadian authorities sent him home

Hmm i War thread, why haven't i replied yet? Anyway, i do support a war in Iraq but only under certain circumstances. Can't be assed explaining them.

Oh BTW. I'm pretty sure an Australian LT. died in Afgahnistan, travelling in a 5th Open truck when it hit a bump in the road. His Styre went off hitting him in the neck.

found the link to the story about the aus sas trooper who died

http://www.news.com.au/common/story...4%255E2,00.html


he was driving along leading a convoy when he drove over a landmine

thats a tough break, i mean it coulda happened to anyone, and how hard would it be to spot a landmine on a dirt track when driving at speed? by the time u realise it would prolly be too late :\

Ahh, i was close poor guy, it's sad that he died let alone dying in such a way Anyway, i think the guy that shot himself was in Timor, not sure.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister Apparently in Afghanistan some Canadian GI scored the longest-distance assault rifle kill ever. He capped a Taliban from 2 1/2 kilometres !! He said he was really pumped up afterwards, so the Canadian authorities sent him home

lmao
"are we shooting???" "i dunno! has he got a gun???" "yeah! he does!" *BANG!* "dude! u shot an iraqi!!! whooo!!!! nice one!!!" *yanks inspect dying iraqi holding white flag* lol 3 kings, what a film.

now besides that little bit of humour, i remember one scene which has some relevance to this, when the american soldier is being interrogated, and is asked "why are u fighting us?" he answers "for stability in the region" and the iraqi grabs a can of oil and starts pouring it over the american, exclaiming "here is your fucking stability!!"

i (me, my opinion ) think that is partly the reason george dubya wants to fight iraq and get rid of saddam. so he can get an american sympathysing puppet government to support the americans great need for oil.

also i think he needs something new to focus after afganistan. are the troops still over there? did america say this will be a short war? we used to get updates on things like battles and shit, but i dont think ive seen anything about it for a while. perhaps he thinks its been drawn out too long and not the decisive huge american victory he wanted and so he wants to deflect attention to something else. like others already said, he hardly talks about osama bin laden now. he was like "the worlds most wanted man" for ages, now everyone hates saddam.

i think a few points about this also need to be made, i think america made it possible for osama bin laden and the taliban etc to come to power after the support and arms they got while fighting russia. the same with iraq, they were supported by america while fighting iran or kuwait i think. they say saddam harbours terrorist networks, but who knows what kind of support the americans have given other groups to help further their own agenda. who knows what kind of terrorist cells are actually operating in america itself. i dont think america can go on making these claims when they could be called responsible, inadvertantly or not, for them being in power anyway.

you hear on the news reports of terrorism and the reporters say "it is unsure whether they are linked to osama bin laden's al-quaida group." that in itself doesnt mean much, but it puts the idea that they are a lot bigger than they are, and a bigger threat to everyone. as far as ive heard, there hasnt been one bit of proof that iraq has anything to do with al-quaida in terms of arms and funding etc.

and why is he so obsessed with getting saddam anyway? he feels insulted that his dad couldnt get rid of him? he wants to finish the job? weapons inspectors are trying to do their job, to find the weapons of mass destruction. perhaps they have been impeded, but that doesnt necesarrily mean they are hiding anything. i cant imagine us government letting weapons inspectors just go and look at anything and everything they want. so far they havent found anything and there hasnt been proof that anything illegal or against the un resolutions is being done?

quote:

"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."

where did that anthrax come from? shipped in overseas to attack american postal workers? or was it produced in america? and wtf does "unscom estimates there could be 25000 litres" mean. u can just as easily say something like america declares 10000 litres but could have produced 30000. thats just crap.

quote:

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)

exactly. if they want our fucking SAS then they should buy our fucking steel and stuff!

a side note: ive heard our normal infantry are better skilled than american rangers
and they should be fucking glad that they are getting the SAS. and i love reading stories like that about small squads of commandos and stuff pulling off shit like that. i read in a book for a vietnam war essay in yr11 about an aussie patrol that was ambushed and a soldier being shot through both his eyes and another through his neck or something and making it out of there alive. go the fucking SAS!!! (even i personally dont really want them to go there, if it comes to that i hope they fucking shit on everything!! fucking hard as nails ****s! better than any soft cock US shit! )

god knows what kind of weapons america is hiding. as far as im concerned im more scared of george dubya going nuts and unleashing shit everywhere than saddam hussain what business do they have in the region anyway? human rights abuses? im not arguing it doesnt happen, but i dont htink america has a clean slate in that department, operating clothing sweat shops and shitty working conditions for immigrants. besides trade sanctions against iraq probably hurt their people just as much anyway.

isnt the north korean threat far more greater? they do have nuclear weapons, and i think have made it clear they will use them against american forces in south korea if america attacks iraq. america is still unsure if iraq has these weapons! isnt north korea a communist nation? america hates communists! why dont they bully them??

reasons for not going to war?
we dont need to be involved. americas current obsession with gettinf rid of saddam should be left to them.
if we join in an attack, it could provoke muslim extremist attacks against us.
we dont have anything to gain, other than brownie points with america.
whats it got to do with us anyway?

why does he want to go in with or without UN support? even if the inspectors find nothing and the UN says "hey, theres no evidence they are hiding or building weapons that they shouldnt have, so back off." he seems like he will go in anyway. that seems more like a personal vendetta than any concern for the well-being of the world. perhaps george dubya wants to get iraq because they dont know their arms potential and they can get rid of any possible threat. whereas he knows what north korea is capable of, and is too scared to try anything on them.

now im sure there was more i wanted to say but its after 3am and i cant be fucked!

A few quick questions we would all like answered


1) Which country in the world has the largest arsenel of weapons of mass destruction..?

2) What does america hope to achieve by waging war against Iraq? One evil dictator in a bodybag and a subservient iraqi government to provide america with boundless supplies of oil?

3) Will Australia if it goes to war with Iraq, change its policy on *ILLEGAL refugees* ?? as i for one can forsee a large population of displaced iraqi people as a result of such a war.

4) When this crisis with iraq is over and done, who will be America's new public enemy #1 ??




War is futile, it is a pointless waste of life... what gives some trigger happy neanderthal the right to play god with thousands and thousands of lives?

quote:

Originally posted by Philby why does he want to go in with or without UN support? even if the inspectors find nothing and the UN says "hey, theres no evidence they are hiding or building weapons that they shouldnt have, so back off." he seems like he will go in anyway. that seems more like a personal vendetta than any concern for the well-being of the world. perhaps george dubya wants to get iraq because they dont know their arms potential and they can get rid of any possible threat. whereas he knows what north korea is capable of, and is too scared to try anything on them.

Im not sure how true it is. But i read the other day that north korea has no navy what so ever, and i would imagine that they would have little airforce. Whats to stop america sitting in the water launching plenty of missiles at korea?

The anti war media builds up the threat of korea and often says 'million man army'. Thats crap. If i was John Howard, i could cut into the budget, buy 1 million uniforms, and 1 million automatic weapons. Give everyone 1 weeks training and roberts your fathers brother, ive got a 1 million man army. North could invade the south if america attacked. But there were enough american troops on the border then I think that could be halted.

North Korea is a poor nation that is hoping to benefit from this somehow.

quote:

Originally posted by ascension 1) Which country in the world has the largest arsenel of weapons of mass destruction..? 2) What does america hope to achieve by waging war against Iraq? One evil dictator in a bodybag and a subservient iraqi government to provide america with boundless supplies of oil? 3) Will Australia if it goes to war with Iraq, change its policy on *ILLEGAL refugees* ?? as i for one can forsee a large population of displaced iraqi people as a result of such a war. 4) When this crisis with iraq is over and done, who will be America's new public enemy #1 ??

1) Probably america. But, i would prefer 10000 nukes in the hands of a nation who wouldnt use them unless it was necessary than 1 or 2 in the hands of someone who would use them.

2) If this was the only reason for starting a war (im not saying that this isnt a reason, just not the only one) then the US could attack plenty other countries who have more oil. Afghanistan also has some oil interests, so america would be set for a while if that was their only reason.

3) Im not saying that refugee's will completely stop coming from iraq, however i would think that a country that is rid of a manical dictator (who a lot of the country do not support) would have less people seeking asylum in other countries from it.

4) I would assume North Korea.

hehe this all reminds me of a joke (even though i'm aware war is NOT a joke) ...



A large group of Taliban soldiers are moving down a road when they hear a voice call from behind a sand-dune.

"One Australian SAS soldier is better than ten Taliban".

The Taliban commander quickly sends 10 of his best soldiers over the dune whereupon a gun-battle breaks out and continues for a few minutes, then silence. The voice then calls out "One Australian SAS soldier is better than one hundred Taliban".

Furious, the Taliban commander sends his next best 100 troops over the dune and instantly a huge gunfight commences. After 10 minutes of battle, again silence. The Australian voice calls out again "One Australian SAS soldier is better than one thousand Taliban".

The enraged Taliban Commander musters one thousand fighters and sends them across the dune. Cannon, rocket and machine gun fire ring out as a huge battle is fought. Then silence. Eventually one wounded Taliban fighter crawls back over the dune and with his dying words tells his commander, "Don't send any more men, it's a trap, ...there's actually two of them."

I doubt Australian SAS among the best!!! There is no such thing beign best by just training. To reach such status u need two things

1- Battle hardening (engaging in operations often, which Au troops don't. Considering other nations special troops doing it more often. Russians in Checnia, Turks in Northern Iraq, Georgians in Abkhaza, Indians and Pakistanis in Kashmir, Colombians in Amazon jungles, French Foeign Legion in parts of Africa etc.) Surely those other nations special forces are more experienced and know the perils of such operations. Thats why they're not eager to join Americans in every conflict unlike Aussies.
2- Technologie, which I'm sure Australian troops has unlimited access. But mostly a SAS soldier carries light sort of armament which supported with hi-tech comminications and air support which Aussie troops rely mostly on Americans.

How can you say we're the best? Do they have competitions between the SAS teams around the world. Is there a secret league of SAS matches with paintball guns? If not, how can you measure such a thing and claim you're the best???? If you're referring bombing the shit out of taliban who don't have anything other than obsolute weapons day and night with tons of Napalms, Bunker busters and Carpet bombs with pin point accuracy. I'm sure even you and I could go and take on them with our Counter-strike and Rogue Spear experiences

It's all Fascist Redneck propaganda. I miss Bill Clinton. In his time we only had exiting Sex scandals not wars and stuff

i love these hooooooj posts
guess what guys! john howard doesn't read au. tranceaddict!

quote:

Originally posted by Jah i love these hooooooj posts guess what guys! john howard doesn't read au. tranceaddict!

i love you man!

dont you ever change baby!

i have a mate who came back from the army about a week ago - he resigned 8 days before he was to graduate as an officer commander (or something like that) due to australia's commitment to the war without parlimentary discussion.. in his words, australian troops would be slaughtered if they were deployed in iraq because they simply have very little training in desert warfare...

however i'd assume he wouldnt be talking about the SAS troops that are being sent to iraq.... so yeah

quote:

1) Probably america. But, i would prefer 10000 nukes in the hands of a nation who wouldnt use them unless it was necessary than 1 or 2 in the hands of someone who would use them. 2) If this was the only reason for starting a war (im not saying that this isnt a reason, just not the only one) then the US could attack plenty other countries who have more oil. Afghanistan also has some oil interests, so america would be set for a while if that was their only reason. 3) Im not saying that refugee's will completely stop coming from iraq, however i would think that a country that is rid of a manical dictator (who a lot of the country do not support) would have less people seeking asylum in other countries from it. 4) I would assume North Korea.

1) i hardly call americas actions at the moment "necessary" - as someone else pointed out, why has Iraq's threat to the world suddenly escalated in the last few months...? why is there such urgancy to launch an attack on iraq now??

2) i agree its only one of the reasons - after all its probably less likely america could create vast amounts of paranoia and panic and therefore public support if it were to attack one of the other oiled up countries, but iraq... now they have weapons of mass destruction

3) Yes perhaps if saddam hussain was overthrown then many iraqi people would be inclined to stay, but im sure you'd agree that if this war was to be drawn out theres a possibility of hundreds of thousands of iraqi people being left without a home

4) Yep never liked those damn koreans

quote:

Originally posted by escee i love you man! dont you ever change baby!

group hug!

well done fag boys

quote:

Originally posted by escee 1) Probably america. But, i would prefer 10000 nukes in the hands of a nation who wouldnt use them unless it was necessary than 1 or 2 in the hands of someone who would use them.

define necessary?
how do u know saddam hussain will use them if he had them anyway? if he does attack anything there will no doubt be uproar and everyone will say hey look iraq attacked lets get them. but how is that any different to american forces making "pre-emptive" strikes against "threats" to them? as far as saddam hussain is concerned, he has the world's biggest military power just itching to let loose, in my eyes thats definately a fucking threat! if the US wants to make a pre-emptive strike against iraq or attack them because they feel threatened, then by the same logic its perfectly reasonable for iraq to attack american forces for the same reason.

i bet in the next 2 years from now theres gonna be at least 1 terrorist attack on AUstralian soil, god help us :C

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier i bet in the next 2 years from now theres gonna be at least 1 terrorist attack on AUstralian soil, god help us :C

whats that got to do with Iraq?

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