quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this joker eats his own earwax

see, i remain unconvinced that this is actually what he was doing, but i think a person's political acumen might concern me more than their weird and/or disgusting habits.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo and we're gonna let him let him dictate how we feel about the greatest ideological conflict of our time? f**k that.

given the state of iraq today, that just sounds like romantic nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo oh, now the Howard government lied about WMD's?

yeah, well why confuse the public with particulars? i agree, this is bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo IT'S A POLITICAL TACTIC USED TO DRUM UP POLITICAL SUPPORT!!!! thats all it is, not a criticism based on fact.

yes. rhetorical fluff designed to sink into the voting subconscious. but that doesn't change the fact that the war is hugely unpopular here and bringing some troops home was part of the platform the labor party took to the electorate last year. as a politician, sometimes you lead and other times you follow. that's democracy for ya!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you know how you can tell? you can tell because NO ONE accuses France of manipulating WMD intel even though they said all along Saddam had WMD's.

yeah, well as far as i am aware there isnt documented evidence of the french government using alternative interrogation methods to get their intelligence to justify war. there can be no doubt that the bush administration sent their intel services to gather information for a war, rather than having a casus beli (sp?). there can be no doubt that they put too much stock in certain pieces of unreliable intelligence, and that they ignored contrary advice from the intelligence services.

now, i don't think they deliberately lied to get into iraq either, and i think the AU forces should also remain there until there is some semblance of lasting peace or fully-functioning government. but dont forget that australia has other commitments in countries closer to home. in case you hadnt noticed, the asia-pacific region has a few instability issues of its own and perhaps it is somewhere that our troops can make more of a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thanks Rudd you earwax nibbling pussy-fart. take your 300 troops out of Afghanistan and give us the bill. we got work to do.

you'd be fucking struggling to replace some of the caliber of soldier we have lurking in afghanistan boy wonder!

what do we get for our obedience in following the US to war? i mean, you sell us second-rate military equipment for exorbitant prices, and you'll be fvcked if you'll let us fair access to your farming markets.

so what is it? what is on the "bill" as you so plainly put it?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this joker eats his own earwax and we're gonna let him let him dictate how we feel about the greatest ideological conflict of our time? f**k that.

Gee, that's a pleasant thought since its progressed from a "war on terror" (even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 attacks) to a "war on WMD's" (which mysteriously never turned up) to a "war on oil prices" (but at least those went up) and now finally, its a "war on ideology".

Those always 'end' so well...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN given the state of iraq today, that just sounds like romantic nonsense.

tell me what you know about the state of Iraq today. seriously

quote:

yeah, well as far as i am aware there isnt documented evidence of the french government using alternative interrogation methods to get their intelligence to justify war.

can you be more specific? are you talking about curveball?

quote:

there can be no doubt that the bush administration sent their intel services to gather information for a war, rather than having a casus beli (sp?).

i don't understand maybe cause i'm tired. casus belli is justification for war.

aside from some particulars what was different about what the previous administration said about Saddam's WMD's and what the current one said, obviously barring not following up with war ultimately?

quote:

there can be no doubt that they put too much stock in certain pieces of unreliable intelligence, and that they ignored contrary advice from the intelligence services. now, i don't think they deliberately lied to get into iraq either

look thats all good easy to claim after the fact and i might agree with ignoring certain particulars about WMD's but our government for years prior to Bush was pumping out intel on Saddam. it was a foregone conclusion, a bi-partisaned agreement, an international assumption about Saddam before Bush took the oath of office. i don't doubt that Bush had a hard-on for ending a decade of going nowhere with Saddam but if Bush in Jan 2001 had 10' stack of intel supporting historical claims about WMD's and by Jan 2003 had a 2' stack claiming otherwise to go with it i just can't see ignoring the base assumptions when we were already at war and had lost so much after 9/11.

quote:

and i think the AU forces should also remain there until there is some semblance of lasting peace or fully-functioning government.

see this is my problem with Rudd. Iraq finally does have a semblance of lasting peace and a fully-functioning, Shiite-ass kicking government. we knew he was going to pull out his 500 troops regardless. why does he have to say this shit?

quote:

but dont forget that australia has other commitments in countries closer to home. in case you hadnt noticed, the asia-pacific region has a few instability issues of its own and perhaps it is somewhere that our troops can make more of a difference.

i did not know that. ok.

quote:

you'd be fucking struggling to replace some of the caliber of soldier we have lurking in afghanistan boy wonder!

don't get me wrong. i don't care who they are, i never speak ill of well intentioned combat troops (yes there is such a thing) unless they're French...or French-Canadian.

if your troops are anything like your Submainers, because ive worked with Aussie bubbleheads and they're about as fine as they come, then you've got nothing to worry about. it's the politicians who utilize them i'm critical of.

quote:

so what is it? what is on the "bill" as you so plainly put it?

it's just a figure of speach. a poor one i guess.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Gee, that's a pleasant thought since its progressed from a "war on terror" (even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 attacks) to a "war on WMD's" (which mysteriously never turned up) to a "war on oil prices" (but at least those went up) and now finally, its a "war on ideology". Those always 'end' so well...

i get your point but are we going to argue semantics here?

do you not believe that the West has been in an ongoing "jihad" against jihad for quite some time now?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo do you not believe that the West has been in an ongoing "jihad" against jihad for quite some time now?

No, my opinion of the west is mostly this from about 1999-2008

They selectively choose things which will net them the most capital gains for their effort. Iraq was worth more to the US and UN than a country at the same period of time provided secure supplies of food to most of Africa and was only marginally connected to western countries in terms of exports.

Ideology has very little to do with it except lip service.
It has everything to do with economic empowerment of the US and it's allied countries, if you have something of worth they help, if you don't then you get nothing. It really has nothing to do with humanitarian efforts and it has even less to do with ideology that only serves to whip up some fervour amongst the more martial and idealistic supporters of these activities. After all, no soldier on either side is going to fight for something which has only a dollar sign attached to it.

They need a reason and it may as well be hatred, xenophobia and personal fear as a motivator. This applies to both sides:
Hatred: The Muslims/Christians hate you
Xenophobia: Because you're not like them
Fear: Because they'll attack again
Outside of the Middle East area, the only other area to have more devout, frothing at the mouth extremists per square mile is the USA, its simply inevitable that they'll come into conflict sooner or later. Their leaders figure they may as well be making a buck on the side and bolstering their own power base by using that level of ignorance amongst their population.

quote:

i did not know that. ok.

Australia has an area of defence responsibility roughly the size of the former USSR encompassing most of the Papua and Timor region, Micronesia, Fiji and New Zealand.
With a population of 21 million and an accordingly small armed forces, 500 combat troops is a very large commitment considering there's already a large amount based in Afghanistan and those above areas that are dependant on Australia for their security and sovereignty. 500 may not seem a lot, but there simply isn't any left.
Australian and British SAS/Para's where first into Iraq, on the ground doing recon weeks before the yanks ever showed up en-masse and all very showy, it's a gross disrespect you have for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith it's a gross disrespect you have for them.

to be fair i dont think he's showing anyone disrespect.

___________________

so 1999-2008? good for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith it's a gross disrespect you have for them.

wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN to be fair i dont think he's showing anyone disrespect.

True, "contempt" would be a more apt description

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so 1999-2008? good for you.

You want me to spell out a parallel lack of humanitarian efforts in two countries under tyrannical regimes during this era, one which received because they had economic worth, one which didn't because they where worth nothing to the West.
Or that all you got to try and arc me up?

quote:

Originally posted by Kinezi Well than since Mr. Ruud is so upset about the actions of Mr. Howard, which led to homocide, death, rape, murder, looting, destruction of public property and infrastructure in Iraq.. shoudnt Mr. Ruud consider sending Mr. Howard to jail and try for war crimes? Instead of just making public speeches?

First off, the Australian military never did any of that stuff. Secondly, you're just talkin shit so I dunno if I should give a serious response or end it here...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Or that all you got to try and arc me up?

hmmmm arc??? sounds ..... sensual... does that involve electricity and razor blades?? lol


such a tease... ha ha

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo tell me what you know about the state of Iraq today. seriously

i know there's a 'berlin' wall going up. i know women have taken a backward step and that fundamentalist islam has more of a foothold now than during saddam's reign. i know that there are hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. i know that the delicate peace is more related to recent al sadr restraint than to american success.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo can you be more specific? are you talking about curveball?

yes, curveball but also sheikh al libi (sp?) from egypt and their entire interrogations at gitmo. we are talking about the greatest information-collecting government in the history of the known universe - their case for going to war should have been water-tight instead of a mis-match of bad intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo aside from some particulars what was different about what the previous administration said about Saddam's WMD's and what the current one said, obviously barring not following up with war ultimately?

that's the point though isn't it? the intelligence should have been better if they were going to use it as a justification for invasion.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo look thats all good easy to claim after the fact and i might agree with ignoring certain particulars about WMD's but our government for years prior to Bush was pumping out intel on Saddam. it was a foregone conclusion, a bi-partisaned agreement, an international assumption about Saddam before Bush took the oath of office. i don't doubt that Bush had a hard-on for ending a decade of going nowhere with Saddam but if Bush in Jan 2001 had 10' stack of intel supporting historical claims about WMD's and by Jan 2003 had a 2' stack claiming otherwise to go with it i just can't see ignoring the base assumptions when we were already at war and had lost so much after 9/11.

this superb piece by frontline on PBS makes a very compelling case against the administration and its recurring misuse of intelligence up and down the chains of command LINK.

Note the assessment from George W on the NIE whitepaper "is that all we have?" as well as the evidence to support the allegation that cheney (and his hawks) in particular repeatedly misused faulty intelligence to make a case for war. i also find the allegations that top intelligence officers were pressured by the office of the vice president to be completely plausible and in line with what we know about the administration's other techniques of skirting around official guidelines and methods.

i know i know, this "liberal media" attacking the administration again!

___________________