|
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.
|
Politics is BAD!!!!!
