|
Do you support a war with iraq? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| escee |
| 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. |
|
|
| escee |
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. |
|
|
| sifntj0r |
| 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. |
|
|
| Euphorica@AUS |
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 |
|
|
| DJ Dowlz |
| 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. |
|
|
| escee |
| 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. |
|
|
| sifntj0r |
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 :D
all this talk just makes me more pissed off that i'm not in the army yet :whip:
waiting sux.
p.s. thx for the pm ;) |
|
|
| DJ Dowlz |
| 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... |
|
|
| webmeister |
Apparently in Afghanistan some Canadian GI scored the longest-distance assault rifle kill ever. He capped a Taliban from 2 1/2 kilometres !! :eek:
He said he was really pumped up afterwards, so the Canadian authorities sent him home :rolleyes: |
|
|
| xxTRANCEBOYxx |
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. |
|
|
| sifntj0r |
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 :\ |
|
|
| xxTRANCEBOYxx |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
