Australian Army - Iraq 2003

[chrisjohn316]

.

[Kapiti]

ChrisJohn316 - You have one view of Australia's involvement. I, who had unfortunately helped vote Howard into office now am forced to admit my embarrasment.

Embarasment that he behaved like an American suppository pressured into an war that should never have been fought. So much for the weapons of mass destruction. So much for the connection between Al Quaeda and Iraq.

But no the war was fought to free the Iraqi people. Why haven't we all invaded Burma if this was the principle which was decisivelly upheld. The government in that country didn't even have the nouse to rig the election properly.

Yes it is good to see a rotten leader like Hussein replaced. But at what cost ? The jury is very much still out on that one. The long term indirect consaquences are the ones I fear.

What happens if the majority of the Iraqi people democratically decide that their great Satan is still the US and democratically decide that they don't want an occupying force. Do we keep replacing the government till they get it right?

What a simplistic view you have on these affairs.

[chrisjohn316]

Kapiti

So tell me, do you support the Palestinians that murder Israelis with their murder-suicide-bombers? Saddam Hussein was financially supporting that.

According to your way of thinking Saddam would still be in power and all that entails.

If you don't like Australia ... leave!

[richcrassus]

The thing is that saddam is still probably paying all suicide attack bombers families US$25,000, maybe a bit less cos hes out of a job, but dont forget hes still worth at least US$1Billion and up to US$8billion. If saddam joined forces with Bin ladin (this reads like a bad episode of teenage mutant ninja turtles with the shredder as saddam) they could finance suuicide attacks in the US like on busses and cafe's every day.
Wonder what the US would do if every day there were like 10 suicide attacks, would they kick out all muslims? would they ban islam?
who knows. Saddam might make a comback with bin ladin.

[Kapiti]

No I don't support the Palestinian suicide bombers. Certainly not the ones bombing targets in Israel as opposed to the West Bank and Gaza. I don't support the others either but I can understand their point of view. The settlers are much more legitimate targets. (not that I said legitimate targets).

There is a very easy way to make Israel completly safe from suicide bombings and its cheap also. Simply remove the army from around the settlers in the WB and G.

Exactly where did I say that I did not like Australia ? I don't like Howard thats all. Perhaps you should re-read my posting.

[Mediocrates]

Settlers are legitimate targets and the solution is to stop protecting them from ethnic cleansing.


OK - I hear you loud and clear.

[Kapiti]

Mediocrates - You call it ethnic cleansing? I call it providing some disincentive for religious zealots to steal someone else's land because of a mistaken impression that a claim to the land out of date by almost two thousand years somehow stands for something. (While at the same time helping cultivate a conflict which directly and indirectly has killed thousands of innocents)

[Mediocrates]

Like I said. Ethnic cleansing.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates - You call it ethnic cleansing? I call it providing some disincentive for religious zealots to steal someone else's land because of a mistaken impression that a claim to the land out of date by almost two thousand years somehow stands for something. (While at the same time helping cultivate a conflict which directly and indirectly has killed thousands of innocents)

Compare and contrast Israel and the Palestinians, against the Australians and the Aborigines. I'd like to hear your take on that.

[chrisjohn316]

.

[gev]

The settlers are much more legitimate targets. (not that I said legitimate targets).


How is a family leaving in a home, in a place that happens to be a disputed area, a legitimate target? they should be evacuated - I agree, but not murdered. I assume that you oppose the assaniation of Terrorists done by Israel (they are only suspects, they had no trial, innocent in the area are killed too, etc.)
you accuse settlers of stealing someone's land, and you sentence them to be killed by the palestinians. were they trialed? does stealing has the punishment of death? babeis too?






There is a very easy way to make Israel completly safe from suicide bombings and its cheap also. Simply remove the army from around the settlers in the WB and G.


First of all, if Israel do that, a lot of people would be slaghtered by the palestinians.

Second, the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other organizations who actually should cease attacks and make Israel safe disagree with you, are you just making things up? when did you hear any of the Terror organizations spokesmen say that when the army wouldn't be in WB and Gaza, they will stop attacks? Just recently, Hamas spokesman said that attacks would not stop until every jew is driven out of Palestine (it means whole of Israel, not just the WB and Gaza).

The way to make Israel safe, in my opinion, is :
1. fighting Terror organizations until the palestinians do it.
2. build a strong border
3. Only after Terror is eradicated, and Infrastructure is eliminated, Evacuate Settlements and make peace agreements, that will gurantee that Terror not build up again.

[Kapiti]

Johnny Yuma - It is all a question of timing. What was acceptable 100,000 years was not acceptable 1,000 years ago. What was acceptable 1,000 years ago was not acceptable 200 years ago.
What was acceptable 200 years ago was not acceptable 50 years ago.

Society and the rules which make up good community behaviour change with time.

The comparison you make is a valid one but the timing is the distinction. To follow your argument would also be to deny the white and black americans any position in originally "red" America.

chrisjohn316 - Learn the basics. Learn to read. Then maybe someone can have a meaningful discussion with you.

Gev - What you say deserves a serious reply but I don't have time now.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Kapiti
I call it providing some disincentive for religious zealots to steal someone else's land because of a mistaken impression that a claim to the land out of date by almost two thousand years somehow stands for something.


I call that run on, bigotry. Nice sounding intellectualized bigotry but bigotry all the same. Your internalized picture of 'settlers' is no different from what 'modern' Europeans imagined the hooknosed Shylock to be.

Your statement reinforces what I've said for years. This whole issue has almost nothing to do with Palestinians and everything to do with what permission people like you would grant to suffer Jews to live. The fact that you couch it in terms of peace means only moral laziness or simple fatigue. Today it's Hevron, tomorrow Jerusalem and next month it's convert, leave or die. All in the name of peace and expedience, mind you.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Kapiti
It is all a question of timing. What was acceptable 100,000 years was not acceptable 1,000 years ago. What was acceptable 1,000 years ago was not acceptable 200 years ago.
What was acceptable 200 years ago was not acceptable 50 years ago.

But pogroms for 2000 years seem to always be in vogue. Always a 'good sane rational expedient' reason for them. And here we have one more, right now, today.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Johnny Yuma - It is all a question of timing. What was acceptable 100,000 years was not acceptable 1,000 years ago. What was acceptable 1,000 years ago was not acceptable 200 years ago.
What was acceptable 200 years ago was not acceptable 50 years ago.

Society and the rules which make up good community behaviour change with time.

The comparison you make is a valid one but the timing is the distinction. To follow your argument would also be to deny the white and black americans any position in originally "red" America.




Uh huh. You're right. I forgot that murdering children on buses and discos is now an acceptable behavior among the human race, as opposed to 1,000 years ago, when it wasn't. I imagine you'll argue that there weren't buses and discos, now.... ;)

But the Palestinians, specifically their leader, Senor Arafat, have declined better offers than the one currently on the table for a position in that area. And I'm glad you brought up the indigenous people of this country, and how society and rules change with time, because, as luck would have it, I just so happen to hold a tribal membership card; thanks to my father's side of the family. And we "red" Americans as you put us, at least had the good sense to assimilate. Missed opportunities? Possibly.... I could've pursued a doctorate, but perhaps I'll get together with my brothers and my cousins, one of these days, and we'll open a casino.....

[Kapiti]

Mediocrates - Take your tablets - Read the posts - Write something even remotely relevant - Then you get a reply.

Is this so hard to understand ?

Johnny Yuma - You wanted a take on the similarities / differences between the Australian Aborigines / the rest and Palestine/Israel.

Try not to rant you lose coherence and relevance.

The relevance of your newly discovered "red" connection ????????

In North America, Australia people of originally European extraction have moved into un-developed countries and dis-enfranchised the local people. The similarity with what is happening in Israel/Palestine is very relevant and if what had happened over the last 100 years ago in Israel/Palestine had happened 250 or maybe even 200 years ago then this dispute would not exist.

The Jews would have taken Israel (greater) and maybe even part of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon through force perhaps and populated it.
The world would have been much more accepting simply because that was what was happening at that time. - 150 years ago you were in a "colonial" period. 50 years ago you were not.

100 years makes a massive amount of difference at this time in history. The fact is that the Jewish push for a position in the Middle East was late.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates - Take your tablets - Read the posts - Write something even remotely relevant - Then you get a reply.

100 years makes a massive amount of difference at this time in history. The fact is that the Jewish push for a position in the Middle East was late.



First off you're a patronizing twit.
Second - no one cares about 100 years ago.
Third - no matter how much you try you can't uninvent them.


Thank you for coming out to the ballpark today and don't get hurt on the drive home.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates - Take your tablets - Read the posts - Write something even remotely relevant - Then you get a reply.

Is this so hard to understand ?

Johnny Yuma - You wanted a take on the similarities / differences between the Australian Aborigines / the rest and Palestine/Israel.

Try not to rant you lose coherence and relevance.

The relevance of your newly discovered "red" connection ????????

In North America, Australia people of originally European extraction have moved into un-developed countries and dis-enfranchised the local people. The similarity with what is happening in Israel/Palestine is very relevant and if what had happened over the last 100 years ago in Israel/Palestine had happened 250 or maybe even 200 years ago then this dispute would not exist.

The Jews would have taken Israel (greater) and maybe even part of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon through force perhaps and populated it.
The world would have been much more accepting simply because that was what was happening at that time. - 150 years ago you were in a "colonial" period. 50 years ago you were not.

100 years makes a massive amount of difference at this time in history. The fact is that the Jewish push for a position in the Middle East was late.

Rant? Who's ranting? You'd better check yourself, sonny boy. I've known I was Cherokee, long before your parents ever decided to embark on their little genetic experiment gone terribly awry; namely, you....

[Johnny Yuma]

Okay, Andak. I'll apologize for that last remark. I'm sure your parents are nice people and never new what attitudes you'd grow up to have. I shouldn't have dragged them into the argument. So. I humbly apologize.

Otherwise, you need to, as my mother used to put it, sweep under your own door step, before you step out and criticize others. In other words, before you point out the mote in your neighbor's eye, remove the log from your own. Why don't you clean up your own part of the world, before you go off on a crusade to dictate how others should behave? I'm talking about recent history of Australia and East Timor; within the past, oh.... 2 years. Your country has already "grabbed" 80% of the seabed between your two countries, basing it on continental shelf, as opposed to nautical miles, and conveniently withdrawn from the International court of maritime boundary issues, to remove any contention. Of course, it's clear that it was just a way to grab the oil revenues belonging to East Timor. Talk about someone living in a glass house.

This (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/timo-m08.shtml)

... and this (http://www.country-liberal-party.com/east_timor.title.htm)

.......... and still more. (http://www.apheda.org.au/campaigns/images/et_gap_0902.pdf)

............. and it gets even better with the Aborigines in your own country. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2568521.stm)

[richcrassus]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Okay, Andak. I'll apologize for that last remark. I'm sure your parents are nice people and never new what attitudes you'd grow up to have. I shouldn't have dragged them into the argument. So. I humbly apologize.

Otherwise, you need to, as my mother used to put it, sweep under your own door step, before you step out and criticize others. In other words, before you point out the mote in your neighbor's eye, remove the log from your own. Why don't you clean up your own part of the world, before you go off on a crusade to dictate how others should behave? I'm talking about recent history of Australia and East Timor; within the past, oh.... 2 years. Your country has already "grabbed" 80% of the seabed between your two countries, basing it on continental shelf, as opposed to nautical miles, and conveniently withdrawn from the International court of maritime boundary issues, to remove any contention. Of course, it's clear that it was just a way to grab the oil revenues belonging to East Timor. Talk about someone living in a glass house.

Without australian mining expertice east timor wouldnt see 1cent of oil money. You know why, its because they have no drilling equiptment, and they have no engineers and no money to get the oil out of the ground. Its like whats better, robbing a bank alone and stealing $1million but getting caught a few days later, of robbing a bank with 4 'friends' but only getting $200,000 but NOT getting caught.
I dont hear u complaining about how the US exploits oil rich countries. Its in americas interests to have poor countries, otherwise who would be the cheap labour??

.[/URL]

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by richcrassus
Without australian mining expertice east timor wouldnt see 1cent of oil money. You know why, its because they have no drilling equiptment, and they have no engineers and no money to get the oil out of the ground. Its like whats better, robbing a bank alone and stealing $1million but getting caught a few days later, of robbing a bank with 4 'friends' but only getting $200,000 but NOT getting caught.
I dont hear u complaining about how the US exploits oil rich countries. Its in americas interests to have poor countries, otherwise who would be the cheap labour??


I seem to have hit a nerve with the Aussies.... I suppose which ever way you slice it, you're still robbing the bank. And I didn't realize it made a difference by virtue of how many people acted in concert to perpetrate the act; or whether or not they got caught. :confused:

Exploiting oil rich countries. Really? America? First, that sounds like an oxymoron, but lets just say for the sake of argument that you're right: America exploits oil rich countries. :rolleyes: If that's true, why do we the American people seem to always be the ones taking it in the shorts, since every time our government blinks, the "oil rich countries" raise their oil prices? Would it not make more sense, if we were truly exploiting them, the oil prices would continue to fall, as opposed to the wild fluctuations we see, regardless of what our government did?

Let's say you buy a Kangaroo from the ruler of Kangaroo-Land. He has lots of Kangaroos, because that's the business he's in. You pay him for the Kangaroo, as does everyone else that buys Kangaroos in Kangaroo-Land. And let's say he pockets the majority of the money and lives like the king that he probably is. Now everyone that lives in Kangaroo-Land is in some way tied to the Kangaroo business, because that's the only business they have in Kangaroo-Land. And it's the ruler who decides how much money goes out to the people who work under him. Is the person who bought the Kangaroo exploiting Kangaroo-Land? On some ethical level, probably.

Now here's another scenario... Let's say the neighboring country of Kangaroo-Land, Putzburg, wants Kangaroos, because they can't satiate the hunger their people have for Kangaroos with the number they have. But hey! There's a lot of Kangaroos in Kangaroo-Land, and they're just next door. But the people of Kangaroo-Land don't know how to capture the Kangaroos. Not a problem. The people of Putzburg have the technology, and will do what's necessary to ensure they get those Roos. So they decide that if they move the borders of their country and overlap that which has historically been Kangaroo-Land, they can claim a lot of the Kangaroos in Kangaroo-Land, and give the Roo-Landers a pitance for the Kangaroos. Is that explotation? In my way of thinking, most definitely.

Moral of the story: Don't act like a Putz!

[Kapiti]

Johny Yuma, I think my parents and not Andaks are thankful for the apology ??

I am impressed by your ability to research almost obscure parts of Australian modern history and politics.

Since I entered this thread by bagging my government for its Iraq war stance I think I am not required to defend it in all its actions. If the only people who commented / critized others were those who were beyond criticism themselves there would be much less debate much of which is healthy. (actually there would be no debate)

You say "If that's true, why do we the American people seem to always be the ones taking it in the shorts, since every time our government blinks, the "oil rich countries" raise their oil prices? "

Compared with just about every other developed country in the Americas, Europe, Oceania and Asia I would have thought that your American petrol/oil was very cheap. It staggers me that it is so cheap and your taxes on oil are so little when higher prices for oil encourages better attitudes to oil efficiency.

We may have taken advantage of East Timor (I would need to research it more to give a final opinion) but at the very least we didn't bomb them or their predecessors to bring it all about.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Johny Yuma, I think my parents and not Andaks are thankful for the apology ??

I am impressed by your ability to research almost obscure parts of Australian modern history and politics.

Since I entered this thread by bagging my government for its Iraq war stance I think I am not required to defend it in all its actions. If the only people who commented / critized others were those who were beyond criticism themselves there would be much less debate much of which is healthy. (actually there would be no debate)

You say "If that's true, why do we the American people seem to always be the ones taking it in the shorts, since every time our government blinks, the "oil rich countries" raise their oil prices? "

Compared with just about every other developed country in the Americas, Europe, Oceania and Asia I would have thought that your American petrol/oil was very cheap. It staggers me that it is so cheap and your taxes on oil are so little when higher prices for oil encourages better attitudes to oil efficiency.

We may have taken advantage of East Timor (I would need to research it more to give a final opinion) but at the very least we didn't bomb them or their predecessors to bring it all about.

I'm well aware that in America, petrol is far less expensive than on the rest of the planet. Perhaps everyone else should ask why they're paying so much?

.... Higher prices for oil encourages better attitudes to oil efficiency? No. I don't think so. You're just paying more for the oil and given more incentive to grumble at the pump.

[Kapiti]

Johnny - How exactly do you "the American people seem to always be the ones taking it in the shorts, since every time our government blinks, the "oil rich countries" raise their oil prices? " if you are "aware that in America, petrol is far less expensive than on the rest of the planet"

All your words ?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Johnny - How exactly do you "the American people seem to always be the ones taking it in the shorts, since every time our government blinks, the "oil rich countries" raise their oil prices? " if you are "aware that in America, petrol is far less expensive than on the rest of the planet"

All your words ?

No. Not my words. They were written by my evil doppleganger that oftentimes sneaks in and logs onto this website, using my ID.

[Mediocrates]

oil prices in the US are less than anywhere in the world with the the exception of the arab states that produce it (and Turkmenistan if I'm not mistaken which practically gives it away.)

[Northlander]

Of course, it's clear that it was just a way to grab the oil revenues belonging to East Timor. Talk about someone living in a glass house.

Im surprised you dare to take up East Timor Yuma. You should read up on USAs involvment in that countrys history.

USA was responsible for Indonesias invasion in 75. A third of East Timors population was killed. Nothing less than a genocide. It was approved of and supported by the US. This is one of the greatest atrocities in the history of man and many americans has blood on their hands. Without massive US support none of it could have happened. Australias involvement in East Timorian history is not even comparable to your country so there is no need in bugging the aussies about it.

When we are in the region we could as well take up the US part in Indonesia 65. 1 million dead in some of the worse massacres in modern history. The same direct support that lead to the invasion of East Timor. Talk about living in a glasshouse.