-
-
AADD Moderators: Tronica
Should we go to war with Iraq?
- Thread starter jakoz
- Start date
MíkeySåmmy
Bluelighter
it is sad that diplomacy didnt work out and that hussein decided to hold his ground. i believe that he would have more likely conceded if the UN members told him to give it up in a unified voice.
but now that america is going it alone, all we can hope for is that they remain responsible and somehow control those maniac fuckin war generals.. as part of coverage on the tv i saw a clip with these american troops with their commander. and with a really thick american accent the leader says now when the president says go.. oh boy.. ITS HAMMER TIME
fuckin hot-headed maniacs.
i have a small hope that its not true, that it only seems like theyre gaining extreme pleasure out of this war and destruction.
they need to remove saddam, find the chemical weapons, and start rebuilding the country. i fear that in the mean time they see it as their perfect opportunity to test out all their high-tech, highly priced military equipment.
but now that america is going it alone, all we can hope for is that they remain responsible and somehow control those maniac fuckin war generals.. as part of coverage on the tv i saw a clip with these american troops with their commander. and with a really thick american accent the leader says now when the president says go.. oh boy.. ITS HAMMER TIME
fuckin hot-headed maniacs.
i have a small hope that its not true, that it only seems like theyre gaining extreme pleasure out of this war and destruction.
they need to remove saddam, find the chemical weapons, and start rebuilding the country. i fear that in the mean time they see it as their perfect opportunity to test out all their high-tech, highly priced military equipment.
johnboy
Bluelight Crew
The_Fuel said:
Where did you pull this from?
There's no way Labor or the Greens (btw they don't need to be in power, only hold the balance of power) would ever have allowed Australia to join a war on Iraq without UN backing.
They'd completely alienate their own constituencies. In fact, it'd be the most spectacular form of political suicide I could possibly imagine.
You've obviously never seen the retributive power of an angry electorate.
Canada said no to the US, as did Mexico... and their ties to the US are far more binding than ours.
Or maybe I'm just 'nieve' (whatever that is)
*shakes head*
Last edited:
plazma
Bluelighter
Props to 1234 for summing up my opinions on Howards' address to the nation.
Well to anyone who says that once war is declared there is little or no point protesting, and that you might as well pull in behind the government and give them your support. I say you're fucking delusional at best, and a moral coward at worst. I mean attention everyone, the citizenry ended Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War (aka the Second Indochina War). So who's to say that we can't end this one.
I was at the protest rally in Canberra yesterday, outside Parliament house. And let me tell you, it was one of the most heartwarming sights that I have seen. So many people gathered in one place with one objective in mind. Peace.
I am darkly amused by the pleas of America to the media not to display the Iraqi footage of Coalition POW's on TV. As they are so pathetically attempting to control the hearts and minds of people everywhere. And having this interference with their 'sanitized' version of the war, is definately altering their success somewhat.
I'm heartened also to see that Iraqis are resisting far more than had been predicted, and I'm also having a chuckle because I was right, they have made little attempt to keep the desert, but are drawing the Coalition into firefights and drawn out engagements in built up and populated areas. This ties down the troops, saps morale and also minimises the advantages that the Coalition have by way of high tech weaponary and communications.
-plaz out-
Well to anyone who says that once war is declared there is little or no point protesting, and that you might as well pull in behind the government and give them your support. I say you're fucking delusional at best, and a moral coward at worst. I mean attention everyone, the citizenry ended Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War (aka the Second Indochina War). So who's to say that we can't end this one.
I was at the protest rally in Canberra yesterday, outside Parliament house. And let me tell you, it was one of the most heartwarming sights that I have seen. So many people gathered in one place with one objective in mind. Peace.
I am darkly amused by the pleas of America to the media not to display the Iraqi footage of Coalition POW's on TV. As they are so pathetically attempting to control the hearts and minds of people everywhere. And having this interference with their 'sanitized' version of the war, is definately altering their success somewhat.
I'm heartened also to see that Iraqis are resisting far more than had been predicted, and I'm also having a chuckle because I was right, they have made little attempt to keep the desert, but are drawing the Coalition into firefights and drawn out engagements in built up and populated areas. This ties down the troops, saps morale and also minimises the advantages that the Coalition have by way of high tech weaponary and communications.
-plaz out-
The_Fuel
Bluelighter
macksta,
Its my opinion....
i feel that we are just as close to the US as canada/mexio (even though yes they are neighbours of the US) ... mainly due to the previous WWs' and austs closeness to UK due to it being the "mother land" so to speak.. ...again its my opinion so your right to take it with a grain of salt...
and ffs, you misspell a word once and people just love to harp on it..... NAIVE.... 8(
Plazma - Isn't it against the Geneva Convention to use those types of images of POW's to spread propaganda?
Anyway... i thought i might post a question... What does everyone feel regarding the australian soldiers that are in the war now? Do they have you thoughts/hopes/prayers that they come back safely??
Its my opinion....
i feel that we are just as close to the US as canada/mexio (even though yes they are neighbours of the US) ... mainly due to the previous WWs' and austs closeness to UK due to it being the "mother land" so to speak.. ...again its my opinion so your right to take it with a grain of salt...
and ffs, you misspell a word once and people just love to harp on it..... NAIVE.... 8(
Plazma - Isn't it against the Geneva Convention to use those types of images of POW's to spread propaganda?
Anyway... i thought i might post a question... What does everyone feel regarding the australian soldiers that are in the war now? Do they have you thoughts/hopes/prayers that they come back safely??
Last edited:
johnboy
Bluelight Crew
the_fuel: the only reason people keep bringing it up is that it is what you accused me of being, and it is what a lot of people think you are. this is all just a delicious irony. 
hell, even your user name has ironic overtones.
and yeah, you are entitled to your opinion, and us to ours. point out flaws in our arguements, we'll do the same to you. that's what a democracy should be about, not just shrugging and saying it's out of our hands. point well made that the greens wouldn't need to have government to have stopped this war, but simply have held the balance of power. personally i would have liked to have seen Labour force an election by denying supply, but they are far too spineless for that.
regardless of all that Howard has to go, even Costello would have been preferable to his pigheadedness on this issue.
geneva convention? that was suspended when America refused to call the detainees at Camp Xrays prisoners of war. Don't bring it up again, especially not to defend the actions of the "Coalition". This war is beyond illegal.
As for the Australian soldiers, I am sick of hearing this question from people trying to defend the war. It's a "You are with us or agianst us" type question. Of course I hope they don't die, but I also hope they don't kill anyone. I'd like to see them just put down their weapons and not participate in an illegal war. I know this is unrealistic, but if we are getting into debates about wishing them harm/well then it's what I have to think.
But the other part of me knows that we do need an army, and it would be preferable to actually have an army that knows what it's doing, so the more practice the better. So I think leave the SAS out there, doing what they do best: kiling people. They like it, and we might need to defend us one day, not just US Foreign policy interests (what a radical concept!) But bring the Navy and others home.
hell, even your user name has ironic overtones.and yeah, you are entitled to your opinion, and us to ours. point out flaws in our arguements, we'll do the same to you. that's what a democracy should be about, not just shrugging and saying it's out of our hands. point well made that the greens wouldn't need to have government to have stopped this war, but simply have held the balance of power. personally i would have liked to have seen Labour force an election by denying supply, but they are far too spineless for that.
regardless of all that Howard has to go, even Costello would have been preferable to his pigheadedness on this issue.
geneva convention? that was suspended when America refused to call the detainees at Camp Xrays prisoners of war. Don't bring it up again, especially not to defend the actions of the "Coalition". This war is beyond illegal.
As for the Australian soldiers, I am sick of hearing this question from people trying to defend the war. It's a "You are with us or agianst us" type question. Of course I hope they don't die, but I also hope they don't kill anyone. I'd like to see them just put down their weapons and not participate in an illegal war. I know this is unrealistic, but if we are getting into debates about wishing them harm/well then it's what I have to think.
But the other part of me knows that we do need an army, and it would be preferable to actually have an army that knows what it's doing, so the more practice the better. So I think leave the SAS out there, doing what they do best: kiling people. They like it, and we might need to defend us one day, not just US Foreign policy interests (what a radical concept!) But bring the Navy and others home.
Last edited:
stacyrox
Bluelighter
Whats good for the geese is good for the gander.
America is attacking this country coz it has all these "evil" weapons that it has right? So... the ones that America has, and continues to produce/research, are ok to have coz they're more responsible? Ever considered that these smaller countries may be building these weapons partly as defence against America? Do you think that America may also have enough of these weapons to "hold countries and possibly the whole world at ransom"? Think they might be flexing that power a little at the moment?
Or how about the fact that America assisted in the placement of Hussein in power in the first place? Think they are gonna do a better job this time around?
I dont think that an excuse for this war is that "we dont have all the information..". Ever think that that information they are not giving us isn't as honourable as you'd like to think?
I fear this to be a War of Propaganda. I hope to be proven wrong.
stace.
I feel poxy saying this, it feels so very obviouse, but people keep on asking as if they cant think for themselves.
Every time I hear this question I'm struck by its incongruity, why ask people protesting for peace if they care about people lives? Doesn’t it seem … silly?
Perhaps its not so odd. It plays on that perverse logic that somehow army personnel are not people, that they are fundamentally different. It seems what is being said is if we don't support war we don't support the people who have had the misfortune of being sent to that war. Victims, apparently, include civilians only. Perhaps there is some truth in the thinking that makes an SAS boy no more then a pawn of the governments will, a mindless machine not worthy of our hope or prayer. I know a few who certainly fit that description. But seriously, Can we only support a person who fights as a person who fights?
'Our troops' are people, just like 'their troops' and I hope, with all my heart, that all the people over in Iraq can go home safely, that we will end this stupid pointless war and we can all come home, safely, once again.
all together now;
'no blood for oil, bring our troops home.'
well why do you think I want peace?
Every time I hear this question I'm struck by its incongruity, why ask people protesting for peace if they care about people lives? Doesn’t it seem … silly?
Perhaps its not so odd. It plays on that perverse logic that somehow army personnel are not people, that they are fundamentally different. It seems what is being said is if we don't support war we don't support the people who have had the misfortune of being sent to that war. Victims, apparently, include civilians only. Perhaps there is some truth in the thinking that makes an SAS boy no more then a pawn of the governments will, a mindless machine not worthy of our hope or prayer. I know a few who certainly fit that description. But seriously, Can we only support a person who fights as a person who fights?
'Our troops' are people, just like 'their troops' and I hope, with all my heart, that all the people over in Iraq can go home safely, that we will end this stupid pointless war and we can all come home, safely, once again.
all together now;
'no blood for oil, bring our troops home.'
Last edited:
stacyrox
Bluelighter
Innocuous..
You put into words the one thing I didn't know how to express. You said exactly what I was thinking. Thanks.
The last thing that I would like to add is that if you're in the army, you follow orders. Thats how things work in the armed forces. You go where you are told to go and you shoot at what you are told to shoot at. Dont blame the soldiers for doing what they are told, they are but pawns, unfortunate as that may be.
stace.
You put into words the one thing I didn't know how to express. You said exactly what I was thinking. Thanks.
The last thing that I would like to add is that if you're in the army, you follow orders. Thats how things work in the armed forces. You go where you are told to go and you shoot at what you are told to shoot at. Dont blame the soldiers for doing what they are told, they are but pawns, unfortunate as that may be.
stace.
kryalkastleE
Bluelighter
since everyones bagging johnny i thougfht i'd go the other way and point out some hypocriticisms (sp?) by simon creen (leader of the opposition)
He claimed that saddam has no connection of terrorism and that it cannot be proved that he was in any way related to the sep 11 attacks or any other terrorist attacks
BUT
Then he went on to say that if australia is involved in any way with americas capaign to disarm saddam that we will become a "much more likely" target for terrorist attacks....
so if saddam isnt involved with any terrorism WHY would this make us more likely for attacks???
sorry just my 0.02c
i dont want war more than the next guy BUT im sick of the constant slag off of our government who is clearly thinking of our own benefits and trying to keep us safe by joining usa and britain as our close allies....
(ohhh i can see my opinion is not going to be recieved well...)
He claimed that saddam has no connection of terrorism and that it cannot be proved that he was in any way related to the sep 11 attacks or any other terrorist attacks
BUT
Then he went on to say that if australia is involved in any way with americas capaign to disarm saddam that we will become a "much more likely" target for terrorist attacks....
so if saddam isnt involved with any terrorism WHY would this make us more likely for attacks???
sorry just my 0.02c
i dont want war more than the next guy BUT im sick of the constant slag off of our government who is clearly thinking of our own benefits and trying to keep us safe by joining usa and britain as our close allies....
(ohhh i can see my opinion is not going to be recieved well...)
johnboy
Bluelight Crew
Oh God, where to begin?
This really shows the ignorance of people when it comes to this very complex issue.
Saddaam has no links to Al Q'eda. No proof has even been given showing any links between the secularist Ba'athist regime and the fundamentalist Islamists of Al Q'eda. This is not to say Sadaam has not been a friend to terrorists, just not the ones who behind September 11. (in fact he killed Abu Nidal, but that's a whole 'nother story. Google it if you care, you won't find anything about that on legit news)
So why would this war create more terrorists? The main issue that Al Q'eda has with the West is that since the last Gulf War infidel soldiers from America have been running around the Holy Land (Arabia), breaking all the Sharia rules and showing total disrepect for Islamic culture. This was bad enough when they were just lounging about on army bases, now they are activiely slaughtering muslims, on the same land that Mohamed walked.
And how bad does it look now that one of the soldiers the Iraqi's captured was a woman?
(I am in no way saying I agree with these views, I'm just pointing them out for clarity)
So now we have a great many muslims around the world who were previously thinking that Al Q'eda took things too far, now looking at the actions of the Americans and thinking "Maybe there's something in it after all. I mean look at how they are treating "us"? What happens when America wants to invade my country? Maybe I should do something to protect my faith?'
And this is only potential terrorists in the muslim world. What about back home?
Q. Who can name me the greatest terrorist attrocity on US soil before 9/11?
A. Oklahoma City.
Q. Who did it?
A. An American, Timothy McVeigh.
Q. Why did he say he did it?
A. Because of the digust he felt for the federal government of the United States.
Q. Where was he, and what was he doing, when he first felt this disgust?
A. He was in Kuwait, during Gulf War 1, as a soldier in the US Army.
Q. How many more Timothy McVeigh's are being born every minute over in Gulf War 2 - The Revenge?
A. Who knows, but maybe there's already one...
A reminder that the Beltway sniper was also a soldier in the US Army. Coicidently enough he was also involved in a "fragging" incident.
When even the people at home are angry enough to take this sort of action, how are the people of Indonesia going to react? And the people of Pakistan? And any other country where the muslim faith is contstantly under the attack of Western values?
This is a war of ideas, not of strict "us and them" divisions. Life doesn't fit neatly into "good" and "evil" catergories. Saying Crean is a hypocrit, and using this sort of infantile logic is just wrong. Not that he isn't a hypocrite, He's a politician after all, and a spineless one at that. But try and think beyond the soundbites you hear on network news, please?
Last edited:
kryalkastleE
Bluelighter
Like i said everyone is entitled to their own opinion and thats mine.
and no its not purely based on network television....you dont have to assume that im ignorant purely on my thoughts typed out on a chatboard, im actually quite offended.... i could vent a lot more and say my reasons for thinking the way i do, and could also put intelluctual facts etc...... but i feel that if i did i would just get angrier at the way that people cannot see other peoples opinions or their point of view and accept that they probably wont change it regardless of what you do/say.
i didnt say that saddam WAS linked with sep 11 or bin laden etc, I was stating what simon creen said and purely observing that how can he make one observation and then change his opinion....?
i can see peoples opinions and respect them even if they are different to my own, but i dont call people "ignorant" for the way they think or see the world.
if everyone saw the world the same way we would all be pretty boring.....again - not meant to be harsh or offensive...im just venting.....
and no its not purely based on network television....you dont have to assume that im ignorant purely on my thoughts typed out on a chatboard, im actually quite offended.... i could vent a lot more and say my reasons for thinking the way i do, and could also put intelluctual facts etc...... but i feel that if i did i would just get angrier at the way that people cannot see other peoples opinions or their point of view and accept that they probably wont change it regardless of what you do/say.
i didnt say that saddam WAS linked with sep 11 or bin laden etc, I was stating what simon creen said and purely observing that how can he make one observation and then change his opinion....?
i can see peoples opinions and respect them even if they are different to my own, but i dont call people "ignorant" for the way they think or see the world.
if everyone saw the world the same way we would all be pretty boring.....again - not meant to be harsh or offensive...im just venting.....
The reason people are calling you ignorant is because there is an easy answer to your question that you seem unable understand.
Saddam had nothing to do with September 11.
But attacking Iraq will make terrorist attacks on AUS more likely.
WHY?
Because Iraq is populated by muslims. And now that we have invaded Iraq, other muslims around the world are outraged that their muslim brothers and sisters are being killed by Westerners, and that muslim land is being (in their eyes at least) occupied by a non muslim invading force.
Hence muslim radicals all over the place begin frothing at the mouth and donning their suicide belts bent on revenge against (you guessed it) - US/UK/AUS interests.
Tony Abbot (a member of Howard's cabinet) has acknowledged this fact in parliament.
It has nothing to do with S11 and really nothing to do with Saddam himself. It's all about Iraq and the Iraqi people.
Saddam had nothing to do with September 11.
But attacking Iraq will make terrorist attacks on AUS more likely.
WHY?
Because Iraq is populated by muslims. And now that we have invaded Iraq, other muslims around the world are outraged that their muslim brothers and sisters are being killed by Westerners, and that muslim land is being (in their eyes at least) occupied by a non muslim invading force.
Hence muslim radicals all over the place begin frothing at the mouth and donning their suicide belts bent on revenge against (you guessed it) - US/UK/AUS interests.
Tony Abbot (a member of Howard's cabinet) has acknowledged this fact in parliament.
It has nothing to do with S11 and really nothing to do with Saddam himself. It's all about Iraq and the Iraqi people.
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
war is ghey 
ok...my responses to this thread...
firstly, cynakill (and yeh, i know you just contacted me in irc, but i wasn't there and figured this was relevant anyway): i'm not saying that i want our troops overseas to die, or that they're all horrible people. what i am saying is that (as much as their job is to take orders, stacy) anyone who has no qualms about killing innocent iraqis is not -in my books- a nice person. yes, i called them a cunt before. perhaps that's a bit strong; i do understand that the vast majority of our defence forces are overseas in order to protect our country, and to restore order to iraq.
but my point is, in doing so, innocent people are dying, and being a part of this definitely taints my opinion of them. and this *doesn't* apply to all of our troops - there are plenty that are only there as nurses, or as foot soldiers or such, who will not be involved in these kind of things.
ah fuck...that doesn't make much sense, but i hope you all understand. cyna, feel free to pm me in irc next time you see me, hopefully i'll be around! i really would prefer to discuss it than you just think i'm a prick
plaz: no worries. and i agree wholeheartedly about the protesting. as i told my mother and my flatmate before (and after) i went to the protest last friday (in melbourne), i know that the war is not going to be stopped by our protests. but it doesn't stop me from having a right to voice my opinion, and represent australia as a nation of peace, as opposed to murder, as howard would obviously prefer it.
kryalkastlee: most people have already said what i would have )about the terrorism, and saddam's *lack* of s11 involvement), but i also thought i'd mention the fact that just because simon crean has come out in opposition of the war (finally), doesn't mean that he is a spokesperson for *everyone* that is opposed to it.
also, even though howard *is* looking after australia in terms of its allies (yeh, the us is a *very* good ally to have), the point is that we're our own country, and if something is *wrong* - like a fucking war - he should have the balls to stand up against it. unfortunately it won't even get to the situation where we might see if howard has the balls, as he obviously loves the whole idea of a war anyway.
fuck this makes me angry, so bare with me if this makes little sense.
brad, listening to "drop the hate" by fatboy slim - not the most in depth lyrics, but still fitting. i love it, a lot
ok...my responses to this thread...
firstly, cynakill (and yeh, i know you just contacted me in irc, but i wasn't there and figured this was relevant anyway): i'm not saying that i want our troops overseas to die, or that they're all horrible people. what i am saying is that (as much as their job is to take orders, stacy) anyone who has no qualms about killing innocent iraqis is not -in my books- a nice person. yes, i called them a cunt before. perhaps that's a bit strong; i do understand that the vast majority of our defence forces are overseas in order to protect our country, and to restore order to iraq.
but my point is, in doing so, innocent people are dying, and being a part of this definitely taints my opinion of them. and this *doesn't* apply to all of our troops - there are plenty that are only there as nurses, or as foot soldiers or such, who will not be involved in these kind of things.
ah fuck...that doesn't make much sense, but i hope you all understand. cyna, feel free to pm me in irc next time you see me, hopefully i'll be around! i really would prefer to discuss it than you just think i'm a prick
plaz: no worries. and i agree wholeheartedly about the protesting. as i told my mother and my flatmate before (and after) i went to the protest last friday (in melbourne), i know that the war is not going to be stopped by our protests. but it doesn't stop me from having a right to voice my opinion, and represent australia as a nation of peace, as opposed to murder, as howard would obviously prefer it.
kryalkastlee: most people have already said what i would have )about the terrorism, and saddam's *lack* of s11 involvement), but i also thought i'd mention the fact that just because simon crean has come out in opposition of the war (finally), doesn't mean that he is a spokesperson for *everyone* that is opposed to it.
also, even though howard *is* looking after australia in terms of its allies (yeh, the us is a *very* good ally to have), the point is that we're our own country, and if something is *wrong* - like a fucking war - he should have the balls to stand up against it. unfortunately it won't even get to the situation where we might see if howard has the balls, as he obviously loves the whole idea of a war anyway.
fuck this makes me angry, so bare with me if this makes little sense.
brad, listening to "drop the hate" by fatboy slim - not the most in depth lyrics, but still fitting. i love it, a lot
stacyrox
Bluelighter
How about cooling down the discussion a bit..
Seriously, all I'm beginning to see in this thread is an argument about who's reading the more independant articles and who is most informed on the theories behind this war.
We need to understand that everyone has their own opinion, be that more or less informed than your own. And some people arent as good with words as others, leaving their opinions to be easily misunderstood by those reading them. I'm pretty sure that you also have no idea how much each person who has posted here has read into the war and from what medium they have based their opinions, be it "mass media" or the more "independant media". If you dont agree thats fine. But calling people names and talking down to someone because you dont think they have made as informed a decision as you have isnt fair.
I just think its starting to get a little too angry in here. By all means if you dont agree with someone feel free to try and inform them of what you think is right.. but calling people "ignorant" or "naive" does nothing for the discussion.
stace.
Seriously, all I'm beginning to see in this thread is an argument about who's reading the more independant articles and who is most informed on the theories behind this war.
We need to understand that everyone has their own opinion, be that more or less informed than your own. And some people arent as good with words as others, leaving their opinions to be easily misunderstood by those reading them. I'm pretty sure that you also have no idea how much each person who has posted here has read into the war and from what medium they have based their opinions, be it "mass media" or the more "independant media". If you dont agree thats fine. But calling people names and talking down to someone because you dont think they have made as informed a decision as you have isnt fair.
I just think its starting to get a little too angry in here. By all means if you dont agree with someone feel free to try and inform them of what you think is right.. but calling people "ignorant" or "naive" does nothing for the discussion.
stace.
anfalicious
Bluelighter
its all about the tim tams...
that fucken genies involved as well.
that fucken genies involved as well.
johnboy
Bluelight Crew
You'll notice i didn't call anyone here ignorant, I just noted that his comments indicated the more general ignorance amongst the public about these issues. The soundbite comment was simply because that was the total evidence you used in your arguement. And, once again, it is dissapointing that many people do not look beyond these.
Anyone see that poll that showed that a vast majority of the Americans polled believed that at least one of the September 11 terrorists was Iraqi? Actual number of terrorists from Iraq was ZERO. But no one knows that!
You can keep repeating facts but some people cling to the consensual "truth". Well I'm going to keep repeating it, until it sinks in. Maybe it never will but you gotta try.
Anyone see that poll that showed that a vast majority of the Americans polled believed that at least one of the September 11 terrorists was Iraqi? Actual number of terrorists from Iraq was ZERO. But no one knows that!
You can keep repeating facts but some people cling to the consensual "truth". Well I'm going to keep repeating it, until it sinks in. Maybe it never will but you gotta try.