Oceania Aussie troops in Iraq

Well, if we're going to be on the topic of snide little attacks on the other's credibility, I might as well point out the hypocrisy in such stone-cold assurance of the viability of the Iraq poll - in a nation where a national census would be impossible and a democratic vote only slightly less so as it stands - as compared to the myriad polls conducted right here in Australia that are so easily fobbed off as irrelevant by the Coallition.

Polls indicated that before the war, the majority of australians did not support troops being sent to Iraq. They were anyway, and we are in a largely democratic country.

Your single poll from Iraq, which I would suggest is by no means indicative of the entire population simply because of the logistical impossibility of getting a good cross-section in the current climate, is taken from a population in a largely anarchial and un-democratic state with a variety of pressures larger and beyond that of the people's will exerting a force. I'd say that it my comment that Iraq seems hellbent on a course to an Islamic Theocracy is quite fair, considering it is the most likely outcome at the moment, irregardless of your polls accuracy.

 

as compared to the myriad polls conducted right here in Australia that are so easily fobbed off as irrelevant by the Coallition.

And Latham, who is persistant that he is still the underdog.

Polls indicated that before the war, the majority of australians did not support troops being sent to Iraq. They were anyway, and we are in a largely democratic country.

Yet the majority of Australians would not have minded intervention if it was done through the UN. As has already been discussed at length in here and the election thread, the invasion was in keeping with UN resolutions and the lack of UN endorsement was primarily a cause of pesky ol' France (a major trading partner and weapon supplier to Iraq).

Your single poll from Iraq, which I would suggest is by no means indicative of the entire population

Make that two polls. And there are more (though mostly less official), all of them say the same thing; the Iraqi population supports and is behind the US and the establishment of a new free government.

I'd say that it my comment that Iraq seems hellbent on a course to an Islamic Theocracy is quite fair, considering it is the most likely outcome at the moment, irregardless of your polls accuracy.

Hellbent? Please. The current Iraq constitution provides for nothing of the sort and protects the population from such an outcome through a bill of rights. Those causing problems in Iraq at the moment do not have the support of the majority (in fact, Sadr and his goons [the guys behind the recent violence] only number about 10-15,000; hardly a majority in a country of some 25 million).

 

I saw Howard in the paper on Sunday saying he believes the poll in Iraq and that it's indicative of the true feelings of the majority of Iraqi's. Therefore he is doing the right thing.

I wonder, why doesn't he believe or listen to polls in Australia? Could it be he only listens to and talks up those polls whose results fit his agenda?

Shock-horror!!!!

 

If evey politician did what polls said, not only would there be no wars, but we would pay no taxes, while having free education and health...oh dont worry about the budget deficit it's not that important! ...

Polls are not that important. They are nothing but an indicator of what the public thinks, not of logical, coherant policy.

I honestly don't know why this whole issue about Iraq is as big as it is in this country. If one issue has been more blown out of proportion than any other in this country's history, it is that of our troops in Iraq.

We have 850 in and around Iraq at this moment. That is NOTHING! And most of them are in auxillary roles. Here is a rough breakdown of their roles and numbers:
1. 175 personnel on the HMAS Stuart
2. 150 RAAF pilots doing logistics support
3. 65 Air traffic control staff
4. 90 to protect Australian Governemnt staff
And many other technical, advisory personnel. (Go to the DoD website for a full list) Generally, most of them are NOT in the front lines. There is a higher risk associated with traffic accidents.

As a comparison, here is the breakdown of other Australian troop deployments:
1. 440 in the Solomon Islands
2. The same number, 440, in East Timor
These forces are in much more danger than the ones in Iraq, and the general public and politicians were overwhelmingly supportive of interventions in these states. Yet for some reason, the media, and Mark Latham in particular, have decided to make a fuss about Iraq.

The only conclusion that can be made about this, is that Mark Latham is NOT interested in the welfare of our soldiers and is clearly jumping on this bandwagon for political point-scoring. It is an absolutely selfish, and loathsome tactic to use. A man liek him, who wants to use the ADF for political gain should NOT be our Prime Minister under any circumstances.

 

LOL. Right.

 

How about a reply with a smidgen of substance, Uruk?

E_S

 

Sure. He thinks a man who uses the armed forces for political gain shouldn't ever be in the top job. Better say bye bye to Howard then, guys.

 

Sure, we'll just give East Timor back to Indonesia and have big hugs.

I think a man who sits at home, searching for a foreign policy agenda and finding one within the dusty pages of a copy of Paul Keating's self-serving "Engagement", is grasping at straws. As I said, Latham will do anything to get elected. If an opinion poll said 99.9% of Australians want troops in Iraq, he'd promise to send more troops. He's a populist, not a leader.

E_S

 

Oh, blah blah. Who said anything about Timor?

Latham = populist, as does Howard. I wish you Lib lackeys would stop with the rhetoric.

 

He thinks a man who uses the armed forces for political gain shouldn't ever be in the top job

You said something about Timor; it was a politically loaded move.

E_S

 

I never mentioned Timor anywhere. I wasn't even thinking of Timor. I don't know why you brought it up.

I was responding to a statement that Latham was using the armed forces for political gain. What do you think Howard and Co. did for the last week of parliament recently?

 

When isn't the Armed Forces used for political gain?

Latham, however, is basically being a spiteful child by retroactively opposing the war in Iraq. Or, alternatively, showing us how he can borrow from both Keating and Whitlam whilst remaining boringly unoriginal.

E_S

 

When isn't the Armed Forces used for political gain?

As a U.S. Air Force brat, I can attest to this one.




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

I don't mind what he's said. He wants the troops out and so do I. No biggie. All of a sudden, it's a yelling match because Howard thinks he can sniff some political opportunity from the whole thing.

And if you want boring and unoriginal, it must be about time Howard trotted out some more rhetoric against the unions, he's been quiet about them for a couple of months.

 

Picking on unions is too easy though. They're so... 1890...

E_S

 

Just like John Howard's mentality....

 

Have the events of the last couple of weeks effected anyone's opinions on this? Made them change? Strengthened your resolve?
Just curious.

 

Which events precisely are you speaking of?

The David Beckham scandal?
The Michael Jackson feeling-up-kiddies trial?

 

Actually, I'm talking about the secret that channel 10 is going on about for Big Brother now, surely that has to have some kind of international repercussions?

But of course I really do mean the hostage situations in Iraq, what are people's thoughts about that?

 

I haven't heard much on the kidnappings lately, but it seems to me as if the kidnappers just aren't going through with any of their threats to kill their hostages.

In any case, we can't let these kind of people deter us. It seems like a last-ditch effort to me, and it's failing.




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

You can't bow down to kidnappers, otherwise the floodgates will be open for groups to kidnap more foreigners.
But does this really mean their efforts are failing? I don't know how this is effecting aid workers and such in Iraq, but I can imagine they aren't too keen to stay, or for new aid workers to go in.

The purpose of terrorists is to spread terror, and it seems to be working.

 

Apparently, according to reports this morning the Iraqi's have killed an Italian hostage.

The Russians are getting out and several aid agencies have told their people to get out. Sadly, I think the kidnappings may be working.

 

People take hostages just about every day.

In some parts of Latin America - mostly, Columbia - it's a part of life, and in south East Asia (Mainly the Philipines), it's a black economy.

Basically, it's an effective tool. You kidnap someone, and you'll get a ransom for it. You should try looking at how many international insurance firms offer Kidnap & Ransom packages for clients who travel to kidnap blackspots - insurance premiums for ransom, negotiators, security guards to prevent kidnapping.

Iraq doesn't seem to fit the standard kidnapping model, and then again, it does. Basically, those with money or with access to money are most at risk. The rich, for example, make a good potential target because they're more likely to be paying a larger ransom than most. Similarly, if you work for a multinational corporation like KPMG, Nike, Shell etc, there's going to be money there to pay a ransom.

In Iraq, there's little news of ransom demands. Now, that could be because they're not making them public, but then again, it could be like the kidnapping of a guy called William (Bill) Buckley.

Bill Buckley was the Head of Station for the CIA in Beirut, Lebanon, during the early 1980's. At this time, Lebanon is *the* premiere no-go war zone on the planet, as Christians and Muslims bomb the hell out of each other for decades. Buckley wasn't like most of the DO Case Officers; he didn't change his appearance to blend in (he wore a good suit every day), he slept at the same place every night, and didn't hide the fact that he was Someone of Note. He was kidnapped by agents working for Iran's Pasdaran, or Revolutionary Guard. He eventually died, of pneumonia, in captivity.

There was no ransom made for Buckley.

Iraq, I feel, is the same deal. They're kidnapping for political gains, which has all but died out as a form of taking hostages. Mostly, we see hostages being taken as a way of getting money in some of the poorer parts of developing nations, or in the case of Columbia, as pawns in a game between the FARC and Bogota. See, in Columbia, ransom demands are made but the implicit message is "Don't **** with us, Mr Presidente..."

My gut feeling is that the first few Iraqi kidnapper groups has serious intentions, but their success basically spurred people on to create several similar crimes.

I think the whole "we must leave now" movement is another dig at the US. Noone avoids dealing in Bogota or Manila when they need it, but it's an election year in the US and most world leaders don't like Dubya.

E_S

 

It's because the situation in Manila and Baghdad are totally different that people are getting out. People have begun to realise the war isn't over by a long shot.

 

Yeah, but the only way we'll understand the situation is if we find comparisons that help build our picture. Iraq isn't like Manila because it's not economic; it's like old-school kidnapping with political agendas attached. It's pointless, too, because governments won't negotiate with terrorists - unless, of course, the hostages have been there for years, a hostage rescue mission lead by Ross Perot's people failed miserably, and there's a lucrative arms deal to be made too...

E_S