Oceania Aussie troops in Iraq

I am firmly of the belief that the American administratiion should set a target date (This year) for handing over transitional authourity to a UN based peacekeeping force, and they should then begin the swift process of a democtratic election, and the handing over of power to the one that wins the popular vote.
We know how good the Americans are at appointing leaders...

 

We know how good the Americans are at appointing leaders...

Now, now, no need to get rude.




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

I'm not just talking about recently.
Panama, Chile, Iran, El Salvador, Iraq in the 1980's?

 

Well yeah, but...um...look over there!

*runs*



EDIT: Perhaps I should add a little more substance:

There's not going to be any easy way of going about this. There will be some strife, there always is. But you ignore some of the good regimes that we've propped up and put in power, like, you know, Germany and Japan after WWII. They turned out to be pretty cool. But for every Germany, we've got a Panama or two.




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

Iraq in the 1980's?

I believe Saddam came to power in 1979. He ascended to power by his own means (deposing General Bakr) and was not "appointed". Unless you are referring to some other Iraqi leader, of course.



And, as for our troops, they need to stay there till the job is done. Withdrawing the troops before then will just destroy any chance Iraq has of peace, democracy and stability.

 

Germany and Japan were in the 1940's and 50's, since then, The American government's have had very, very little success in their chosen candidates to run their little corners of the world in the name of Uncle Sam.
The situation in Iraq is fast deteriating into a 1980's Northern Ireland clone.
The feeling towards the American Military in Iraq is at an all time low, while the work by the majority is something to be praised, incidents such as Iraqi policemen being shot by US soldiers has undone all the goodwill they went in there with.

EDIT: Stinrab, you are correct, it was 1979 that Saddam took power with US funding.

And I'm not saying get all the troops out, I'm saying hand the job to an international peacekeeping force sanctioned by the UN.


geez, 3 edits, I need a new keyboard with non-wornout keys...

 

I find it rather odd that you think the UN could do a better job. Have Mogadishu and Srebrenica been so forgotten?




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

I've worked with the UN in East Timor, and I've also worked with American troops.

So yes, I do think the UN can do a better job.

 

Stay.

Obviously.

E_S

 

I'm not a hundred percent sure here ES, but I think that may actually be the dumbest thing you have ever said. (Well on here anyhow, I can't judge on real life)

Funnily enough it ISN'T obvious as to why the current troops shouldn't be removed and a UN Peacekeeping force be substituted so as to re-build and reform the government and society.

What reason do we have to be there? I mean, even Bush made jokes about the mythical "weapons of mass destruction" in his latest speech, and as that was the primary reason for being there, we are not needed.

A UN force is required to re-establish government (not the US, as they are well known for installing puppet governments) If the UN force includes Australian troops, all well and good, but bring back the troops that were sent over for the wrong reasons in the first place.

DS

 

Funnily enough it ISN'T obvious as to why the current troops shouldn't be removed and a UN Peacekeeping force be substituted so as to re-build and reform the government and society.
.
.
.
A UN force is required to re-establish government (not the US, as they are well known for installing puppet governments)

Yeah, and the UN is just as bad. Look at Mogadishu (you know, Black Hawk Down, UN troops and personnel targetted, Mohammad Farah Aidid causing troubles, etc.), and Srebrenica (3000 dead Albanian Muslims because Sec Gen Boutros Boutros-Ghali liked to micro-manage and forced them to call for permission to fire, but only from 9 - 5 New York time).




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

The US might be willing to justify the loss of their people in Iraq but why should Australia keep a presence there to be picked off one by one? We really have gone beyond the call of friendship or alliance or whatever. WMDs were a thin veil for the primary goal of deposing Saddam.

Now I have to admit, that Saddam is an evil man and he needed to go. However, as the primary instigator of all this, the US is accountable for the current administrative mess in Iraq. We as their allies were obliged to come to their aid in conflict. Why are we still there when Mr Bush declared this conflict 'over' months ago?

 

The PResident declared an end to major hostilities, meaning that there' wasn't going to be any more large scale batles there. That does not mean that there's an end to violence.




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

Your IDIOT "president" who declared hostility over months ago needs a serious reality and morality check.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the reason for the initial invasion is bullcrap. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, and no connections to any terrorist group in connections to attacks on US soil or citizens have been found.

I know ppl over there right now from my old unit, and if not for a stupid fricking accident in another country that completely fragged my shoulder I would be there right now alongside them.

If this poll was presented to the ppl who are serving there or their families, then I can smegging guarantee you that you'd be looking at very different results.

I'm not going to get into a retarded argument with the ill informed and chronically stupid about the real world politics of this situation because the bottom line is you don't have a frelling clue about it.

I will say this: If you think that the servicemen and women should stay over there, then why aren't you going into your local recruitment office to join up and go take part?
If you are not prepared to do this, then shut your hypocritical mouth, if you say you are, then please post your enlistment papers here, then I will take you seriously.

I believe that there should be an authouritaruian presence in Iraq to assist with the transition to a stable government, but I do not trust the American administration than.. well, their own soldiers do. The UN is the recognised organisation to sanction and organise this process, not some self righteous "democratic" dictator who has gone on record to say such things "if you are not a christian, then what the hell are you doing in the United States?"

And if you're going to base your opinions off a movie such as Black Hawk Down, then best you note that film was made for an American audience, more than one Australian soldier I know is more than a little narked that all acknowledgement of other nationality involvement is left out of that situation. Much like Saving Private Ryan, and about any other US made war film I could name that had other nation's soldiers deeply involved in but never acknowledged. So I'm sorry to burst your little american bubble, but hollywood is not an accurate depiction of anything, much less america's part in any conflict.

You little boys run along and go join the soldiers over there, because unless you're willing to take part, you're just here blowing steam.

 

Your IDIOT "president" who declared hostility over months ago needs a serious reality and morality check.

Why the quotation marks? You aren't one of those people who ra-ra's on about how Bush wasn't elected, are you? Every recount has shown that they guy won fair and square.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the reason for the initial invasion is bullcrap. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, and no connections to any terrorist group in connections to attacks on US soil or citizens have been found.

Do you think that the WMD threat was made up by the US as an excuse? Somehow, I don't think so; if the Yanks knew there weren't any WMDs in there, they would've known that there would be a massive backlash against them when they weren't found. Seems to me that the likely scenario is one of the following:

a) Saddam had WMDs (in fact, the Kurds lived in constant fear for the past decade because they believed he had them and would use it against them... again) and has hidden them somewhere.

b) Saddam's WMD program was over before the invasion, US and UK intelligence on the matter was incorrect.


If this poll was presented to the ppl who are serving there or their families, then I can smegging guarantee you that you'd be looking at very different results.

Having not had your experience, I can't really comment much on this matter. However, do you think that there are many soldiers over there who want to stay and get the job finished? I was listening to a WWII veteran on the radio a few days ago and he was of the belief that most soldiers would want just that. Could be wrong, of course.

 

I'm not a hundred percent sure here ES, but I think that may actually be the dumbest thing you have ever said. (Well on here anyhow, I can't judge on real life)

Ah, see, when you try and lecture me on my professional field, I'm going to be nasty.

Funnily enough it ISN'T obvious as to why the current troops shouldn't be removed and a UN Peacekeeping force be substituted so as to re-build and reform the government and society.

Well, I guess you're keeping yourself uninformed of the situation. Good for you.

Regardless of who's flag flies over the provisional authoritity in Iraq, the Australian troops, and all others, need to stay. Why?

Because they've a job to do. Right now, the Coalition troops are there enforcing law and order, and were sent there to enforce a resolution that the UNSC was unwilling to enforce. Not because, as the Americans have suggested, the UN is weak, but because the French wanted to keep their lucrative deals with Saddam.

And before you cry "Illegal war!", I suggest you actually read up on your international law. I'd start with Resolution 678, 687, [specifically (2)], 1441, and Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; of particular interest should be Article 48, which gives the authority explicit under 687 (2).

What reason do we have to be there? I mean, even Bush made jokes about the mythical "weapons of mass destruction" in his latest speech, and as that was the primary reason for being there, we are not needed.


Before? Because that arsewipe Saddam, who is now being represented by a slimy French lawyer, refused to play by the rules of the international system. You forget, or perhaps it doesn't suit you at this moment, that Saddam was the person with the power to avert this war.

Now? We have a responsibility to restore law and order to Iraq and flush out the remaining Ba'athist regime elements. I don't give a flying **** which flag it's done under, so long as we remain true to the promise we made to the Iraqis.

(And make no mistake, if John Kerry gets elected, it'll be a UN force, and I'd laugh as Mr Sycophant Latham scurries to send troops back to Iraq to jump on the bandwagon.)

A UN force is required to re-establish government (not the US, as they are well known for installing puppet governments) If the UN force includes Australian troops, all well and good,

Firstly, the UN didn't want to do anything about Saddam. Initially, because he dragged his feet in compliance, and then after, because of the crippling implicit right to veto; France and Russia being poised to veto any recent actions against Saddam. And, again, a fact for the anti-Americans; Russia still leads the vetos in the UNSC, not America, sorry.

Shall we examine the entire history of the UN and Saddam since Resolution 660?

but bring back the troops that were sent over for the wrong reasons in the first place.

Wrong reasons? A dictator was desposed, his people liberated. The WmD was Saddam's responsibility to disprove.

Let me ask you something; when Richard Butler was kicked out of Iraq with UNSCOM in 1998, there were weapons then, were there not? Right. What happened to them in two years? We don't know. Big deal. It happened, and all you and the retroactively petulant (such as PM-wannabe Latham) are doing is protesting something that's happened. That's so not Australian it's not funny. We're known for getting a job done, and so the war happened, protesting it is asinine, we might as well ensure we do the fairest and most just thing possible and ensure what we leave is a nascent state, not a quagmire.

The US might be willing to justify the loss of their people in Iraq but why should Australia keep a presence there to be picked off one by one?

It's funny how your name is "casual_jedi" and you have, it seems, a casual familiarity with the subject matter. Oh, the irony abounds.

[link=http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.asp

 

I should clarify something here; because I know how people love to lump someone into one category or another.

Firstly, I think the whole thing should have been handled by the Americans better from day one; public opinion on the side of America would have pressured France into doing the right thing.

A UN force would be seen as more legit by those people who would call themselves Islamists and purport to represent Islam by destroying the west.

But retroactive protesting is asinine, like cutting a nose off to spite a face. We have an obligation to help Iraq rebuild, and we've built a reputation as a ****-hot army that can do the tough jobs and stick by it's mates, through thick and thin. It's why we're depended on, often thanklessly, to do the hard stuff. Until we've fulfilled our obligation to our Iraqi mates, we cannot leave. We're compelled, morally, to stay, through essentially who we are.

However, I find anti-American sentiment to be often idiotic, populist and in the portfolio of those who are merely following a trend.

Mostly, for us, it's like Scene 9 from Life of Brian.

FRANCIS:
We're gettin' in through the underground heating system here, up through into the main audience chamber here, and Pilate's wife's bedroom is here. Having grabbed his wife, we inform Pilate that she is in our custody and forthwith issue our demands. Any questions?
COMMANDO XERXES:
What exactly are the demands?
REG:
We're giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the American Imperialist State, and if he doesn't agree immediately, we execute her.
MATTHIAS:
Cut her head off?
FRANCIS:
Cut all her bits off. Send 'em back on the hour every hour. Show them we're not to be trifled with.
REG:
And of course, we point out that they bear full responsibility when we chop her up, and that we shall not submit to blackmail!
COMMANDOS:
No blackmail!
REG:
They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.
LORETTA:
And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG:
Yeah.
LORETTA:
And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG:
Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES:
The aqueduct?

REG:
What?
XERXES:
The aqueduct.
REG:
Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3:
And the sanitation.
LORETTA:
Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG:
Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Americans have done.
MATTHIAS:
And the roads.
REG:
Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO:
Irrigation.
XERXES:
Medicine.
COMMANDOS:
Huh? Heh? Huh...
COMMANDO #2:
Education.
COMMANDOS:
Ohh...
REG:
Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1:
And the wine.
COMMANDOS:
Oh, yes. Yeah...
FRANCIS:
Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Americans left. Huh.
COMMANDO:
Public baths.
LORETTA:
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS:
Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG:
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Americans ever done for us?
XERXES:
Brought peace.
REG:
Oh. Peace? Shut up!

E_S

 

You little boys run along and go join the soldiers over there, because unless you're willing to take part, you're just here blowing steam.

Were it not for a medical condition, (I suspect I could wheedle my way in, but since all of my medical records are in the military's system...), I would be in the military right now. Eats me up that I'm here and not there.

As for asking the family of those who are over there...I'm one of them.

My dad's over there now, as is my cousin, my best friend, about 12 other friends of mine, and then the possibility of having dozens more sent over.

I say "Fight on and good luck!"


BTW, where's all this oil we supposedly fought for? My gas prices certainly haven't gone down (I know the US$1.68 a gallon I spend isn't much when compared to the rest of the world, but still, it's high for the US)




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

Once again, ES waves his little "I'm edumacated" flag and comes off sounding all high and proper like.

Life experience > uni degree.

I can of course go and serve in the capacities you suggested, but I don't see you pulling your bulk out of the armchair either. So go bite me.
Just so you know though, I am 32 years old, I have served 11 years in the Australian infantry and had to leave when I recieved a permanent injury right on the east/west Timor border. So I've served my time, done my part and now I am moving on with the rest of my life in a different career field.

And comments about not knowing anything about other conflicts are as ill-informed as you are deluded, why? Because I have read up on them and spoken with and sereved with ppl who were there in those conflicts.
I have recieved a perspective in them via other's life experience whom I was serving with in yet another conflict.
Something you don't get clicking on links around the net or watching Hollywood's version of events.

Oh and you never did "**** me and not buy breakfast", you seem to handling yourself on your own just fine.
I'll leave you now to go post some more links, pipe up some more legal documents around the place, and sound exactly like the typical little uni student given all the education to run a world that he has no idea what it actually looks like

 

One other thing, just to be clear to you who really can't get this into your skull.

I am not saying all the troops need to be pulled out and leave Iraq in the mess it is now in, they do still have work to do. I am saying the US should hand over control to the UN, regardless of anyone's personal second hand opinions of their previous overseas efforts, they are the agency which should be handling this.
It would also help to have this affair handled by an international force and not by a regime that is now seen by Iraqi citizens as conquerors and occupiers.

And now, just to show you that I too can go looking around the net, some reading material:

Prince Hassan of Jordan has said he fears a third world war is erupting in the Middle East.

Bush jokes about search for WMD, but it's no laughing matter for critics

Bush's Iraq WMDs joke backfires

Families of soldiers not amused by Bush's comedy routine

Hollywood's changing opinion on Michael Moore's Oscar speech, one year on.

Mike's Truth Is Stronger Than Allies' Fiction

Willful ignorance: the lies told by George W. Bush to go to war.

Mark Latham calls for the troops to come home, stating that John Howard has no "exit policy" for the troops stationed there

The US army is finally taking action on soldier suicides in Iraq, after months of low soldier morale, and findings of insufficient training.


And if you think that what's going on over there right now is justified, and that the war has been won, despite hundreds of US soldier and Iraqi police deaths since "president" Bush declared war to be over, then check this link: Day by day, death by death

And if you still feel that those young men & women are a worthy sacrifice so Bush can get more oil while distracting the ppl from the fact he never even came close to catching Osama Bin Laden, then why don't you say that while looking upon The Faces of the Fallen?

George Bush LIED about his intentions to go into Iraq, do I think Saddam should have remained in power? No, but now we have the danger of one two candidates for leadership in Iraq being elected who is all in favour of a dictatorship, do we honestly think if this happens it has been a worthwhile excercise?

I certainly would not, and I firmly believe that the UN should be called in to assist Iraq on the road to democracy, and help run a fair and democratic election.

 

they are the agency which should be handling this.

How so?

And if you still feel that those young men & women are a worthy sacrifice

The US Armed Forces are strictly volunteer. They knew the possibility of going to war and dying when they signed up.

so Bush can get more oil

Which oil would that be? We sure haven't been getting any.

while distracting the ppl from the fact he never even came close to catching Osama Bin Laden

We've been on his ass for a couple years now. I'm sure we'll find him sooner or later. Eastern Afghanistan's a huge place, very mountainous, plenty of places for a guy to hide. I'm really not surprised it's taking a while.

then why don't you say that while looking upon The Faces of the Fallen?

Thanks for providing the link. I'd forgetten how to get to it while I'm away from my regular computer. You just saved me a search.

I certainly would not, and I firmly believe that the UN should be called in to assist Iraq on the road to democracy, and help run a fair and democratic election.

Why do you continue to think that the UN would have any better luck than the US? The UN has failed in the past, so why the faith in them?




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

they are the agency which should be handling this.

How so?

Because they are the internationally recognised body for this, not Sherrif Uncle Sam.


The US Armed Forces are strictly volunteer. They knew the possibility of going to war and dying when they signed up.

Sure they did, but not the national guard and reservists who joined up to protect their nation on it's home soil in the event of attack, instead of playing big brother in another country. And no soldier there asked there government to pass law making it illegal for them to leave the army for "the duration of this conflict" or keep extending their stay there without relief or rotation home.

Which oil would that be? We sure haven't been getting any.

Exactly, where is it? Write your congressman.

We've been on his ass for a couple years now. I'm sure we'll find him sooner or later. Eastern Afghanistan's a huge place, very mountainous, plenty of places for a guy to hide. I'm really not surprised it's taking a while.

I agree with you, but Bush had to go after somebody to keep his popularity running and stop ppl fearing another attack before the next election didn't he?

Thanks for providing the link. I'd forgetten how to get to it while I'm away from my regular computer. You just saved me a search.

Happy to help.

Why do you continue to think that the UN would have any better luck than the US? The UN has failed in the past, so why the faith in them?

The US has also failed in the past, absolutely miserably and to the cost of thousands upon thousands of lives. I guess you could say my backing of the UN is the result of the lesser of two evils.

 

Because they are the internationally recognised body for this, not Sherrif Uncle Sam.

Been a while since I read the UN charter, could you point out to me where it says that the UN is the authority on setting up governments?

Sure they did, but not the national guard and reservists who joined up to protect their nation on it's home soil in the event of attack, instead of playing big brother in another country.

*buzz*

I'm sorry, but you are incorrent! National Guard and Reserve units are well aware that they might be sent anywhere the US military deems necessary. Any of them who say otherwise are either lying or mistaken.

And no soldier there asked there government to pass law making it illegal for them to leave the army for "the duration of this conflict" or keep extending their stay there without relief or rotation home.

Um, they're soldiers, they should know this stuff happens. They enlisted, they signed up to serve a period of time. They can't say "Oh well, I'll join the military, then just sit this one out."

Exactly, where is it? Write your congressman.

That'd be Wayne Gilchrest, nice guy, I've met him. Still don't know why asking him would help find all this oil we're supposedly getting.

Guess it's...what's the word..."ficticious?"

I agree with you, but Bush had to go after somebody to keep his popularity running and stop ppl fearing another attack before the next election didn't he?

Question for you then: Why didn't he wait until, say, this July, to go to war? That'd certainly help him better come election time than...what, over a year and a half before the elections?

The US has also failed in the past, absolutely miserably and to the cost of thousands upon thousands of lives. I guess you could say my backing of the UN is the result of the lesser of two evils.

You've heard of Srebrenica, right? Or maybe Rwanda? Maybe Mogadishu, Somalia rings a bell?

"Thousands upon thousands of lives."

Now, how is the UN the lesser of two evils here?




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

Inappropriate