Oceania Aussie troops in Iraq

Discussion in 'Oceania Discussion Boards' started by CCD, Mar 26, 2004.

?

Aussie troops in Iraq

Poll closed Apr 25, 2004.
Home by Christmas (or some other arbitrary date) 9 vote(s) 50.0%
Stay and finish the job 9 vote(s) 50.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    I don't understand your insistance on continuing this argument.

    Um, maybe the love of the debate? Gain a new perspective on things, see what others think, because there's no such thing as too much information in debate?

    Also, you made the point of saying that Iraq was in a state of "total anarchy," and I contend that assertion.

    Listen, if you make a point, then want to back out when someone disagrees with you, then maybe it's best you avoid serious debate.




    SCREW CHIVALRY!
  2. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    So you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I already altered what I said, but you keep harping on about the word anarchy. It's a pointless argument that isn't contributing to the debate.
  3. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    "Arguing" is such a dirty word, I prefer "debate," because I can say "I'm a master-debator!"

    And I must have missed where you amended what you meant about anarchy, would you mind pointing out what you changed it to? My comp sucks, so loading too many pages is a little tough on the old girl.

    In any case, I'm off to bed. It's 2:07 am here.



    SCREW CHIVALRY!
  4. stinrab Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 5
    Well, which is it? Do we listen to the news or not?

    You have to read more than the newspapers and watch more than the Channel 10 news. You need to actively look for information.

    I didn't respond to the article because I thought it wasn't relevant to the argument.

    Your argument consisted of whining about how we're creating a bitter and angry muslim population in Iraq and that it's not "apples" in that country after Saddam's capture. I posted a link which refutes that by showing a population generally supportive and appreciative of the democracy they've been granted.

    Relevant.
  5. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    I'm actually amused by the anti-war crowd.

    They've failed to clearly articulate their oppostion.

    Don't get me wrong; I'm sure something exists, it's just apparently been hard to define and put into something concrete. And I suspect that before such virulent anti-Americanism became fashionable, most people would have wanted America to tackle dictatorships and remove them.

    I mean, heck, you say getting rid of Saddam is a good thing, but you would have preferred the UN to do it; same here, but why blame America when FRANCE IS THE ******* CULPRIT?!? They threatened to veto any Resolution the US/UK would put up, and they were Ba'athist Iraq's primary trade partner.

    If the answer is because France is seen as a buffer to US power or a cultural centre, I'd remind you that being French usually entails eating snails, urinating in the street and cruelty to geese; none of these are particularly admirable pursuits...

    E_S
  6. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    You forgot blowing up atolls and sinking Greenpeace ships.

    If you don't understand the anti-war crowd, we sure as hell don't understand the pro-war crowd. Now we've gone in there, can't find any WMD's and all of a sudden the whole point of the exercise was to free the Iraqi people. We invaded Iraq under false pretences and it's just lucky for the war crowd that they have a "saving the Iraqi people" excuse to fall back on.

    We should be concentrating on terrorism, not in this stupid sideshow that has the potential to cause immesurable harm to the middle east and the world in general. Our special forces should be moved to Afghanistan and Pakistan to find Bin Laden and the rest of those terrorist feckers.
  7. foxy_kenobi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2000
    star 4
    "I suggest you look deeper than what you are told by the mainstream media. They only report the negative."

    Let me get this straight...you're trying to tell me that Sandra Sully isn't telling me the whole story?! NO! I won't believe it. You lie! ^;^
  8. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    I don't actually listen to her, just watch and fantasize.....
  9. Katana_Geldar Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2003
    star 8
    this argument is getting a bit heated, isn't it?

    stop the castle building guys, it doesn't have to get personal here
  10. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
  11. foxy_kenobi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2000
    star 4
    Huh?

    They're only sandcastles... o_0
  12. stinrab Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 5
    We invaded Iraq under false pretences and it's just lucky for the war crowd that they have a "saving the Iraqi people" excuse to fall back on.

    Strange that it was called Operation: Iraqi Freedom and not Operation: Disarm Saddam. But yes, the supporters of Iraqi liberation are only falling back on this "excuse" now.

    And you talk about it as if the liberation of an entire people is some sort of lame excuse. Excuse me if I think the possibility that the Iraqis and their children will live in a free, democratic nation are a legitimate reason.

    We should be concentrating on terrorism, not in this stupid sideshow that has the potential to cause immesurable harm to the middle east and the world in general.

    Also has the potential to bring democracy and freedom to the region, thus lessening the ability of terrorists to influence local populations.

    Our special forces should be moved to Afghanistan and Pakistan to find Bin Laden and the rest of those terrorist feckers.

    Agreed. We need more of a presence there, that's for sure.

    I don't actually listen to her, just watch and fantasize.....

    Agreed. Now stop being agreeable.

    this argument is getting a bit heated, isn't it?

    Yes, lets take the flame wars about Sandra Sully's cleavage elsewhere, k guys? ;)
  13. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    You forgot blowing up atolls and sinking Greenpeace ships.

    I think I covered by using that foul noun-and-adjective "French". It's all implicit, along with colonial mismanagement of North Africa and Vietnam, eating garlic, and going to bed with the kitchen sink, if it put a tutu on.

    If you don't understand the anti-war crowd, we sure as hell don't understand the pro-war crowd. Now we've gone in there, can't find any WMD's and all of a sudden the whole point of the exercise was to free the Iraqi people. We invaded Iraq under false pretences and it's just lucky for the war crowd that they have a "saving the Iraqi people" excuse to fall back on.



    In a sense yes, and no.

    We invaded Iraq pursuant to Resolution 1441, and all previous relevant resolutions. Had Saddam cooperated, like the international community had ordered him to do in 1991, with the IAEA and UN, all would be well. But he didn't. You cannot ignore that fact. Saddam was the one with the most power to avert war, and he did what he did for over a decade; gave a big, warm, Iraqi middle finger to us all. He assumed that a bombing campaign, stepped up from the continued 1998 bombings, would be the worst that he'd get. Sucks to be him.

    Do you think I don't know the reality here? You know the Senate, go ask some regulars there where I stood on the Iraq war. I had argued since I got in there that the UN was the best way to go, because it was less likely to incite an Islamist backlash. I never said, however, that it was the *only* way to go. A dictator who's favoured way of dealing with dissenters and disloyal deserters was to lower them into a vat of acid has forfieted his right to life, to power, and to escape justice.

    We should be concentrating on terrorism

    Weren't you arguing that the agencies supposed to be fighting terrorism - ASIO, ASIS noteably - were inept?

    Granted, you still have, at last check, Customs, the Federal Police (W00t), DIGO, DSD, and DIO on top of that, but they are mainly reactive defences and/or close quarters defence.

    E_S
  14. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    Hey, I like garlic.

    Tell me, does UN Resolution 1441 mention deposing Saddam Hussain because he was an evil dictator who did nasty things and his people need to be freed or was it ALL to do with WMD?
  15. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    No, but if you want to start a discussion on the status of humanitarian intervention under international law, go ahead.

    How on earth can you be opposed to the Iraq war and not have read the relevant resolutions?!? You should know that Paragraph II of UNSCR says that Iraq remains in material breach of it's obligations under UNSCRs 687 and 678...

    Read the links I posted on the first page, and then we'll talk.

    E_S
  16. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5

    Hold it, you said we went to war under the auspices of UN Resolution 1441. That is all about weapons of mass destruction. I asked that question because I have read 1441 and I knew there was nothing in it about humanitarian grounds for the war.

    We did not go to war on the grounds of saving the Iraqi's. We went to war on the grounds of stopping Saddam from using non-existant weapons.
  17. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Exactly.

    1441 already says he's in violation of international law. But the only way to know for sure requires Saddam's cooperation.

    Going back to 687, it empowers members, using any necessary means, to enforce all subsequent relevant resolutions, pursuant to Article 48 of the UN Charter.

    Basically, if Saddam doesn't behave, any member to the original coalition can kick his ass, because 687 wasn't the end of the war; it was a prolonged cease-fire which gave Saddam 10 years to comply with international law. You can't also argue that, say, Articles 33 and 34, which call for pacific dispute resolution, were overlooked because what else are you going to call 10 years? ;)

    See, if Saddam had complied, there would have been no war. There was no other way to verify 1441's claim.

    E_S
  18. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    I'm not disagreeing with you about the legality of the war. Sure, we went under the umbrella of 1441, 687 and 678 etc. But it's got nothing to do with humanitarian grounds, freeing Iraq, helping Shias, Kurds or any other group or people. Now that there are no WMD to show for the whole sorry episode, people are trying to say that freeing the Iraqi people was the whole point of the exercise. They are wrong.
  19. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Well, the WMD thing only adds to Saddam's guilt in the matter.

    And freeing Iraqis was a nice side benefit; they're better off without him, and as I said earlier, most who oppose the war probably wished the would have gotten rid of Saddam about 10 years ago, before "Let's hate teh America!!1!" was a bandwagon everyone jumped on.

    E_S
  20. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    It's just a pity they stopped in the first Gulf War.

    Soooooooooooo, you are saying freeing the Iraqi's was a nice little side benefit hey? I agree, it was a nice side benefit. It wasn't the reason we went to war though, and not all Iraqi's are glad we invaded. Iraq is becoming anothe middle east flashpoint and terrorist haven. Which gets back to my original statement that we should be chasing Bin Laden and not have been be sidetracked by this Bush vendetta.

    And yes, I think ASIO and ASIS suck at their jobs. :p
  21. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Actually, most Iraqis are glad we're there...

    But - why can't we do both? I've long argued you can't fight terrorism with your army, and so whilst the ADF gives Iraqi citizens piece of mind and future, let the others hunt terrorists in Asia.

    I'm sure ASIO and ASIS think you suck too Uruk, but they're forbidden from saying it... ;) :D

    E_S
  22. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    I'm getting dizzy going from one thread to the other...

    Damn ASIO plot, I'm sure of it.
  23. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
  24. Protege-of-Thrawn Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2001
    star 6
    A thought for those who seem to be championing a blow against Saddam (which is of course beneficial to the wider world and to Iraq in it's own context) as a blow against Terrorism.

    Explain to me this. How does a switch from a stable if beligerant and imperialistic Sunni dictatorship, to an anarchical state hellbent on a Shii'te majority theocratic state, help prevent groups such as Al Qaeda from cementing a hold on the hearts and minds of their predominately Shii'te member base and potential member bases in the middle east?

    Just looking for opinions, not a fight. :) (Looks pointedly at the Howardists among us. ;) )
  25. stinrab Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 5
    How does a switch from a stable if beligerant and imperialistic Sunni dictatorship

    see: oppressive, murderous, genocidal.

    ..to an anarchical state hellbent on a Shii'te majority theocratic state, help prevent groups such as Al Qaeda from cementing a hold on the hearts and minds of their predominately Shii'te member base and potential member bases in the middle east?

    In a poll conducted on Iraq a few months back (I posted a link to it in the previous Iraq thread. It was positive about the result of the war so I'm sure you didn't read it), the system of government most preferred by Iraqis was that of the United States and not that of a Islamic theocracy. Your question is, therefore, pointless.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.