iraq war controversy in its third year. please respond. (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

NZ and Australia's relationship is similar to the US's and Canada. Anything that seriously affects NZ's security affects Australia's security as well. So they can afford to have a tiny military and be difficult because they know our interests are so similar we'd be forced to go their aid.

When have we been forced to go their aid?

 

[banco55]

We haven't as yet. But to give an example the stability and security iof the pacific islands is in Australia's interest and NZ's interest. So NZ can rely on Australia to put up the vast majority of the money and men/material to maintain the stability and security of the islands. For example the Solomon islands mission was basically an Australian operation. The RAN also acts as a deterrent against any nation getting funny ideas about taking over some of the pacific islands.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i dont think any of the minister would have predicted for it to last so long, they if i remember correctly were all thinking withdrawing troops within the year itself, but till now no such withdrawal has taken place.

What pres. bush says his military advisors are telling him, and what his military advisors do tell him are different things. At a senate hearing on the iraq war they said the average time to beat an insurgency is 9 years.

 

[Iron]

Why not? (interested to hear)

Firstly, it wouldnt be appropiate given our important natural resources. We export Tin, Zinc, Uranium, wheat, coal, whatever, around the world in notable quantities. This gives us not only a right, but a responsibility to take an active global role in making sure that these resources are used in a way we deem appropriate (AWB anyone?)

Secondly, NZ can afford to ignore the world because it's practically a [parasitic] state of Australia. They just wont admit it.

Thirdly, American hegemony is in our interests. [dont want to go into]

 

[davin]

I don't think they are analogous. How many troops were killed in occupied japan and germany? Besides they were back on their feet by about 1948 or so and the US could have pulled out a lot earlier if they had wished to do so. Not to mention both countries were prosperous before the war, they were homogenous and they had some experience with democracy. Iraq was a 3rd world shithole even before Saddam got in and the average Iraqi is illiterate, inbred and does what the local imam tells him to do.

i'd not call them the same, but my point is more that if it took years with germany and japan, and there were SIGNIFICANT advantages there, Iraq is going to be even harder

 

[Captain Gh3y]

the average Iraqi is illiterate, inbred and does what the local imam tells him to do.

Racist?

 

[withoutaface]

The US and supporting nations should withdraw their troops within the next 6 months and leave the political process completely to the Iraqis.

You mean the nutcases that make up the insurgence at the moment?

 

[banco55]

Racist?

Well actually we know from stats that the average iraq is illiterate, about 50 % of Iraqi marriages are to first cousins and Ayatollah Sistani is the most powerful figure in Iraq. In fact the americans have found that quite a few of the medical problems that they've found are prevalent in the Iraqi populace are due to inbreeding. This whole bs about "oh the Iraqis are just like us they want to be free" is what got us into this mess. There's not a middle class westerner trapped inside every Arab waiting to get out.

Here we go:

Literacy:

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 40.4%
male: 55.9%
female: 24.4% (2003 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

 

[Comrade nathan]

if asian come to australia and invade for whatever reason, would you be happy? as an asian u would be, but as an australian wouldnt u want to revolt and incite riots and move against such a goverment whether it be democratic or not?

That's the most retarded thing i have ever heard. First of all there is no homogeneous Asian ethnic and political group. It's like saying the Chinese were very happen when the Japanese invaded China and defeated the Russians. When as a matter of fact the Chinese were not happy that they got a replacement from a Slavic imperialist to a Asian imperialist.

The same would happen for the various Asians populations here. I doubt they would be very happy when the country they have been living in most of their lives (if not all their lives and parents too) is being invaded by people who have the same skin colour. Also as history has shown the Japanese imperialist were not kind to the other Asian countries they invaded, so there is no reason to believe they would give benifits to Asians in Western countries.

Your line of thought is very reactionary and much like the thought that was prevelant during WW2, where people in the Ally countries thought it best be safe to lock up their Japanese.

 

[absolution*]

You mean the nutcases that make up the insurgence at the moment?

The insurgence is either against foreign occupation or comprises of pro-Saddamists. Hence, removal of US forces = less insurgence. The remainder of the insurgence will always be there, no matter how long the US stay in Iraq. The real problem now is civil war and it should be left for the established political process to make decisions free from US puppeteering and propagandising within Iraq.

 

[Iron]

The current Iraqi goverment are very US-sceptical. But they cant survive without them.
Do you really believe that the entire insurgency will collapse once America withdraws? They're after power. The only way to get it is to make sure America abandons the region, allowing for a Taliban-esque take-over (with America being the neo-Soviets) It's a totally unacceptable proposition.

 

[marlosian]

do you really feel that your perceptions of the situation are realistic? think about our souce of information. wouldnt you agree that our perceptions are easily altered by these. the informers will always have their own incentives. pick up any newspaper and it will depict a gruesome image of a terrorist.
wouldnt you agree that the australian government intends to play on the emotions of the people through fear of the so called threat of terrorism and the iraq war to supress our society and to gain power and control?
just look at my recent poll results. 32% of voters thought it was very likely for australia to be attacked by terrorists.
its so great to hear you guys having such an indepth understanding of the issues. thankyou so much for responding to my questions.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

where people in the Ally countries thought it best be safe to lock up their Japanese.

To be fair there were some japanese spies in america.

do you really feel that your perceptions of the situation are realistic? think about our souce of information. wouldnt you agree that our perceptions are easily altered by these. the informers will always have their own incentives. pick up any newspaper and it will depict a gruesome image of a terrorist.

Yea but Marlosian, alot of the people whom are least inform tend to be those that don't even read newspapers. While I think there's going to be a bias I think reading a newspaper provides you with a decent outlook on the situation.

pick up any newspaper and it will depict a gruesome image of a terrorist.

Gruesome? :/

wouldnt you agree that the australian government intends to play on the emotions of the people through fear of the so called threat of terrorism and the iraq war to supress our society and to gain power and control?

Well yes, but all governments play on peoples emotions, fears of different things.... the main fears I think the howard government have used are 'fear of rising interest rates' and 'fear of foreigners'. Not to say that this is a good thing, just an inevitable thing to some degree.

just look at my recent poll results. 32% of voters thought it was very likely for australia to be attacked by terrorists.

You think they're wrong? I chose that Australia was very likely to be attacked by terrorists because chances are we will be. There have been two situations I can think of where people were planning on attacking a target in Australia and were stopped, we've pissed off groups of people in indonesia, we're REALLY pissing off the middle east... I don't think it's that unlikely that someone will decide to enact revenge on us eventually.

I think it will be home grown myself, no one from outside australia could be bothered comming here to do an attack, if they were gunna do that they'd go to isreal or america.

 

[davin]

home grown, or i'd think from indonesia would be possible. though i definitly doubt groups in the middle east will bother with australia...america and europe seem to be more popular targets in that regard.

anyway, regarding iraq, i'd recommend to anyone the documentary "Voices of Iraq". They gave, i believe the number was 100 video cameras, to iraqis to have them document day to day life, and then pass it on so it'd reach more iraqis...and this includes supporters of saddam and insurgents. it gives a lot of insight into what actual iraqis are feeling as they describe it, not just what reporters claim iraqis feel.

and keep in mind, the insurgents, the sunni and baathist ones, aren't angry that the u.s. is there, they're angry that they're no longer in a dominant position. the u.s. and coalition forces are just blamed for that change in the heirarchy

 

[absolution*]

Do you really believe that the entire insurgency will collapse once America withdraws? They're after power.

Im not sure where I actually said the insurgency will collapse once the US withdraws. For your benefit ill quote myself:

The insurgence is either against foreign occupation or comprises of pro-Saddamists. Hence, removal of US forces = less insurgence. The remainder of the insurgence will always be there, no matter how long the US stay in Iraq.

The insurgency is being confused with civil war. The fight for power is between Iraqi's, Islamic sects. They are not fighting the US for power, that fight has already taken place with the US handpicking there delegates for the newly formed Iraqi government. The US presence cannot stop civil war. And thus, there is a justifiable case to withdraw them and by doing so, empower the Iraqi government to forge its own solutions. Ask yourself, what benefits will the US bring to Iraq in its current situation by continued occupation? Have they qwelled insurgency in the past 3 years? Have they stabilised the region? Are there less terrorist acts taking place? Is the sectarian situation becoming less volatile? The simple fact is, foreign occupation hinders progress, encourages violence and disempowers the Iraqi people to make viable decisions.

The only way to get it is to make sure America abandons the region, allowing for a Taliban-esque take-over (with America being the neo-Soviets) It's a totally unacceptable proposition.

And what is more acceptible? A democratic theocracy whereby minority Islamic sects and other religious orders are discriminated against through castastrophic social and economic policy? Totalitarianism masquerading as democracy arising from power held by more than one person is just as bad as the old situation. However, this time, the people in power have been carefully handpicked by the US to serve their continued economic interests. That cant be an acceptible proposition either, and this is why something else needs to be done, and fast.

 

[absolution*]

even though the war continuing is making the republican party's job harder, and there has been no benefit to the u.s. as far as oil, given that less oil is being pumped now and gas prices have been on the rise

Im pretty sure I've already pointed this out to you before.

Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The new Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon.

 

[absolution*]

You think they're wrong? I chose that Australia was very likely to be attacked by terrorists because chances are we will be. There have been two situations I can think of where people were planning on attacking a target in Australia and were stopped, we've pissed off groups of people in indonesia, we're REALLY pissing off the middle east... I don't think it's that unlikely that someone will decide to enact revenge on us eventually.

And this is how fear and loathing sets in, how enemies are made, and war becomes viable.

Shame.

 

[banco55]

even though the war continuing is making the republican party's job harder, and there has been no benefit to the u.s. as far as oil, given that less oil is being pumped now and gas prices have been on the rise

Remember Iraq has gone far differently than Dubya's administration planned. If Iraq was now a stable, pro-US quasi democracy there could have been big pay offs as far as oil goes. The neocon scenario for how Iraq would benefit the US as far as oil goes something like this: after the invasion the Iraqis start opening up Iraq for exploration and signing lucrative deals with american oil companies, new reserves of oil are found. These new reserves lower the world price of oil and make america less dependent on Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile Iraq withdraws from OPEC which seriously undermines OPEC. The Iraqis provide permanent bases to American troops. From these bases the Americans can intimidate the gulf countries into doing what they are told.

 

[Iron]

To my dear comrade Abby-babe.

1. There are still vast parts of Iraq that America cannot control. It's a joke to think that any order could be held without the US military. As has been exhaustively said, the US are dying to leave (literally) - but Iraqi forces are still being trained.
a.) The insurgents are racing to beat this program. The more the US public opinion is poisoned by kidnappings/video torture/filmed convoy ambushes etc, the closer the bad guys get to levelling the playing field, fighting each other, taking power, purging minorities, touring internationally
b.) The second element involves assassinating Iraqi ministers/public servants in order to destabilise the government. Despite the US-connection with the Iraqi gov, this should be a clue that they wont play nice once America leaves. The insurgency isn’t popular. Women and children are fair game etc. It's serious stuff that should be opposed.

2. The US made many mistakes which have exacerbated or failed to curb the insurgency, but insurgencies are big deals. The Coalition is the only one capable of containing them at the mo. All that matters is military protection of the developing democracy. The result must be a well-armed stable government with constitutional provisions protecting the Kurds/Sunnis/Shiites; pretty government is a luxury.

3. I don’t see the evidence for the Government being handpicked. Elections were held and successful platforms were based on having the US leave as soon as practically possible. Real iraqis dont want any violence - insurgent or coalition.
You'd need to support the economic benefit argument. Long-term economic interests involve getting out of there ASAP.

 

[HotShot]

That's the most retarded thing i have ever heard. First of all there is no homogeneous Asian ethnic and political group. It's like saying the Chinese were very happen when the Japanese invaded China and defeated the Russians. When as a matter of fact the Chinese were not happy that they got a replacement from a Slavic imperialist to a Asian imperialist.

The same would happen for the various Asians populations here. I doubt they would be very happy when the country they have been living in most of their lives (if not all their lives and parents too) is being invaded by people who have the same skin colour. Also as history has shown the Japanese imperialist were not kind to the other Asian countries they invaded, so there is no reason to believe they would give benifits to Asians in Western countries.

Your line of thought is very reactionary and much like the thought that was prevelant during WW2, where people in the Ally countries thought it best be safe to lock up their Japanese.

its an example nuthead asians pick one, eg china if they invaded australia wouldnt u incite violence to get rid of them.