Iraqis voice support for attacks on UK troops (1 Viewer)

[Calculon]

Just because they don't have a navy now doesn't mean they couldn't build one in the future.

 

[loquasagacious]

Supercharged you at once make a valid point and expose complete ignorance of a topic, sometimes I don't know how you manage it.....

At present we are under no threat of invasion nor will be anytime soon. As waf points out indonesia is on our doorstop however he misses two crucial points: the Indonesian army whilst large is stretched maintaining order domestically and Indonesia does not have the lift capacity.

Even were their army available to invade Australia with it would be impossible. They do not have the ships or aeroplanes to transport an invading force to our coastline. And even were that not so and they did invade then our geography comes into play it would be a very long march through the desert for an army equipped for jungle warfare and unable to maintain air superiority. Then you have supply chain issues there are few to none armies who could maintain and protect a supply chain across 2000+km of desert.

So the short answer waf is no, Indonesia is not a threat and is unlikely ever to be.

However supercharged is also wrong. For a start its a bad idea to base an understanding of International Relations on the rants of Mark Latham. More importantly though Australian Foriegn Policy has always been based on having a great and powerful friend. This stems from entirely logical and non-racist thinking, that is that from a realist standpoint Australia is weak. We have a small population, sparesely populated and don't have a large manufacturing base, we are in ourselves never going to be a world power. This makes us vulnerable to attacks by others in that countries only attack those they think they can beat. And so in a logical mannder Australian Foriegn Policy has always been driven by the need to increase our strategic footprint, that is to make us more formidable and thus less likely to be attacked. The most cost-effective way of doing this has always been the aquiring of a great and powerful friend, in other words allying with a great power who will scare off potential aggressors. Initially this was Britain whose sea power it was hoped would defend us from the Japanese threat and more recently the US who will defend us from communism/china.

It is to maintain the protection of our great and powerful friends that we go to war. This is true from WWII onwards, Korea, Vietnam, Malaya, GulfI/II are all examples of this. The term coined to describe it is 'paying our insurance policy', for this reason we have always fought in others wars. ANZUS was a treaty which formalised this relationship and interestingly the treaty itself was the immediate pay off for Vietnam or Korea (I forget the dates).

In say the last twenty years though Australia has been engaging with Asia, seeking to be seen as less of a white bastion and more of a good neighbour. This has engendered a way of thinking that leads those like supercharged to question the value of ANZUS/having a great and powerful friend. I assure you that in our world friends are still worthwhile, that Australia has been cultivating friendships closer to home does not negate the importance of having a great friend.

BTW: I study this at uni, a friend of mine is in army intelligence, another with the Land Warfare centre and one's father is very high in the airforce......

 

[loquasagacious]

Damn reply taking so long to type I was partially beaten to the punch.

Iron makes a good point (hey these IR courses might pay off lol) addressing the reasons for the 'war on terror' very accurately.

RE: waf "indonesia could get a navy"

Yes they could but it would take more money than they have. It isn't something they could do without us finding out. Their armies tied up domestically and as layed out in my previous post their invasion would still be stuffed even if they made landfall.

Unless maybe you are suggesting they sail all the way around Australia and then attack the Eastern Seaboard. To pull this off would require vast sums of money to A) buy enough ships (eg NT landfall you would have multiple waves, NSW you couldn't) and B) protect ships on such a voyage as they would vulnerable to both sea and air attack.

And finally waf that is why we have great and powerful friends to protect us in the highly unlikley eventuality that evrything does go to shit. Because when looked at in the grand scheme of things a couple of thousand lives here or there is a small price to pay for the protection offered by a great and powerful friend..... hey nobody ever said realists had a heart....

 

[walrusbear]

Personally I don't think the average Iraqi is going to be terribly intelligent given their lack of formal, if any, education. They're going by a poll of Iraqi's, which does not account for the beliefs of all Iraqis.
I think the billions of dollars wasted on this operation could be put to better use, but Saddam needed to be kicked out of Iraq. We're all happy to go off into Lala land and donate millions in aid to these kinds of nations, aid meant for the construction of infrastructure, not for buying weapons as so many of them do. Then it gets thrown back in our faces with statements like "terrorism is justified". Whether you want to admit it or not, Saddam had to be removed with force. It's up to debate as to whether foreign forces needed to remain in Iraq after he was removed, but from the American POV, they're staying until they rid Iraq of any extremists who may jeapordise a democratic government.

No shit sherlock, nobody is saying in a literal sense that America is "giving" them democracy. Democracy is the form of government seen by these people as "evil", and seeing as how they've had drilled into them the evilness of democracy, of course they're going to object it. It is not however, justification for terrorist attacks. They cannot naturally develop a sense of democracy if they have radical insergents blowing people up, objecting to a foreign form of government. That is why America is there, to mediate the tranisition.

that's a very far-right western version of the events
statements like 'whether you want to admit it or not, Saddam had to be removed with force' typify the whole pro-war movement; a willingness to simplify.
given that 'these people' see democracy as 'evil', why is it then justified that the US attempt to instill a democratic government by force?

 

[supercharged]

@addymac

"Initially this was Britain whose sea power it was hoped would defend us from the Japanese threat and more recently the US who will defend us from communism/china."

Ok, firstly the Cold War is well and truely over. The Soviet Union has dissolved, the Berlin wall has been torn down. Even China and Vietnam are embracing capitalism. Communism by large, is in the dustbins of history as something which sounded like a 'workers paradise' in theory but in reality led to nothing more than poverty and backwardness.

No country in the world is trying to invade others or back coup attempts to spread communist ideology to new lands anymore.

China has zero motive to attack Australia since Australia is very far away and has never been part of its territory. The chance of China invading Australia would be as plausable as China invading South Africa or Brazil. In short, not plausable.

If anything India, with its greater population pressures and more advanced navy than China, has a greater incentive to invade Australia. However this is still highly remote and basically implausable as well, for the reasons you have mentioned.

"In say the last twenty years though Australia has been engaging with Asia, seeking to be seen as less of a white bastion and more of a good neighbour."

This is not true, in many parts of South East Asia, Australia is still seen as a somewhat hostile foreign white colony, which is not helped by Howard's statements on being 'deputy of the US' and refusal on ruling out pre-emptive strikes in the region. Although recently this has improved somewhat with the Howard government backflip on signing the non-aggression pact with ASEAN.

 

[rink]

given that 'these people' see democracy as 'evil', why is it then justified that the US attempt to instill a democratic government by force?

Exactly........to force democracy on people contradicts the very concept of democracy.

 

[Calculon]

that's a very far-right western version of the events
statements like 'whether you want to admit it or not, Saddam had to be removed with force' typify the whole pro-war movement; a willingness to simplify.
given that 'these people' see democracy as 'evil', why is it then justified that the US attempt to instill a democratic government by force?

That's hardly a far-right view point, just about anyone right of centre would agree with tully's sentiments.

 

[supercharged]

That's hardly a far-right view point, just about anyone right of centre would agree with tully's sentiments.

The idea of imposing your own governmental ideology on foreign countries by the use of warfare is very right wing. Slightly right wing people would more likely look only at their own country and try to 'protect' it.

 

[Calculon]

No, you're referring to nationalism, which is something different altogether.

 

[Raginsheep]

Supercharged, would you describe the decision to intervene in Kosovo and East Timor as right wing ideology or a decision which has the support of both sides of the political spectrum.

Also, Walusbear asked before if I had supported the inital invasion of Iraq. My position was that, invading Iraq on the pretense of WMDs was wrong and a deliberate fabrication by the governments of the colition of the willing. However, if the invasion was to remove the brutal regime of Saddam, then I would have been more supportative.

As for the current situation, as far as I can see, the only thing that's keeping the entire region from collapsing into greater instability is the prescence of the US military. Granted, they're doing a crappy job from whatever position you're looking at it, but if they weren't there, it'll be alot worse.

This whole thing, Iraq, terrorism, is a long term thing and trying to change the world for the better in 2-3yrs is, frankly, impossible.

 

[supercharged]

Right wing = Let's go bomb and invade X and install a friendly puppet government there!

Left wing = Don't attack X, but let X's refugees in!

 

[Calculon]

Right and left wing refer to economic policies, apart from that the line gets pretty blurred.

 

[loquasagacious]

As waf hinted at left and right are the most dubious of desciptive terms. They are originally derived from support for the status quo (the monarchy) and opposition to him, however this clearly does not include the gamut of beliefs they now describe. The political compass expands on them including two seperate axis one for economic beliefs and the other for social beliefs, which is a far more accurate description as it allows for the obvious cases of right wing social libetarians and left wing totalitarians etc etc.

However this description leaves out international relations (IR) which is an entirely different sphere again. And a sphere within which there are again multiple axis between nationalist and internationalist and liberals and realists. To summarise and oversimplfy extremely nationalists support state soveriegnty, internationalists support an international soveriegn system. Realists will act in ways to maximise relative gains and liberals to maximise absolute gains. There are fleeting correlations between the IR and political compass descriptions however these are not enough to be substantive in any way.

So supercharged left and right really do not accurately describe attitudes to IR. It is a gross error to ascibe the beliefs of the green left phamphlet or conservative governments to entire and only dimly related spectrums.

Ok, firstly the Cold War is well and truely over. The Soviet Union has dissolved, the Berlin wall has been torn down. Even China and Vietnam are embracing capitalism. Communism by large, is in the dustbins of history as something which sounded like a 'workers paradise' in theory but in reality led to nothing more than poverty and backwardness.

No country in the world is trying to invade others or back coup attempts to spread communist ideology to new lands anymore.

Der. I was referring to our aligning with the US during the cold war....

China has zero motive to attack Australia since Australia is very far away and has never been part of its territory. The chance of China invading Australia would be as plausable as China invading South Africa or Brazil. In short, not plausable.

Where did I say China would attack Australia? A country does not have to attack another to threaten it's interests. The rise of China as a world power on our doorstep is strategically of key importance whether or not China ever attacks us.

If anything India, with its greater population pressures and more advanced navy than China, has a greater incentive to invade Australia. However this is still highly remote and basically implausable as well, for the reasons you have mention.

India is less likely. They have closer military ties and because of internal pressures and Pakistan are unlikley ever to pursue an expansionary foriegn policy. Their foriegn policy will for a good deal longer be dominated solely by Pakistan.

This is not true, in many parts of South East Asia, Australia is still seen as a somewhat hostile foreign white colony, which is not helped by Howard's statements on being 'deputy of the US' and refusal on ruling out pre-emptive strikes in the region. Although recently this has improved somewhat with the Howard government backflip on signing the non-aggression pact with ASEAN.

I see you have sources high in the various governments of South East Asia. Australia has been engaged in a long term turn to Asia, Whitlam was the first western head of state to visit China and ever since we have courted Asia. We have developed military ties with Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and the Phillipines. In recent years the war on terror has actually bought us closer to the governments of not the people of South East Asia. They have had to deal with muslim insurgency for many years us now labelling it as an enemy thus brings us closer to them.

The pre-emptive strikes talk was strictly for domestic consumption and was withdrawn afterwards in a far quiter manner than it was announced. Now we have signed the Treaty of Amity and Co-operation. Will get an invite to the next meeting and are on track to have joined ASEAN within say 5-10years.

 

[walrusbear]

That's hardly a far-right view point, just about anyone right of centre would agree with tully's sentiments.

it's indicative that the discourse has shifted further right
when you think about it, it's a pretty extreme course of action

 

[walrusbear]

Supercharged, would you describe the decision to intervene in Kosovo and East Timor as right wing ideology or a decision which has the support of both sides of the political spectrum.

Also, Walusbear asked before if I had supported the inital invasion of Iraq. My position was that, invading Iraq on the pretense of WMDs was wrong and a deliberate fabrication by the governments of the colition of the willing. However, if the invasion was to remove the brutal regime of Saddam, then I would have been more supportative.

As for the current situation, as far as I can see, the only thing that's keeping the entire region from collapsing into greater instability is the prescence of the US military. Granted, they're doing a crappy job from whatever position you're looking at it, but if they weren't there, it'll be alot worse.

This whole thing, Iraq, terrorism, is a long term thing and trying to change the world for the better in 2-3yrs is, frankly, impossible.

under this idea that it's good for the us to remove dictators by force, and since you pointed out how the WMD reasoning was fabricated, wouldn't that mean it's also be good for the us to move onto other places after iraq 'succeeds'. or even before iraq, why not north korea??

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Why not every dictator in Africa?

Because you choose the battles you have a chance of actually winning, and that are a little profitable to yourself.

 

[walrusbear]

Why not every dictator in Africa?

Because you choose the battles you have a chance of actually winning, and that are a little profitable to yourself.

so you agree the US's actions are purely imperialistic?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well not purely but they've obviously selected a war which is of the most benefit to themselves. I do believe they care about getting rid of people like Saddam from power, and to a lesser extent about the plight of the Iraqi people... but the main criteria is probably the benefit it will give to their nation.

If it was truely a war with a main focus on removing American-hating dictators and freeing oppressed people Iraq probably would have been quite far down the list.

 

[walrusbear]

Well not purely but they've obviously selected a war which is of the most benefit to themselves. I do believe they care about getting rid of people like Saddam from power, and to a lesser extent about the plight of the Iraqi people... but the main criteria is probably the benefit it will give to their nation.

If it was truely a war with a main focus on removing American-hating dictators and freeing oppressed people Iraq probably would have been quite far down the list.

yeah i'm thinking that the intervention was for the benefit of the US too

so why the pro-war sentiment?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I believe that the Iraqi's could very well end up better off after the war (admittedly, this belief is harder to hold given recent events) and I don't believe that the islamic militant movements in the middle east are all about fighting imperialism, many of them I believe wish to export their own beliefs.