The ANZACs... Should we remember? (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

War or sport, it seems.

 

[Kwayera]

Iraq

Iraq was not in self defence if there were no WMD...

I mean is a defence force really a defence force when they pre empt the other party that hasnt attacked them yet?

I mean was Australia acted under self defence when they sent troops?

Excuse me. The war in Iraq was for two main purposes - to find WMD (and there WAS a threat of them being there, justifying the defence of an entire population by going in); and to remove Saddam Hussein (because, frankly, he was a bastard who abused his people. I could go into that, but I can't list evey atrocity he committed).

Yes, no WMD were found (of course, there was certainatly enough time to smuggle them elsewhere after the campaign had begun) - but the intention was defence of people. Thus it was justified.

 

[ohne]

Thats the point...there are so many other things that Australia can be proud of. If howard was a forward looking leader she would also emphasise other aspects of Australia that we can be proud of...its sad that our indentity has largely come from miltary tradition and wars rather than a number of other Australia achievements...

Why do we have to resort to wars that are told to us with lies in order for us to have a national identity...in order to be proud!!!!


The ALP tried to do it by emphasising that Australia should be proud of being miltucultural and tolerant...along with funding the arts...

you are right with your first and second paragraph, however I would say this is more a problem with the way Australia views herself on the world stage and our relationship with Britain and the Commonwealth.

with respect I think Paul Keating is probably more guilty than anyone of this

 

[Kwayera]

Um...DEFENCE?...so you have a war in order to find the weapons that you are meant to be defendeing yourself against which you would have needed to start a war in preemptive self defence which turn out not to exist

Why dont they look at North Korea...we know they have weapons...we might as well preempt them...we wont even have to start a war in order to find the weapons that are needed to justify a war...

Say that again? In a more cohesive, coherant statement?

I don't know enough about the situation in N.K. to comment - but I'm guessing that's why we (and the US) didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, as that would give N.K. access to some form of WMD (I believe).

 

[tattoodguy]

Whats the point of this thread.

No one should question the notion of taking a couple of hours a few days a year..to rememmber people who died to protect us.

Members of the military have sacficed the most for this country and received very little in return.

we take for granted all our freedoms. anzac day etc reminds us that someone else faught for our freedoms and sacrificed so we wouldnt have to.

In my opinion the highest position any man can hold in our country is by being in the military. Any decent civilian should respect the soldiers more than the the politicians and the queeen. Every time we seee a soldier i think it should be a crime not to bow to them.

For what they have done for us, no one can argue that they dont deserve that type of treatment.

Even if your against the war in iraq, the buck should stop with the prime minister...cos it was his call. Its not the soldiers fault that our government is shit and the australian public is a bunch of fuck wits.

if it was up to me.............unlesss u join the military u shouldnt even be aloud to vote, they deserve more say in our country than the civilians.


Anyone who supports our government eroding our civil liberties and supporting policies that encourage immigration from our sworn enemies like the middle east and shit. Your a fucking disgrace.

Soldiers spilt there fucking blooood to defend our fucking country, and you fucking pussies couldnt even stand ur fucking ground and vote in accordance with there legacy, cos you pieces of shit bowed down to the pressures of being politcally correct.

U ungreatful unappreciative pieces of shit.


well thats my 2 cents.

 

[Armani]

Say that again? In a more cohesive, coherant statement?

I don't know enough about the situation in N.K. to comment - but I'm guessing that's why we (and the US) didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, as that would give N.K. access to some form of WMD (I believe).

Then why wasn't North Korea invaded first? It was more of a threat.

 

[Kwayera]

ill dumb it down...

How can you say you are a part of a defence force when you act pre emptively? Its even worse when the things you were preemptively defending yourself against dont exist. Its even worse when, as you say, you invade in order to see if their are weapons and they are not there.

Pre-emtive strikes ARE defence, if it is in the interest (i.e. safety) of your nation (or the people you're fighing to defend). Starting a war for pure power-gain reasons is what you shoukd be focussing as a fault of defence forces - something ours is not guilty of.

It is NOT a bad thing to invade a country to defend against something that could devestate your country, be it there or not! It is justified.

And you completely ignored my point on setting the Iraqi people free of Saddam Hussein.

 

[ohne]

Whats the point of this thread.

No one should question the notion of taking a couple of hours a few days a year..to rememmber people who died to protect us.

Members of the military have sacficed the most for this country and received very little in return.

we take for granted all our freedoms. anzac day etc reminds us that someone else faught for our freedoms and sacrificed so we wouldnt have to.

In my opinion the highest position any man can hold in our country is by being in the military. Any decent civilian should respect the soldiers more than the the politicians and the queeen. Every time we seee a soldier i think it should be a crime not to bow to them.

For what they have done for us, no one can argue that they dont deserve that type of treatment.

Even if your against the war in iraq, the buck should stop with the prime minister...cos it was his call. Its not the soldiers fault that our government is shit and the australian public is a bunch of fuck wits.

if it was up to me.............unlesss u join the military u shouldnt even be aloud to vote, they deserve more say in our country than the civilians.


Anyone who supports our government eroding our civil liberties and supporting policies that encourage immigration from our sworn enemies like the middle east and shit. Your a fucking disgrace.

Soldiers spilt there fucking blooood to defend our fucking country, and you fucking pussies couldnt even stand ur fucking ground and vote in accordance with there legacy, cos you pieces of shit bowed down to the pressures of being politcally correct.

U ungreatful unappreciative pieces of shit.


well thats my 2 cents.

well said for the most part. although forget the Queen is our commander in chief and thus the head of the military!

 

[Kwayera]

not too sharp tonight ay

preemptive strikes are not self defence when they find out there was nothing that they didnt need to defend themselves in that those things needed (WMD) which they were defending themselves against dont exist.

But they THOUGHT THEY DID. There was the THREAT. Hence they had no CHOICE but to go in and neutralize that threat, be it by finding WMD or not.

 

[Generator]

Nobody denies that the Iraqi people (however many different cultural groups that exist within that body) deserved freedom, it's just that the justification for the invasion was hardly strong at the time and is now looking quite pathetic.

 

[Kwayera]

Nobody denies that the Iraqi people (however many different cultural groups that exist within that body) deserved freedom, it's just that the justification for the invasion was hardly strong at the time and is now looking quite pathetic.

However, there was a threat (however slender you believe it to be) - and in hindsight, if we had (as a people) discovered that there was a threat and we'd chosen to do nothing about it, what would that have said about our leaders?

 

[dark_angel]

not too sharp tonight ay

preemptive strikes are not self defence when they find out there was nothing that they needed to defend themselves against i (WMD).

I mean you said they invaded to see if there was WMD...its ironic that you see a DEFENCE force...those armies invaded, on your view, in order to see if they had weapons that they could pre emptively defend themselves against...

i like you

 

[tattoodguy]

thats just a title man.......the queen as commander in cheif.....or our prime minister probably has a similar military title...but..................thats nothing.

Soldiers earned there titles on the battlefield. Thats more important to me.
Its not ur rank that counts its ur actions.

 

[Generator]

However, there was a threat (however slender you believe it to be) - and in hindsight, if we had (as a people) discovered that there was a threat and we'd chosen to do nothing about it, what would that have said about our leaders?

Wasn't the 'threat' being dealt with in an effective manner through the UN prior to the USA's tantrum?

 

[dark_angel]

I like being a part of the defence force

1. I THINK NZ has WMD

2. Lets invade to see if they have WMD which we think they have. Cos we need something to defend ourselfs preemptively agianst, but too late you have already prempted and inavded in order to see if they had anything that you could pre emptively defend yourself against. Oh Shit they dont have WMD...we should not have pre emptively invaded in order to ascertian whether they have WMD that we could pre emptively defended ourselves against

question:

1. what is a WMD

 

[Kwayera]

I like being a part of the defence force

1. I THINK NZ has WMD

2. Lets invade to see if they have WMD which we think they have. Cos we need something to defend ourselfs preemptively agianst, but too late you have already prempted and inavded in order to see if they had anything that you could pre emptively defend yourself against. Oh Shit they dont have WMD...we should not have pre emptively invaded in order to ascertian whether they have WMD that we could pre emptively defended ourselves against

1. Source?

2. That's a stupid statement that doesn't deserve a response.

 

[Kwayera]

question:

1. what is a WMD

Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction - i.e. nuclear bomb.

 

[Kwayera]

Wasn't the 'threat' being dealt with in an effective manner through the UN prior to the USA's tantrum?

No. Even though the UN was attempting to deal with the situation, the threat remained.

 

[Generator]

'Threat', please. We all know that nothing much (if anything at all) has been found .

Edit: I can see your point, it's just that pre-emptive strikes are entirely dependent upon politicised intelligence and what may be the outcome.

 

[dark_angel]

ahhh crap, i'm getting confused