Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[The Rogue Doll]

The cost is totally irrelevant. The decision is not to spend money, but to defend or assist. Once you make a decision, you must follow through with it. This does not preclude reviews as you go along, but no decision about a war, humanitarian aid, or peacekeeping is made with the cost being a factor.

That's fine. But there are problems in our own country that need to be dealt with first. I think that this war has been disastrous, we've made the problems there worse by being there. We didn't need to be there. Nobody invaded Korea when we learned they were testing bombs.

In the mean time, you can't simply dismantle defence forces, because the fact is,for Australia, most of their work is peacekeeping and natural disaster assistance. Where the hell would Tony Bullimore be without our Navy?

Never said we should disband the defense force. I'm a pacifist, but I'm not stupid. We need it, if only to scare other countries.

[Lord Biscuit©]

That's fine. But there are problems in our own country that need to be dealt with first. I think that this war has been disastrous, we've made the problems there worse by being there. We didn't need to be there. Nobody invaded Korea when we learned they were testing bombs.

There were problems in our country when we entered WWII as well. Are you suggesting we should never have got involved in that? Or maybe just that we should pick and choose when it's convenient to do so? Australia and every other country in the world has problems. This doesn't mean we totally ignore countries devastated by tsunamis, countries that ask for assistance with peacekeeping or countries that ask for our support.

All wars are disastrous. If they weren't, we'd probably start a few of our own. It seems extremely doubtful to me that Australia's 700 of the 150,000 troops in Iraq have had a particularly huge affect. I understand they have done a first class job as the air traffic controllers in Baghdad, and as trainers for the Iraqi army.

Many, many countries test bombs. Nth Korea haven't invaded anyone recently, and have very little history of doing so. Who are they terrorising? The media? Also, (Nth) Korea doesn't have oil.

Never said we should disband the defense force. I'm a pacifist, but I'm not stupid. We need it, if only to scare other countries.

Weren't you quoting the total cost of having a military and saying the money should be spent elsewhere? Or maybe you think it costs nothing if troops are never deployed anywhere?

[The Rogue Doll]

Weren't you quoting the total cost of having a military and saying the money should be spent elsewhere? Or maybe you think it costs nothing if troops are never deployed anywhere?

I'm not going to pretend I'm some kind of genius economist, but I understand the basics.  The point of this is that we aided the invasion of Iraq, which made things worse, when we could have done things to help our own countries.

There were problems in our country when we entered WWII as well. Are you suggesting we should never have got involved in that?

Irrelevant.

Or maybe just that we should pick and choose when it's convenient to do so? Australia and every other country in the world has problems. This doesn't mean we totally ignore countries devastated by tsunamis, countries that ask for assistance with peacekeeping or countries that ask for our support.

I agree but I don't think that's what Iraq needs right now.

All wars are disastrous. If they weren't, we'd probably start a few of our own. It seems extremely doubtful to me that Australia's 700 of the 150,000 troops in Iraq have had a particularly huge affect. I understand they have done a first class job as the air traffic controllers in Baghdad, and as trainers for the Iraqi army.

Of course they've made an effect, who cares how big or small. It's the principle of the thing. Besides, how many innocent people have these people killed?*

Many, many countries test bombs. Nth Korea haven't invaded anyone recently, and have very little history of doing so. Who are they terrorising? The media? Also, (Nth) Korea doesn't have oil.

One of the justifications of the war in Iraq was the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Good point about the oil though.

*Yes, I understand they're doing their jobs.

[Lord Biscuit©]

I'm not going to pretend I'm some kind of genius economist, but I understand the basics.  The point of this is that we aided the invasion of Iraq, which made things worse, when we could have done things to help our own countries.

It looks like you're one of those 'special' people with 20/20 hindsight. Well done. So, what exactly was it that Australia missed out on? During this whole Iraqi thing, Australia has had a budget surplus in the billions. Why couldn't we use this to solve these 'problems' you talk about. Could it be they don't exist? 

Irrelevant.

If you find history irrelevant, then you are destined to repeat the same mistakes others have made. Not a lot unlike George Bush.

I agree but I don't think that's what Iraq needs right now.

You're an expert on what Iraqis want? Why didn't you just say so! Here I was thinking that maybe the Iraqis could be the ones to decide.

Of course they've made an effect, who cares how big or small. It's the principle of the thing. Besides, how many innocent people have these people killed?*

Who? The air-traffic controllers? Just saving lives. The Australians have only recently been involved in any 'action', and that is in Afghanistan. I realise you may not be very old, but here's a fact: people get killed in wars. All kinds of people. Even innocents. No war has ever been any different in that respect. This is a fact known by anyone decides to go to war. Although apparently it is irrelevant, 60% of casualties in WW2 were civilians. Maybe we should be grateful weaponry has gotten more accurate?

One of the justifications of the war in Iraq was the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Good point about the oil though.

Everyone thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - namely chemical weapons. With good reason. That is what the Iraqi government wanted everyone to believe. Apparently it was their deterrent.

There is little evidence that Korea could launch a nuclear weapon, even if they could manufacture one. These weapons are way harder to produce than chemical weapons, which is why so few countries have them.

[The Rogue Doll]

It looks like you're one of those 'special' people with 20/20 hindsight. Well done. So, what exactly was it that Australia missed out on? During this whole Iraqi thing, Australia has had a budget surplus in the billions. Why couldn't we use this to solve these 'problems' you talk about. Could it be they don't exist? 

But they didn't use it to solve the problems.

If you find history irrelevant, then you are destined to repeat the same mistakes others have made. Not a lot unlike George Bush.

I'd didn't mean it like that. I meant that it was irrelevant to this discussion. Mainly because you were right.

You're an expert on what Iraqis want? Why didn't you just say so! Here I was thinking that maybe the Iraqis could be the ones to decide.

Must think before speak. I agree that they should be the one to decide.

Who? The air-traffic controllers? Just saving lives. The Australians have only recently been involved in any 'action', and that is in Afghanistan. I realise you may not be very old, but here's a fact: people get killed in wars. All kinds of people. Even innocents. No war has ever been any different in that respect. This is a fact known by anyone decides to go to war. Although apparently it is irrelevant, 60% of casualties in WW2 were civilians. Maybe we should be grateful weaponry has gotten more accurate?Everyone thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - namely chemical weapons. With good reason. That is what the Iraqi government wanted everyone to believe. Apparently it was their deterrent.

I didn't know that about WW2. Yes, I understand that people get killed in war. I just think that we didn't need to get involved.


Oh my God, I'm learning!

[Wolfe Tone]

Hate to be the guy with perfect hindsight but if Bush hadn't fucked up the invasion in the first gulf war, we wouldn't have to go through this bullshit

[DiddlySquat]

Yes, it's interesting to look at the WW2 death toll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

At first glance, "we" suffered 80% of the casualties and "they" suffered 20%.

Now look at the breakdown by country, specifically the civilian deaths.

Out of a total of 41mil civilian deaths, the major breakdowns are:
China 15.8mil
India 1.5mil
Indonesia 4mil
Poland 1.9mil
Soviet 11.9mil
Yugoslavia 0.5mil
Sub-total 35.6mil

Plus:
Germany 1.8mil
Japan 0.5mil

And by contrast:
Australia 100
UK 67,800
USA 11,200

I'm sure that the figures can be debated because there are plenty of other web sites with different numbers, but it seems pretty damn clear from the above that the people who suffer most are at the bottom of the food chain.

[DiddlySquat]

One doesn't need 20/20 hindsight on this war. From the beginning it was pretty clear to most of us that we should never have become involved. There's no need to rehash all the WMD and biological weapons stuff because it was known to be BS way back then.

As I see it Howard "went to war" for political reasons:
* It strengthened our alliance with the most powerful country on earth
* It fitted nicely with his general govern by fear mentality
* etc

And yet, by his own admission, now we are far more exposed to the evils of terrorism than ever before. If this is true, then we have paid a stupidly high price, given that we have a trivial force in Iraq on an essentially humanitarian mission.

And if it's not true then it doesn't say much about our fearless leader.

* Edit: Stupid poster doesn't know how to use the stupid list feature

[Lord Biscuit©]

Not entirely true. People didn't believe Iraq had nuclear weapons, or were even approaching any kind of capability. Even the US didn't believe it, which is why they couldn't convince anyone of it. Everyone believed Hans Blix when he said there was nothing.

However, everyone did believe Iraq had chemical weapons, they had used them in the past. The problem there was everyone had "known" this since the '80s, so it was hardly a reason to suddenly go to war with them.

Whether Australia was involved or not carried little weight. Just a little disappointing. However, without the backing of the UK, would the US have gone ahead? The UK have a large responsibility in this. Despite repeated requests from the UK, the US would not get involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbour was bombed, and they were left with little choice. Why were the UK so quick to support the US? Hard to say, except that England has been the target of many a terrorist attack, and could empathise.

If the reasons are financial or some vague political agenda, then involvement would seem almost criminal. There were always very strong indicators that the US were/are deciding what to do, then trying to prove a case. This of course is backwards, but I sometimes think that some of these guys believe their own hype.

[DiddlySquat]

Yep.

And I couldn't / still don't understand the Blair decision either.