WAR!!!

[meltiger..]

lol, Yep Meltiger....

At 2pm this afternoon they hadn't yet had a chance to see the PM's address mate.

Must have been something else that turned them. Could maybe you think have been the pro-war journos finally being given a chance to have their say through the shouting of a very vocal group who don't understand how our government has traditionally operated to actually put forth their view as to why this evil bastard has to be removed?

You can argue your opposition to war all you like, but you cannot deny that he has to be removed one way or another.

 

[meltiger..]

I agree with you on that score Legend - re : Howard's motives.

The free (er) trade agreement may be a tiny part of it but my extremely strong belief (& this was confirmed to me at least listening to the PM's address) is that it is to ensure that the US actively participates in doing whatever neccesary to disarm North Korea.

If left to their own devices they are an extreme threat to not only Australia but the region itself, if participating in Iraq is enough to ensure that the US help us at least ensure they don't put a nuclear weapon together.... That, combined with Saddam's horrible record of inflicting misery on anyone who even shows the slightest shred of opposition to him is enough to justify our participation in this conflict,

No matter what lies we are fed by the bleeding hearts on the other side.

Such as our opposition leader who has disgraced himself and his party by refusing to support the nations soldiers in his quest to play politics whilst our countrymen are overseas fighting for the future security of our nation.

& I agree with what was posted further up, I do hope Australians have LONG memories, I hope each and everytime they go to vote at a Federal Election they remember that the Australian Labor Party refused to support Australia's soldiers whilst they were involved in a conflict overseas.

I can just see the likes of Crean, Brown and Bartlett licking their lips at the prospect of Australianmen & womencoming home in body bags and the political points they can score against our elected Government over it.

 

[imported_justme]

Well what would you propose we do Justme? Nothing? You have been swift in your condemnation but have not offered an alternative solutionto the crisis? I'd be interested to hear one.

Having been a conscript in Nam I will not accept that war resolves any problem,least of all a selective war for the wrong reasons. I ask you again, if this is about oppression and terrorism why single out Iraq?

What threat has Iraq posed to anyone since the 91 war? Has anyone establishedany connection to terrorism? Is Iraq the only country to have chemical weapons? Doesn't the US, Korea, China, Russia andPakistan have them. Are they being asked to dismantle them? If it's about terrorism what about Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and the African states?

So you tell me, why should Iraq be singled out and treated differently to the others? Because of Saddam? Then what about Ghadafi, the Ayotallaha (sp?),the Syrian President, leader of Nrth Korea etc,are they not dictators oppressing their people?

Tell me Legend, just what is Iraq or Hussein doing that many others are not also guilty of doing. Why does it deserve to be treated differently? Where is the consistency or the connection apart fromGeorge W and his Daddy?

What would I suggest? Treat them the same as Nrth Korea, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Russia, China and all the bloody rest who are doing the exact same thing. You want a war then go fight the lot of them for the exact same reasons and be consistent but stop being so bloody hypocritical by jumping into bed with those that suit in order to oppose those that don't for purely personal reasons.

 

[legend]

Yes Willow, you are the first to jump on inaccuracies based on propoganda yet you seem to have taken it hook, line and sinker. I'd like to see where you get your figures from and no I don't get it. Neither you or Justme will make me get it and I think you are basing your story on assumptions and not facts. Expalin to me where the U.S have shown they are in it for the oil? I'd like some hard facts on this one.

Legend, just admit it, thiswar is more to do with the USA's determination to get hold of Iraqi resources.
They're not fair dinkum about liberating oppressed peoples... they just want to make a quid. Get it?

I actually take offence to this. Twice you have tried to tell me what I should think and the last time I made a comment about your views on Sydney/Auburn from the Gold Coast, you were most upset. Have a good long think next time before you engage the brain and tell me what I should be thinking. You have no facts to back this up and it's only your biased left wing opinion

That line is the biggest load of horseshit I have ever read on this forum.

 

[Willow]

I'd love to know where Willow gets his 50,000 civilian deaths figure from, are they the UN figures? As they were being reported as being much lower than that during the last week or so when talking about Saddam's massive inflation of the figures last time around.


The US war veterans site (from memory). There have been a post-war figures which say that something like 170,000 have died from war related reasons since the last Gulf war, so I was being quite conservative. I recall reading a dozen sites and sifting through pages of bullshit before I came up with something that looked unbiased. I read that months ago and I dont care if you doubt it... Do your own research.

The figure of 363 US soldiers being killed is from US government related reaseachers.

Craig:
"Legend, just admit it, thiswar is more to do with the USA's determination to get hold of Iraqi resources."-Willow

Prove it.
Prove that even a single shred of that statement is true Willow. -Craig

Why should I spend an hour of my time spelling to you what I have said a hundred times over on other threads? If you havent read my view on this, I suggest you refer to El Duque's thread, Rumsfeld-Is this Guy Playing With A Full Deck?
I seriously cant help if you have suddenly come out the box on this. I've been discussing it for a over a year now.
I also recommend that you read everyone's opinion.

 

[imported_justme]

all I was saying is you are having a swipe at the way things are currently done but it's not just the Libs who have let things go
Have to go legend but just for the record I am of no political persuasion, right left or tree hugger, I am not a blind<span>ideologue and couldn't give a rats arse for any of them or their opinions. There are some of us who can actually think for ourselves.</span>

 

[meltiger..]

lol Willow, i got as far as this...

" <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=4 width="100%" border=0> <tbody> <tr> <td nowrap width="100%">From: Willow</td> <td nowrap>Sent: 16/01/2003 9:16 PM</td></tr></tbody></table> <table class=ThmBgStandard cellspacing=0 cellpadding=10 width="100%" border=0> <tbody> <tr> <td> Fair enough Moffo... Saddam Hussein is one bad fella. But there are quite a few like him who don't seem to be bothered. Why is that? It may be because they toe the line or maybe they simply don't have anything that the USA wants.
Maybe its a bit of both.

Nevertheless, history tells us that invasions (and it is an invasion in this case) are to do with aquiring something that doesnt belong to you. America isenforcing itscontrol over Arab oil.

It shouldn't be forgotten that when Iran was trying to spread Fundamentalist ideals across the Arab world, it was Iraq who stood up to them. Iraqwas prompted into action when the Iran-backed Kurds started attacking Iraqi installations.

Back then (in the eighties), Iran was the enemy of the USA and we had US citizens calling for the annhilation of the Iran and the Ayatollah Khemani.
Sadam Hussein and Iraq was seen as fighting the good fight.

Times have changed. In 1990/1, Saddam marches into Kuwait, which is a US puppet state and annexes it as part of Iraq. Keep in mind that Kuwait is the fuel stop for the US Navy and Airforce and it goes without saying, that this would not be tolerated. Then the shit has been hitting the fan ever since.

Domestically, the Yankshave the cheapest fuel in the world and the biggest economy in the world. Keeping the US consumer in motor vehicles is an important part of their economy.

Nevertheless, its well known that the USA has massive oil reserves at its disposal and wants to hang onto them. Its like Fort Knox to them. When the world oil powers run out, the USA will be left standing and holding all the cards.

The only trick is that they have to keep buying up the oil from elsewhere at bargain basement prices.
Thus far, they have managed to get most of the Arab states to fall into line, that is, except for Iraq who wants to charge more than the US are willing to pay. The sanctions were all part of this...the 'oil for food' sham showed were the western priorities were kept.

It is all to do with oil, Moffo. And its all to do with burning it off atrapid rate they keep selling us more. Bugger the rest of the world...the US (and Aust)don't give a stuff about the global warming and the Kyoto Protocol.

In the end, the USA can give us as many reasons as they like, but the aquisition of foreign (and cheap) oil supplies is the key to their well being.
</td></tr></tbody></table>"

Is this the kind of opinionated shit you want me to read?

To spend an hour of MY TIME reading your anti-american rantings? Hate to tell ya but your time is not more precious than mine,

Sorry mate but you are no better than anyone else who I have challenged for evidence of the US being after oil - Nothing but opinionated shit, which is fine, if you want to believe that go for it but stop throwing around your opinion as if it is a fact.

Evidence is what I asked for, I know it's a dirty word for people sitting on your side of the specturm but actually drop some my way and I might listen.

 

[legend]

Justme, I may not have made myself clear on where I stand and for that I apologise. I agree with you 100%, the U.S and it's allies including Australia should face tyranny where ever it arises but you made a couple of absurd statements I can't quite follow.

What threat has Iraq posed to anyone since the 91 war? I think the people of Iraq, Israel and the Kurds in the north and south of Iraq might actually disagree with you on this one. In fact, i'm sure they will. Israel actually had about 30 scuds dropped on itthe last time round and refrained from retalliating. This time round they think a little differently. So that's about 30 million and counting.

If you want to know, I have also been quite vocal about Syria and Ghaddafi in the last couple of months so we are on the same wavelength mate. I was also vocal about the Coptics repression in Egypt so my stance is hardly hyporcritical. I think my stance is quite justified to be honest. I have never wavered in my stance or opinion so I don't see how hypocrisy can play a part. I hope the U.S takes out all the nasties one by one and I have a feeling they might just do it. I also think they are using Saddam as an example so the rest can toe the line or they will know what to expect. Just my opinion of course.

Tell me Legend, just what is Iraq or Hussein doing that many others are not also guilty of doing. Why does it deserve to be treated differently? Where is the consistency or the connection apart fromGeorge W and his Daddy?

Umm, using checmical and biologicalweapons on minority groups is a good start, including his own people. Agree?

p.s I'm still waiting for the proof of the "wrong reasons" or is this just your opinion?

 

[Willow]

Legend: "I agree he [Mugabe] needs to go but Australia simply do not have the military manpower to fight that battle alone."
Well then, why isnt the USA leading a 'coalition of the willing' against Mugabe?

Craig: "I can just see the likes of Crean, Brown and Bartlett licking their lips at the prospect of Australianmen &amp; womencoming home in body bags and the political points they can score against our elected Government over it."
You're kidding right? For a start, we can only hope that no one comes back in body bags and secondly, I hardly anyone is licking their lips at the prospect. Get a grip.

Legend: "I actually take offence to this. Twice you have tried to tell me what I should think..."
I cant help it it if youtake offence so easily. I have never told you how to think.

"...last time I made a comment about your views on Sydney/Auburn from the Gold Coast, you were most upset."
A little irelevant dont you think? I'd forgotten about that but I think it had something to do with me not having the right to make comment because of where I lived. Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

"You have no facts to back this up and it's only your biased left wing opinion "
Well I'm too thick skinned to be offended by that... just as well.
Countless people have come out and said the same thing, that is, that the USA are after the Iraqi oil. It comes from miltary leaders, politcians from both sides, academics.
Once again, I have been making mention of it for months.... I'm not making it up.

 

[imported_realraul]

First off in 91 iraq had invaded Kuwait, slightly different circumstances

for the love of.......

since when did australia care what happens in kuwait ?

you're full of alot of what ifs so i'll give you one. if labor was so concerned about kuwait being invaded (even if it was a claytons invasion) why did we hear nothing from them when lebanon was invaded by syria (this was a full blooded invasion) just two days later ? you don't think they were just following americas' lead do you ?

if any of the do gooders here think that mr hypocrite crean would have done anything different to howard if he was in power then you are more naive (or pig headed) than you already look.

 

[Willow]

Craig: "Sorry mate but you are no better than anyone else who I have challenged for evidence of the US being after oil - Nothing but opinionated shit"

Thats allright with me mate. Read one post andtake that your learning curve on the issue...good luck and feel free to piss itagainst the wall.

 

[legend]

Have to go legend but just for the record I am of no political persuasion, right left or tree hugger, I am not a blind<span>ideologue and couldn't give a rats arse for any of them or their opinions. There are some of us who can actually think for ourselves</span>
<span></span>
<span>Couldn't agree more. I base my opinion on what I see and hear and to be honest, I haven't heard much from Labor that makes a great deal of sense. I think Howard has done the right thing and if Australia stands to benefit from favourable trade agreements and wepaons technology, then more power to him for being a good politican. You'd be surprised to know there are a few things I disagree with Howard on as far as domestic policy goes. IMO, history will show Howard as a decisive leader and Crean will never get the chance.</span>
<span></span>
<span>I think the country needs paid maternity leave to stop the declining birth rate otherwise my generation will be in the shit looking after your generation and I think the cost is reasonable when compared with the likey outcome.</span>
<span></span>
<span>I also don't agree with the govts plan to scrap bulk billing. I think free health is the right of every Australian and I think these two issues could do considerable harm to the govts chances of being re-elected next time round. I know they said they would keep it but i'm not buying it.</span>
<span></span>
<span>My other major concern is on a state level and Bob Carr's land tax. No wonder he is drip feeding the land releases. The value goes up faster than I can keep up with it yet I may be slugged with an unfair tax if I decide to provide for my own retirement and choose not to take a tax payer funded pension. Where's the justice there?</span>
<span></span>
<span>I know you were having a thinly veiled go at me but I'll let it pass through to the keeper.</span>

 

[El Duque]

Craig, the poms have said Oil is a big part of the war.

Britain: Foreign secretary admits oil central to war vs. Iraq

 

[legend]

Well bugger me, if someone tells me to "admit it" and "get it" in the same sentenceI would get the impression they were trying to force their opinion on me and tell me what to think. Have another read of that line and then tell me what you really what me to think.

Must be just me.

 

[imported_justme]

Craig:
Nothing but opinionated shit, which is fine, if you want to believe that go for it but stop throwing around your opinion as if it is a fact.
LOL, nice of you to offer your opinion, or is yoursfact?

Evidence is what I asked for, I know it's a dirty word for people sitting on your side of the specturm but actually drop some my way and I might listen.
But there is no evidence, neitherfor or against, it is all opinion and subjecture, unless of course you blindly followparty propaganda.

Legend:
but you made a couple of absurd statements I can't quite follow.. I think the people of Iraq, Israel and the Kurds in the north and south of Iraq might actually disagree with you on this one.
My point was related towhat has Iraq done that others haven't. You answered it yourself in the next paragraph but for completeness you can throw in murders in Zimbabwe, tanks in Tinamen Square etc and I think you'll find Israel complaining more about the terrorists from Syria than from Iraq.

using checmical and biologicalweapons on minority groups is a good start
Well that's just another way of achieving the same results as others have. How many chinese have been purged, how many Lebanese were exterminated by Syria, how many Isralies mudered by suicide bombings, how many Zimbabweans assasinated in mid night raisd. Your only discussing the means not the objective or the result, in the end the tools of trade don't really matter do they.

p.s I'm still waiting for the proof of the "wrong reasons" or is this just your opinion?
C'mon Legend, you know there is no proof for the "wrong reasons" just as the US couldn't manufacture any proof for the "right reasons". They could not establish any links to terrorism nor find any weapons of mass destruction but hey, who needs proof. We are all, each and every one of us,only offering our opinions mate.

BTW, I was not referring to you in regard to the use of "hypocrisy", I was referring to Howard, Crean, Bush, Blair and every bloody other hypocritical politician on every side of the fence who are only pushing their own barrows for their own reasons. None of this has anything to do with caring for what happens to the porple of Iraq, nor more than they care for what happens to all the other billions of oppressed people in China &amp; Africa etc. Spare me the righteous propaganda, please.

 

[El Duque]

Here's another interesting article

<h1>Playing 'Texas poker'</h1>

 

[imported_justme]

Must be just me
Nope, It wasn't me

Realraul &amp; Legend.
For the last time please, forget the party lines boys, I dion't give a rats arse for either one for the very reasons you have sokindly demonstrated. They defend their own positions like little kids in a schoolyard. "Well maybe I'm not right but neither was you. Hey I stuffed up but you stuffed up more than me"

Two wrongs don't make a right

 

[Willow]

Legend: "Well bugger me, if someone tells me to "admit it" and "get it" in the same sentence I would get the impression they were trying to force their opinion on me and tell me what to think"
If you werent so hyped up on the subject perhaps...
I actually thought to remove those words but then I reckoned that it would be silly to think that it could cause offence.
If by tomorrow, you still think 'admit it/get it' was telling you what to think then I'll withdraw it... in fact, I withdraw it now because it means nothing tomme either way.


Thankyou El Duque:
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has admitted that oil is a key factor in the UK’s willingness to participate in a US-led war against Iraq.

Thats only one example offcourse.
I was tempted to search back through but whats the point? Loads of commentators have stated what I consider to be the obvious on this. I'm not a mad lefty as some would say... in fact I'm quite conservative in a lot of things. But I can see whats going on and I choose to keep an open mind. For some reason, this ticks people off.

 

[Willow]

realraul: "if any of the do gooders here think that mr hypocrite crean would have done anything different to howard if he was in power then you are more naive (or pig headed) than you already look."

Its very good that you have declared your domestic political allegiances realraul, and I know Legend has done the same. But imo,this thing is little bigger than Simon Crean or John Howard.

 

[imported_justme]

<span>I know you were having a thinly veiled go at me but I'll let it pass through to the keeper.</span>
<span>LOL, your paranoind Legend, I wasn't having a go at you but was referring to the mass propaganda campaign that the US is unleashing. If you took it otherwise you need to ask yourself why</span><span></span>
<span></span>
<span>As for the rest of the political debate, I make my own mind up issue by issue, I follow no party line nor do I believe anything thing they say, they all reinvent themselves to suit the circumstance.</span>