Iraq; Opponents to the war, correct again. Turkey will invade #222

johnny said:
1. How do you know how many were dying before? Were do you get these figures from? How do you know how many are dying now? Where do you get those figures from? .
Click to expand...
Was comparing the few thousand troops dead (most peoples bitch) to the know thousands more over the years, and wasnt saying same killings are happening now.

johnny said:
But, I disagree completely that we are there to help. We were there originally for Weapons of Mass Destruction, that is undeniable.
Click to expand...

With the committed American or Australian troops? We (when I say that I unequivocally mean Australian) have only been there to help, in what ever role is required. We (read above) never went looking for WMD - the yanks used it as one excuse, not the primary reason and justification to invade, as was discussed in many UN meetings. We (read again) were never a driver to invade, and have always had the secondary support roles, or specifics when the yanks cant do a specific task as well as our own troops.
I speak mainly of Australian troops and dont speak for the US forces as I do believe they are driven by different reasoning and tasking.

But if we (read above again) are not there to help, can you tell me what the hell I've been doing up there the last few times? (giggling to myself in confusion...)
 
Last edited:
Well, as far as I could tell, as an aussie citezen, we were there to help find WMD. That's what Johnny's sales pitch was in the first place. In fact, I'm pretty sure we had people in the search parties for them...


and if what you're saying is true and I'm lying out of my arse - at the least we're there supporting the US/UN/whatever troops do those same things, which to me is as good as doing them ourselves anyway.


It may be a different case now, but initially, I was definately under the impression that WMD was the #1 goal, then Suddam came along, then it was to install a new govt. and now it's what, anti-civil war patrol I guess...
 
War on terra

Its easy to blame the Yanks and put shit on Australia , because if we disagree its not politicaly correct and we cant do that now . Ok Johhny if it were up to you to make the decions in regards to Iraq what would you do ? ore have done ? Lets see what kind of leeder you are , if one at all .
 
skwiz05 said:
With the committed American or Australian troops? We (when I say that I unequivocally mean Australian) have only been there to help, in what ever role is required. We (read above) never went looking for WMD - the yanks used it as one excuse, not the primary reason and justification to invade, as was discussed in many UN meetings.
Click to expand...

Umm, than what was Colin Powell on about when hes explaining to the UN about mobile chemical labs? I am pretty sure WMD is "instrumental" in the US reasoning in the invasion, which Colin Powell knew it was lie.

We (read again) were never a driver to invade, and have always had the secondary support roles, or specifics when the yanks cant do a specific task as well as our own troops.
Click to expand...

As Demo man pointed out, we are still part of invasion whether we drive it or not. Afterall didn't some of our Hornets were over there making bombing runs? Even tough we were operating to the Australian rules of engagment as opposed to American (*On a side note I heard from my Navy friends that we don't muck around with things like warning shot. When we shoot it is to kill, is this the same way the army operates?*)

But if we (read above again) are not there to help, can you tell me what the hell I've been doing up there the last few times? (giggling to myself in confusion...)
Click to expand...

I am not questioning yours and your fellow soldiers motive and to take anything away from your work. The question of motive is on your political masters. Why did the Republicans send the US army over and why did John Howard send you and your fellow man over? One would like to argue if his (Howard) motive is there to help he will be sending thousands of troops with their own support over, not hundreds.
 
iraq

i support it because it gives the military something to do. war is the best sort of training for war you can get. fuck the reasons for it. let the abuse begin...............

mick.
 
doggi said:
Its easy to blame the Yanks and put shit on Australia , because if we disagree its not politicaly correct and we cant do that now . Ok Johhny if it were up to you to make the decions in regards to Iraq what would you do ? ore have done ? Lets see what kind of leeder you are , if one at all .
Click to expand...
I'll answer your question (not that I've ever proclaimed to be a leader) but first, you can re-type that post into something that resembles English and understandable grammar.

micksta323 said:
i support it because it gives the military something to do. war is the best sort of training for war you can get. fuck the reasons for it.
Click to expand...
Hmm, and I'm assuming you've got the balls to sign up and put your money where your mouth is?

Most of the time, those with the biggest mouths for war are those who sit in comfort and safety.....
 
I realise i'm coming into this thread rather late and have not read all the posts so please correct me if i'm wrong or point out that it's already been said, but since Aust. went to war with the US in the Middle East, haven't we gained a Free Trade Agreement out of it? On the same topic, it really shows America's values when it shows China as America's "Most Favoured Nation" and yet one of their closest Allies (ie. Australia) has only just received what could be considered a minimum. But then again it also show's Australia's willingness to back up for the Big Guns incase we ever get attacked :rolleyes:
 
micksta323 said:
career pogue, 4 and a half AACC, 5 in RAEME, and now nearly 3 in the navy.

mick.
Click to expand...
Haha, I've been out for almost 7 years, I have no right to call anyone a pogo anymore! I was 3RAR from 94-2000.

As per using war to train for war, that is a circular argument, in a sense. "We fight wars so we know how to fight wars", see what I mean?

Since I got out of the army and studied governance and foreign policy, I realised the ignorant mindset that I had lived with as a soldier. We seem to have this idea that when it comes to defence/war and how the army is run, the general populace should pull their heads in and let the army/navy/airforce just do their thing because only those in that unique line of work know what it's like, what's required and how best to do it. To some degree this is right. I don't like the army's training methods being impinged upon by the politically correct crusaders we get these days. Kapooka was a complete joke and a let down. Singo was what I thought basic would be and unit life is what I thought IETs would be.

However, when it comes to active deployment, the basic soldier/airman/crewman actually doesn't understand SFA of the details and intricacies involved. Their job and experiences qualifies them to defend/attack, not make policy that will effect the country and the rest of the world. Sorry, but basic and IETs doesn't have foreign policy, grand strategy, democratic accountablity, etc. modules to prepare soldiers for these decisions. Holding a weapon and doing it tough (yeah, RAEME, doing it reeaal tough....:rolleyes: :p ) doesn't qualify you to make decisions for a whole country either. A soldier HAS TO REMEMBER that you are working for the country. They are paying you and your actions overseas reflect on the nation's political leadership and the citizens as a whole. If I, as a private citizen, do not agree with the active deployment of troops representing my interests, well that cannot be ignored. If the majority disagree with me, well to bad for me. However, if I am the majority, the defence forces cannot just think "WTF do you know civvy?" because that doesn't matter, the defence force, as are politicians, are the employees of civvies. They are there to defend the civvies, not be a power unto themselves.

It's my money the defence force uses, therefore, I have a say in how it gets spent. It's my safety that the defence force can defend or jeopardise, so I have a say in their actions. So your argument of "fark the reasons for it" used to be mine too. But now that I have both the military perspective and experience along with an education of the social and political aspect of defence policy I will argue that it is an ignorant attitude that only the defence employees at a lower level hold. It's really an attitude that displays a complete lack of knowledge on how nations and the world works and the defence force's role in a liberal democracy.
 
An interesting read boys.

As a complete civilian, with no active service, I can see how easy it is to say that I would never understand. However, as your employer Micksta323, I would like to know how you justify starting a war, under false pretences, that effectively myself and the rest of the tax payers funded, to hone your skills, can be justified. I'm no civil libertarian, but if that is your best excuse for attacking another country, I'm bitterly disappointed in both you and OUR army. I would hope for a whole lot more from our culture.
I'm not questioning the courage or the conviction of our cause, but the ideology of the campaign. If it is nothing more than a training exercise then I hope next time you can limit the civilian casualties to under a million next time.

Regards,
tonyg
 
i knew this would be interesting

i'm going to have to say here, that i know for a FACT, the WMD thing was a crock of shit. i don't have to agree with the policy of the government of the day, but long ago i made a decision to take on the responsibility of a soldier, now sailor. i knew when i made this decision that i may be called to war. i've never been, hope i never go to be honest, but i would willingly go because my government has made the decision for me. i joined for the band of brothers lifestyle. i don't have to agree with the reason for going, i'll just go. soldiers at the nek at gallipoli charged wave after wave to their deaths knowing the chance of them getting over the top of the trench was zero but they went anyway, they went for their mates, what a waste, but that is the life of a soldier.

i've been to some amazing places and seen amazing things. i went to sumatra after the tsunami, i'll never forget it. i wasn't welcome there. the locals hated us. not because they had a real reason to, they were just indoctrined that way, but i had an experience of a lifetime. the ADF these days is more of a peacekeeping force. the UN loves us for this very reason. we have the greatest experience of any military force in the world in that regard. i just know that the greatest way to gain combat experience is from combat. the defence force has always had the best trained personnel after a war. a mate of mine that did 26 years told me of his training in the early 80's, being trained by vietnam vets. hearing the training differences between then and now certainly made for a good story. i honestly don't think i would have liked it very much then.

as for you (johnny) saying that you should have a say in the way the defence budget is spent, this makes no sense. granted you have a background in the lifestyle, but that decision needs to be made by defence, you are no longer part of it. i hope you are proud to have been a soldier, regardless of whether you enjoyed your time in. i haven't enjoyed every minute of it, but i'm staying in. the defence force has cost me my knees, but that comes with the lifestyle. i'm not mad in the head, just fiercly proud of the defence forces heritage, and proud to be a part of it. my brothers army in darwin, my dad army (vietnam) that cost him his life, not then, but years after. my grandfather was US navy, my mum is the result of a US sailor falling in love with a perth girl in the second world war. this is my family's heritage.

mick.
 
micksta323 said:
as for you (johnny) saying that you should have a say in the way the defence budget is spent, this makes no sense. granted you have a background in the lifestyle, but that decision needs to be made by defence, you are no longer part of it. i hope you are proud to have been a soldier, regardless of whether you enjoyed your time in. i haven't enjoyed every minute of it, but i'm staying in. the defence force has cost me my knees, but that comes with the lifestyle. i'm not mad in the head, just fiercly proud of the defence forces heritage, and proud to be a part of it. my brothers army in darwin, my dad army (vietnam) that cost him his life, not then, but years after. my grandfather was US navy, my mum is the result of a US sailor falling in love with a perth girl in the second world war. this is my family's heritage.

mick.
Click to expand...
Like any job, it had its ups and downs, but over all, I loved it.

As for how the defence budget is spent, mate, EVERY tax paying citizen has a say in how our money is spent and why our troops are deployed. You are aware that Australia is a liberal democracy, yes? If it's our money and our nation being represesented, then of course we have a say mate. THE MILITARY SERVES THE NATION, never forget that. Besides, I think you may not have read my post close enough.....
I don't like the army's training methods being impinged upon by the politically correct crusaders we get these days. Kapooka was a complete joke and a let down. Singo was what I thought basic would be and unit life is what I thought IETs would be.
Click to expand...
It's the deployments that I'm worried about, training is a different matter.
 
micksta323 said:
as for you (johnny) saying that you should have a say in the way the defence budget is spent, this makes no sense. granted you have a background in the lifestyle, but that decision needs to be made by defence, you are no longer part of it.
Click to expand...

Mick, I am afraid I must agree with Johnny (although I hate to do so on principle)...I am personally fiercely proud of the ADF and its professional standards, the high regard it is held...I was so proud when the our SAS were the 1st to sight Baghdad in the Iraq conflict...

HOWEVER

It is not the proper role of the defence force to dictate its budget or Australian policy. As citizens we vote for a government and public (read our) opinion must influence policy. I am sure that you agree that the situation in Fiji is not the way a country should be run. Its not a big step to go from your position to that of Commodore Bainarama.

Please dont think I am denigrating your job or the sacrifice of every serviceman out there. I throughly support you and all those who serve us in the armed forces.

Jayrool
 
I think Skwiz has an interesting perspective on this. In real politick terms from Howard's point of view, Iraq was never about WMDs, Saddam, Liberty or any of the other crap that is sprouted about Iraq. It was purely about maintaining a strong strategic relationship with the United States. Seen form this point of view Australia's involvement makes a lot more sense.

In the world of international relations the so called "special relationship" that Australia, the US and the UK shares is pretty rare. It is essentially a security guarentee between all three countries that has also led to countless business and administrative agreements between the parties on preferential terms. It saved Australia's bacon the one time we have really been threatened and saved the British in both world wars. It also gave the Americans the platform onto which they could dominate the world as a superpower. Now what price do you put on that kind of relationship?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top