Corollas2019-23ToyotasTech

Search Corolland!

By c2105026, December 30, 2006

See every reply in these pages:



Evil Tyrants who wish to kill me; seeing how so far NOBODY has found ANY link to Saddam; and the fact Saddam has never ever threatened violence on Australia I don't think he wanted to kill me. However, there is a growing groundswell of Islamic fundamentalists (I will add they make up a microscopic minority) in Australia, about once a fortnight there is a news headline of another terror plot thwarted. The latest was this guy who stole rocket launchers from the army who was going to blow up Australia's only nuclear reactor. I started working in Sydney CBD 6 weeks after the London Bombings; I didn't feel safe. I commend the NSW Police, Australian Federal Police and ASIO for preventing bloodshed on Australia's shores. Also of note are MI5/6, FBI and CIA etc. well done lads! default_smile On the other hand I condem Bush, Howard, Blair and Co. for misdirecting our resources so grossly - if the $$$ spent on Iraq (over a quarter of a trillion to date) was spent on counterterrorism at home, then I'd say we be a hell of a lot safer. The war on terror will never be won overseas. They are won at home. And, In australia, we (so far) are winning.

As for making the world safer, since Saddam was taken out there have been Madrid Bombings, London Bombings, plus many other Islamic fundamentalist attacks about the place. Here is a thought; more Iraqi civilians have died in US invasion of Iraq than have died in Arab-based attacks in the west....

What would be my plan for Iraq and middle east? It would be based on equality, fairness and peace.

1. Democracy will never work in Iraq. It is a civil war. We ain't doing anything constructive there, so let's get out. Have a go at getting the UN blue berets/NATO to control it, if they want to. It is no longer about oil, or WMDs, it is a humanitarian crisis. This worked in the Balkans. If it don't work, let it go.... current Western involvement is a WOFTAM. Cease ALL military action in Iraq. Who knows, once we leave, they might get bored and instead of suicidal bombings they may start to create reality shows default_tongue

2. Seriously, noone in the middle east is threatening the west. The atren't going to invade greece, or even kazakhstan. All foreign forces should leave the middle east. It will mean that in the very unlikely event of a nuclear attack the west is more exposed, but, a nuclear strike has had over 60 yrs to happen, noone will be nuking anybody.

3. All western countries should cease biased and unequitable support of israel. It can defend for itself. Imagine you are a 12 y.o. Palestinian boy, and you see an Israeli chopper blow the crap out of your house, killing your little sister and mother. You find out the fact that that chopper is an american apache, bought with american funding. In a place where violence is a way of life, what are you going to do? The US gives billions to Israel for economic development and defence. The Palestinian people were kicked out of their lands; many became refugees. The Palestinians, along with their buddies, tried to destroy Israel on 3 different occasions. Between the 2nd and 3rd go, some refugees formed the PFLP, PLO and other organisations that have in the past done terrorist activities. Having studied the Arab-Israeli in senior high in great detail, the Palestinian cause for sovereignity is much more worthy than the Isreali cause for the 'promised land'.

Why these 3 ideas? Well, they address the 3 main reasons why Osama did 9/11: Attacks on Iraq, US forces stationed in the middle east, and unquestioned support for israel. Now If you take away the reasons for attacking, and they attack, they will look pretty stupid, and would lose whatever credibility they have left.

Yes, this does go against the general tactic of negotiating with terrorists; but as comedian Robin Williams once said "if an 800 pound gorilla has you by the nipples, you listen!" default_tongue

Why not just "Nuke'em until they glow"?

If you're not joking around, the answer is that would become a PR disaster. Also, I think the US has a policy of no first strike. We invaded Iraq first, i.e., preemptive war, and the world's reaction against us was bad enough already. If we use nuke first, we would be castigated for generations. Besides, most people in the US are Christians, and I don't think we would allow our commander-in-chief to commit an atrocity of such magnitude.

Why not just "Nuke'em until they glow"?

I'd prefer not to use that option unless it is truly necessary. I predict that if a nuclear detonation occurs anywhere in the Middle East within the next five years, it will be in Iran. The question is -- will it be a U.S. or Israeli nuke?

Of course, it would be stupid to do such a thing. I think a prolonged campaign of conventional bombing can achieve the same results without the possibility of knee-jerk reactions from other nuclear powers like Russia and China.

Bikeman982

I think it is naive to believe that what happens in the Middle East could not possibly have any affect on the U.S.

Let someone dominate there and next goes Europe, Asia, and the world. The best way to stop a disease is to get treatment early.

Let's not wait until the whole globe becomes infected.

Infected with what? Islamic fundamentalism? Christian/Jewish/Hindu fundamentalism is just as dangerous. We have Islamic fundamentalists here in Australia; here, due to some really silly and archaic viewpoints a couple of leaders have communicated they have lost most credibility.

Just as dangerous as AQ are home-grown terrorists in places like Montona and Colorado. Who knows what they are brewing up there, besides polygamy and militia.

The nutcases in Montana and Colorado (and anywhere else) are just your typical anarchists. They have no popular support, and usually get dealt with quite swiftly if they ever pop their heads up out of their mole-holles and try something nasty. I'd be more concerned more organized groups like the KKK, skinheads, Neo-Nazi's, etc. Of course, there is no telling how many militant Muslim terror cells exist, and we'll never really know until they try something again. Don't look for the War On Terror to end any time soon.

Bikeman982

I think that people with muslim loyalty are growing very fast in the United States. Our country has to be protected from being taken over from internal sources as well as from outside it's borders.

I think that people with muslim loyalty are growing very fats in the United States. Our country has to be protected from being taken over from internal sources as well as from outside it's borders.

They should try to lose some weigh then. Maybe some exercise and Atkins diet.

Did anybody else see "Frontline: Return of the Taliban" ? If you missed it when it aired, you can see the full show online at

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

It was very informative. Even better than "The dark side"

These people are relentless!

I wonder if the President hadn't had a personal vendetta on Saddam and Dick Cheney hadn't been on the payroll of Hallisburton, we would have invaded Pakistan, destroyed AQ's core, and brought Bin Ladin to justice.

These people are relentless!

I wonder if the President hadn't had a personal vendetta on Saddam and Dick Cheney hadn't been on the payroll of Hallisburton, we would have invaded Pakistan, destroyed AQ's core, and brought Bin Ladin to justice.

I think that no matter where we try to find Bin Laden, we won't succeed unless we develop human intelligence sources internal to Al Qieida. Even then, since it is suspected that he employs as many as fifty body doubles, it is doubtful we'd ever get him. Let's face it -- he's got the resources to keep from being found, and he's smart enough to use them effectively. It would be more effective to continue to chip away at AQ's military capabilities, and it's sources of materiel support and human resources. This isn't going to be easy, and it will be an eternal struggle. Defeating an ideology isn't easy. We simply must maintain the resolve to keep them in check to the greatest extent possible. Right now, Iran is the threat, and if we pull out of Iraq without guaranteeing the stability of the pro-Westeren Iraqi regime, it will become Iran's and AQ's wholly-owned and controlled subsidary -- and a perpetual threat to Israel and the stability of the Middle East. The Bush plan to increase U.S. force levels in Iraq is too little too late, but it must be done. Anyone who opposes it is being naieve to the extent of treason.

Sending young people to die for bogus reasons--that's treason.

Our forces should begin withdrawal right away. Just get out of the way of this civil war, and let 'em settle their own disputes. This is not our fight. If we don't, more US lives will be lost for nothing. I firmly believe that the Iraqis have become dependent on our military, like a lazy welfare recipient who don't care to look for a job. If we withdraw, the Iraqis will have no choice but to stand up.

Or possibly look to others to lead them. Could end up with a much larger problem if the US withdraws from this area. Problem is, we really don't know what is the correct way to proceed.

On one hand - if the US stays and fails in its objectives in Iraq, some have argued, that this would hurt America's global credibility. That the US military presence in Iraq is harming US interests in the Arab world, weakens the US military, and detracts attention from other 'important security challenges, like with North Korea, Iran, South East Asia, and other hostile countries.

On the other hand - if the US withdraws from Iraq, some have argued that this will allow for a power vacuum that would attract a potentially more aggressive and dangerous opposition to US interests. No US military presence would signal to other nations that the US military might is all show and no go, in a sense. Would prompt some hostile countries that adopt a more cavalier attitude to US interests.

What will happen? Only time will tell - to do all this armchair arguing (politics) is pretty much pointless. Like that saying goes, "you can pay me now or pay me later".

Many have likened the invasion and occupation of Iraq to that of Vietnam, loss of life in any manner is terrible. I run into military personnel all the time here in DC that complain that they shouldn't have to put up with this, this isn;t waht they signed up for, etc. Bottom line, no one forced these young men or women to join the military. They did so by choice and have to accept that responsibility.

That the US military presence in Iraq is harming US interests in the Arab world, weakens the US military, and detracts attention from other 'important security challenges, like with North Korea, Iran, South East Asia, and other hostile countries.

Generals have said the military is at its breaking point. They can't sustain this infinite fighting in Iraq. It needs a break to be ready to fight the next war.

 

On the other hand - if the US withdraws from Iraq, some have argued that this will allow for a power vacuum that would attract a potentially more aggressive and dangerous opposition to US interests. No US military presence would signal to other nations that the US military might is all show and no go, in a sense. Would prompt some hostile countries that adopt a more cavalier attitude to US interests.

US military ate Saddam's elite republican guard along with his entire Army for breakfast, twice. Has there ever been a more dominant military force since the Romans? How many days do you think it would take for the US military to annihilate the Kim Il's Army? It wouldn't take long. However, if we keep stressing the military, it's going to be degraded.

 

Many have likened the invasion and occupation of Iraq to that of Vietnam, loss of life in any manner is terrible. I run into military personnel all the time here in DC that complain that they shouldn't have to put up with this, this isn;t waht they signed up for, etc. Bottom line, no one forced these young men or women to join the military. They did so by choice and have to accept that responsibility.
Goes to prove my earlier point that the military is about to crack.

 

 

Bikeman982

The president is sending 21,500 more troops in. It is far less than needed to help straighten out that country and unite their fighting factions. The U.S. wants the Iraqi to be self-governing but they don't have the concept of majority rule. All they know is civil war and they can't unite enough to form a workable government.

If we left it up to their general populace, they would kill each other (and more innocent people), until another Suddam would rise up and rule with inhumane force. Hence, the U.S. desire to stop the dissent and help them form their own government where people can live in peace.

It is true that too many Americans have died over there. The environment is inherently dangerous, especially to foreigners. It would be better if the American people supported the president and backed him on decisions. Unfortunately the average American does not have all the facts and they lack the ability to see how events on the other side of the world can have an impact on their lives. It is easy to say that war is wrong and Americans should not die, but more is at stake than realized.

I was in the military for 24 years and was willing to sacrifice my own life for the sake of the president and my country. There are higher stakes at play than the self-centered individuals who cannot see the bigger picture know.

I see where bikeman is coming from, but I am guessing that people don't join the army with the full on thought 'yes, I want to go to war'. I am thinking most think 'yes, should it be necessary, i will defend my country' An army should only be used IF a country was in direct threat (like OZ and the US was in WW2). It is irresponsible to take a gamble with so, so many young lives. In a country where some sections of the main highway between the two largest cities is STILL single carriageway (Australia), blowing the billions on the war that howard has is fiscally irresponsible.

Even if peace is restored, and a new government is formed, I give it about 3 years before it is overthrown, and another Saddam will rise up. However, considering that insurgent attacks are spiralling upwards at an exponential rate, and the US is only boosting forces by about 10%, I do not seeing there being peace, at least for the next while. Then the US army will wear out, and other poorer members of the coalition of the willing will pull out due to lack of funds (UK is already considering this). Within a decade the US will cease its 'democracy with a bayonet' approach; it ain't working now, it ain't working in 2020, it don't work ever! I am concerned that the US may bring back the draft to freshen up the military. People shouldn't be told they they must go and kill human beings that they personally don't have anything against. That choice must be left up to the individual...

The war is unwinnable. The public just don't have the appetite for a long war that is thousands of miles away and not about terrorism--only 10% of the fighters are actually foreign fighters (Al Quida). If you can't win, you don't hang around and get killed.

The surge in troops is a political move. To withdraw would make president look like a wussy, although that would be the right thing to do. He doesn't follow the plan put together by the distinguished panel led by Baker. He surges the forces, and talks tough. Whoever is the next president--probably a Democrat--is going to look bad by withdraw the troops. This is a political move to save his legacy.

  • 1,424 posts
I am concerned that the US may bring back the draft to freshen up the military. People shouldn't be told they they must go and kill human beings that they personally don't have anything against. That choice must be left up to the individual...

Your concerns are unfounded for several reasons:

1) Congress and Congress alone can institute a Draft.

2) The now Democrat Congress doesn't even want to provide anymore funds for the war, let alone send anyone else to Iraq.

3) The Democrats will run on the "End the war" platform in 2008, and it will get them elected. If they institute a Draft, their credibility and number one campaign issue that assures their victory is gone.

4) After the Horror of Vietnam, anytime anyone mentions a draft on the floor of Congress, the Congressional Leadership is on TV and in the newspaper the next day denouncing the draft and saying that we will not have another Vietnam.

5) And most important, Congress likes their jobs and wants to keep them. They know full well that the generation who gets them elected is the generation that was Drafted into Vietnam and if they were to institute a Draft, they'd be run out on a rail.

Also, I don't think you're getting the scope of what Bush is asking for. He wants 21,500 troops. We have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world where they are not really needed where they are. In order to get 21,500 troops, they would just move troops around, not get new troops.

Bikeman982

The military is all volunteer now. The problem is that people enlist so that they can get money for an education, do some traveling, get away from home, or some similar reasons. Not many do it for patriotic reasons and subjigate their lives for the greater causes. Eveyone know they may be sent into a hostile fire zone, but few think it will happen to them. The amount of people killed in combat situations is significantly less than the total military populace. There is a much higher chance of getting killed in an auto accident, than getting killed in Iraq.

There is no reason for a draft, since people still volunteer for the military in large enough numbers.

Topic List: Go to Everything Else