AUSTRALIANS REJECT IRAQ ATTACK
13.8.2002. 19:53:51

The Australian government is out of touch with public opinion in vigorously supporting a potential US-led attack on Iraq. A national Newspoll survey commissioned by the Special Broadcasting Services (SBS) suggests most Australians would oppose any involvement in such military action. The results suggest 50 percent of the adult population is against military action, compared to 39 percent in favour. Uncommitted respondents account for the margin between the two sides. The telephone poll of 1,200 Australians selected at random was adjusted to reflect population distribution. There has been significantly more support for previous military deployments, including 66 percent for Afghanistan, 77 percent for East Timor and 69 percent for the Gulf War.


Source. (http://www.theworldnews.com.au/index.html?ArtID=40499)

On that page are poll results.

i wish we would pull out of this crap

its the worst mesake little johnny could possably make

So do the Germans. You would have thought that they more than anybody would understand the need to deal with genocidal dictators such as Hussein, before they get out of hand.

Weve still got Liechtenstein on our side dammit.
And last I heard Andorra handnt been ruled out either.
So to hell with them.

I'm betting Sealand (http://www.sealandgov.com) would be willing to offer their massive surface area as a staging point...

I'm betting Sealand would be willing to offer their massive surface area as a staging point...

Sealandia has held off both dutch and briitish invasions. Its better that there with us than against us.

Also I dont think the Knights of Malta (http://www.smom.org) have been ruled out, I heard they have at least commited to bringing cookies.

Originally posted by Deepuz
So do the Germans. You would have thought that they more than anybody would understand the need to deal with genocidal dictators such as Hussein, before they get out of hand.

Oh come of it Deepuz, you don't seriously expect people to learn from history and discard all their precious ideals do you?

So do the Germans. You would have thought that they more than anybody would understand the need to deal with genocidal dictators such as Hussein, before they get out of hand.

I think the international community as a whole learned something from WWII. Thats why there not supporting bush.

Adam,
....most Australians would oppose any involvement....
...until after ol' Saddam has given a nuclear weapon to al Qaida in Indonesia, who then use it to threaten Australia to change its immigration policies.

Deepuz,
So do the Germans. You would have thought that they more than anybody would understand the need to deal with genocidal dictators such as Hussein, before they get out of hand.

Hell, the Germans (http://www.m5strateji.com/haberler.asp?habid=2861) are right in there with others blithely arming Saddam (http://www.csis.org/hill/ts020227duelfer.htm).

Originally posted by m0rl0ck


I think the international community as a whole learned something from WWII. Thats why there not supporting bush.

Well YOU obviously didn't learn a damn thing.

Well YOU obviously didn't learn a damn thing.


Ignorance and stupidity are apparently rife:

"Consider this: An inarticulate, politically inexperienced man with family links to a previous national regime comes to provincial leadership. Subsequently he gains the highest national office without winning the popular vote. The election in which he was declared the victor is considered compromised by his brother's province. He appoints a chief law enforcement officer who has repeatedly called for constitutional revisions. Regulatory agencies are filled with those previously regulated. Soldiers patrol transportation centers. International treaties are abrogated. International legal organizations are shunned. Roles of police and military are blurred. Law enforcement agencies are centralized. Individual civil rights are reduced. A "shadow" government is created.

Domestic surveillance is increased. People are encouraged to spy on each other. Military budgets are increased. The military establishes a disinformation program. Media access to government is limited. Consultations with the legislative branch decline. Connections to corrupt corporate sponsors are disavowed. Efforts to further plunder natural resources for profit are initiated. Access to past administrations' documents is limited. A war mentality is established with imprecise enemies. Nebulous fear- inducing alerts are periodically released. National level profiling is introduced. People are imprisoned without public charges and unknown others are "disappeared." Does the word "coup" come to mind? "

Thats a quote from bushwatch.com.
I am enough of a student of history to see the parellels between germany in the 1930's and the us in the 00's.

And yet your predjudices completely blind you to seeing the same thing in other countries which, given more time, will become far more dangerous?

And yet your predjudices completely blind you to seeing the same thing in other countries which, given more time, will become far more dangerous?

I dont live in other countries.
Is Iraq really a current danger, enough to justify attacking now? Most of the international community dont think so. Prominent members of both parties, who have more political and foreign policy experience than bush, have voiced doubts about attacking iraq. War is a grave decision. Should this decision be left solely to the executive branch of our government?
Who wins if in our zeal to overcome an enemy, we become everything we profess to despise?

"most of the international community", Morlock, consists of a couple of billion ostriches who wouldnt be able to distinguish a threat from a friendly wave.

You consider yourself a student of history? you're not. The biggest mistake made prior to WW2 was the appeasement policy, which you to conveniently forget (including its result) in your search for a reason to justify your own opinion. Or maybe you never heard about anything that went on prior to the start of the war....

oh and this...
"I don't live in other countries."

Well ain't that pinnacle of stupid remarks. Because it's not happening to you directly, it doesn't exist. Well thought out.

Saddam an evil man who will wreak havoc if left to own devices: Rice
Associated Press
London, August 15

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is an evil man who will wreak havoc on the world if the West does nothing to stop him, US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said in an interview broadcast Thursday.

Rice said the US belief in the "moral case" for removing Saddam from power was undiminished. "This is an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbours and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us, is a very powerful moral case for regime change," she told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing."

Speculation has been rife the United States soon will launch a military campaign to oust Saddam. Echoing US President George W. Bush, Rice said that Saddam's pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in defiance of its disarmament pledge after the 1991 Gulf War was a powerful case for a regime change.

"He has used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbours, he has invaded his neighbours, he has killed thousands of his own people," Rice said.

"He shoots at our planes, our airplanes, in the no-fly zones where we are trying to enforce UN security resolutions." Rice said breaking down the Al-Qaida network was the priority following the September 11 attacks "because we did not know how many more World Trade Centers were already planned and ready to go" but Saddam was now a focus.

"Clearly if Saddam Hussein is left in power doing the things that he is doing now this is a threat that will emerge, and emerge in a very big way," she said.

"History is littered with cases of inaction that led to have grave consequences for the world. We just have to look back and ask how many dictators who ended up being a tremendous global threat and killing thousands and, indeed, millions of people, should we have stopped in their tracks," she added.

>>>most of the international community", Morlock, consists of a couple of billion ostriches who wouldnt be able to distinguish a threat from a friendly wave.

What are your credientials? You'll forgive me if i favor the opinions of the legitmate governments of several nations over yours?



>>>>>You consider yourself a student of history? you're not. The biggest mistake made prior to WW2 was the appeasement policy, which you to conveniently forget (including its result) in your search for a reason to justify your own opinion. Or maybe you never heard about anything that went on prior to the start of the war....

Thats not really a good parellel. If I remember correctly the appeasment policy towards germany was still being practiced even after germany had taken poland and austria. If saddam were invading other countries we'd be right to put him in his place or take him out, but he isnt.


>>oh and this...
"I don't live in other countries."

>>>Well ain't that pinnacle of stupid remarks. Because it's not happening to you directly, it doesn't exist. Well thought out.

I wasnt recommending isolationism, only trying to point out that we have some serious domestic problems that need to be addressed, the most alarming of which is the whittling away of our constitutional freedoms. Iraq may be a threat, but not an imminent one. A war with iraq at this point is primarily a war of political expediency.
Is that a good reason to lead any nation to war?

Originally posted by m0rl0ck
>>>most of the international community", Morlock, consists of a couple of billion ostriches who wouldnt be able to distinguish a threat from a friendly wave.

What are your credientials? You'll forgive me if i favor the opinions of the legitmate governments of several nations over yours?


Of course I forgive you... I find my self forgiving the human race for its failings every day, no reason to make an exception for you.
You'ver just finished saying your own government doesn't know what it's doing, but you're perfectly willing to abide by the judgment of all the others... as long as they're agreeing with you.


>>>>>You consider yourself a student of history? you're not. The biggest mistake made prior to WW2 was the appeasement policy, which you to conveniently forget (including its result) in your search for a reason to justify your own opinion. Or maybe you never heard about anything that went on prior to the start of the war....

Thats not really a good parellel. If I remember correctly the appeasment policy towards germany was still being practiced even after germany had taken poland and austria. If saddam were invading other countries we'd be right to put him in his place or take him out, but he isnt.


It's a fine parallel. Just to set you straight, it was Czechoslovakia, not Poland.. Poland was where the allies entered the war after they'd had enough. Germany was already imprisoning and oppressing Jews by this time, and some evidence that this was going on was already emerging. Nobody wanted to know about it though, because it wasn't happening to them. Sound familiar?

So you're saying that atrocities committed by Saddam's regime don't count, until he leaves his own borders? And that Sep 11 wasn't an international act of aggression (or not enough of one for you)?


>>oh and this...
"I don't live in other countries."

>>>Well ain't that pinnacle of stupid remarks. Because it's not happening to you directly, it doesn't exist. Well thought out.

I wasnt recommending isolationism, only trying to point out that we have some serious domestic problems that need to be addressed, the most alarming of which is the whittling away of our constitutional freedoms. Iraq may be a threat, but not an imminent one. A war with iraq at this point is primarily a war of political expediency.
Is that a good reason to lead any nation to war?

Well, that's not what you first said. But anyway.... no, political expediency is not a good reason to go to war. However, you're assuming it IS political expediency.. I'm not. I think a genuine threat is there.

It's a fine parallel. Just to set you straight, it was Czechoslovakia, not Poland.. Poland was where the allies entered the war after they'd had enough. Germany was already imprisoning and oppressing Jews by this time, and some evidence that this was going on was already emerging. Nobody wanted to know about it though, because it wasn't happening to them. Sound familiar?


Thanks for the correction vis a vis poland/checkoslovika.

No the appeasement policy in WW2 wasnt a good parellel on your part Hitlers army had crossed germanys borders to occupy other countries and nothing like that is happening with iraq. Iraqs army isnt occupying any other countries. Your analogy is faulty.


So you're saying that atrocities committed by Saddam's regime don't count, until he leaves his own borders? And that Sep 11 wasn't an international act of aggression (or not enough of one for you)?


As far as saddams atrocities, how could anyone support them? (The us does however have a long history of supporting repressive regimes) Im not any lover of iraq or saddam hussein, replacing him would be a great idea if there were some international support (given what some of our "allies" in the middle east are saying it looks like they fear us oil imperialism more than they fear iraq) if anyone had a clear plan as to what happens next, (as things stand there is good reason to believe that invading iraq or attempting to replace saddam would further destabalize an already volatile situation) or if there were clear evidence that al queda were operating within its borders. We arent attacking iraq in response to an act of agression. Where is the evidence that the iraqi government had anything to do with 9/11?

Morlock, arguing with you is getting pointless... you have a blind hatred and can't see your hand in front of your face. Because YOU'RE not party to any evidence the US has of Iraqi involvement, they must not have any. Therefore attacking Iraq is wrong, as you see it. Too bad about the poor Iraqis, they can continue being oppressed because you dont have any paperwork. And Saddam is obviously such a GOOD little boy after Kuwait, he's learned his lesson hasn't he?

And regarding Germany, the analogy is still there... not accepting it because of minor details is ridiculous. The fact that you REFUSE to accept it doesnt make it any less true.

If you were in charge during WW2, and you'd managed to knock Hitler back out of France, you would have stopped the war because there was no "evidence" of Jewish oppression or anything like that.

So I'll just continue to think of you as a blind idiot and give up arguing with you... there's plenty of people just like you existing in the world today, and plenty more thanking god you're not in charge of things.

Morlock, arguing with you is getting pointless... you have a blind hatred and can't see your hand in front of your face. Because YOU'RE not party to any evidence the US has of Iraqi involvement, they must not have any. Therefore attacking Iraq is wrong, as you see it. Too bad about the poor Iraqis, they can continue being oppressed because you dont have any paperwork. And Saddam is obviously such a GOOD little boy after Kuwait, he's learned his lesson hasn't he?

Do you see the irony here? Your advocating war based on dubious evidence and accusing someone who opposes it of blind hatred.

And regarding Germany, the analogy is still there... not accepting it because of minor details is ridiculous. The fact that you REFUSE to accept it doesnt make it any less true.

The anaology falls short. Comparing nazi germany and the appeasment policy to present day iraq makes no sense because iraqs army is not currently occupying the soil of any other countries.



If you were in charge during WW2, and you'd managed to knock Hitler back out of France, you would have stopped the war because there was no "evidence" of Jewish oppression or anything like that.

Wow. Most arguementative types on boards like this (yes im one too )are content with just trying to put words in my mouth. You want to whisk me back in time and give me new motives and actions too :)
As far as the ethics of attacking iraq, take a look at this thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/t10216/s/thread.html
kmguru makes an excellent ethical point.



So I'll just continue to think of you as a blind idiot and give up arguing with you... there's plenty of people just like you existing in the world today, and plenty more thanking god you're not in charge of things.


You can think whatever you like, at least until you go through one of these things:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020817-704732.htm

As for me Ill make an effort to think of you no differently than I always have :)

m0rl0ck,
You can think whatever you like, at least until you go through one of these things
Hey, no prob. Just wear your aluminum foil hat. :p

The biggest mistake made prior to WW2 was the appeasement policy

The severity with which Germany was treated after WW1 (reparations, etc) created an economic/social climate in which Hitler was able to thrive, rise to power and instigate WW2.

Very well Morlock.. I can see, as I said, arguing with you is pointless.

Your entire stance pretty much comes back to one statement... "I dont live in other countries". You should have added.. "And i dont give a fuck about anyone else who does".

kmguru is not a good example of "excellent ethical points" to me, as his ethics are very different to mine.

I'll leave you to your ideaologies....

This is really interesting, "He shoots at our planes, our airplanes, in the no-fly zones where we are trying to enforce UN security resolutions."--Condoleeza Rice-USNSA

Since they are so intent on enforcing UN resolutions, shouldn't they be enforcing Un resolution 146(11) first? It seems kinda stupid to be trying to enforce new resolutions when they are so far behind on their old ones.

And what about this, "History is littered with cases of inaction that led to have grave consequences for the world. We just have to look back and ask how many dictators who ended up being a tremendous global threat and killing thousands and, indeed, millions of people, should we have stopped in their tracks." --Condoleeza Rice-USNSA

What hypocrisy that is coming from the government that supported most of the evil dictators of the last century. Read "Propaganda and the Public Mind" by Noam Chomsky and you'll find out about the reality of U.S. government policy. And when you read that book, read a bunch more of Chomsky's books and let the professor clue you in to what's really happening in the world.

The reason that the U.S. government is itching to go after Saddam is because they haven't been able to get any of the bosses of Al Qaida and they believe it makes them look like incompetants in the eyes of all the people they think are against them. It'll also keep them on a war footing and give them some more time to try and find Osama, before they end up looking like coomplete fools in the eyes of the world. That tells you that the U.S. government is willing to go to war over "face" since they obviously have no honor.

As for UN "resolutions"...

Iraq is a soverign nation. Their airspace is theirs, not the UN's. They do have the right to control their own airspace. The only way they would not have that right is if Iraq itself signed a treaty which specifically granted control of sectors of their airspace to another power. Make no mistake, those areas are Iraq's sovereign territory.

But Adam, do they deserve to have that right?

Does anyone deserve that right? Let's use the US as an example state. They nuked two cities. They bombed the crap out of Dresden and other places. They produce all sorts of weapons of mass destruction - nukes, chem and bio stuff, the works. Do they have the right to secure their own territory?

Originally posted by Mr. G


Hey, no prob. Just wear your aluminum foil hat. :p


They told me you were going to post that :)

The article makes it sound like the device is pretty primitive in its current incarnation and I cant see its input being of much use unless combined with other data.
For instance, making me stand within range of the sensor while saying "George W. Bush is one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever had" would probably put every meter on the thing into the red :)

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
Very well Morlock.. I can see, as I said, arguing with you is pointless.

Your entire stance pretty much comes back to one statement... "I dont live in other countries". You should have added.. "And i dont give a fuck about anyone else who does".

kmguru is not a good example of "excellent ethical points" to me, as his ethics are very different to mine.

I'll leave you to your ideaologies....


No, thats not my stance. Thats your simplistic interpretation of my stance.

As far as the us being concerned about the citizens of other countries or having some consistent policy in regard to support of foreign dictators take a look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/international/middleeast/18CHEM.html?ex=1030248000&en=b0ae2fbb743e693d&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

How does that fit into your ethical scheme?

And Austrialia is relevant to an US invasion of Iraq how?

You can forget about wearing the foil hats. That's just one of those goofy propaganda stories that the government hopes all the other bad dudes in the world will read so as to spread a little uncertainty amonst them. They can't even get a so-called "lie detecter" to work so they sure will never get a mind reading device. For one thing, every mind operates on a different life frequency, so complex that it makes all the differences between fingerprints seem like flat white paint by comparison.

The government has almost a century of history of using what they now call "psychological warfare" and it's all predicated on pseudoscience. Sigmund Freud, the founder of "psychoanalysis", was actually a mental pedophile. His fixation was 3-5 year old boys to whom he attributed overt sexuality which went dormant after their fifth year and then reactivated at puberty. If you read through Freud's volumes of work you will find that they are riddled with stupid assumptions that wouldn't have been believed in his day if anyone had access to them. Professor Albert Einstein was asked to comment on Freud's work and he said he couldn't see anything of worth in it.

Freud probably never would have reached national exposure if it wasn't for his spirited communication and competition with Carl Jung, another "psychologist" whose volumes are filled with idiocy. Their public diologue appeared in the limited press of their day and that was enough for the "establishment" to adopt them. All that they were doing, and all that any of their deciples are doing today, is studying human behavior, the way that Jane Goodall studies behavior. The establishment picked up on the new psychology, recognizing right away that they could use the idea of it as a weapon. For anyone to use the term psychology or any of it's derivations is a fraudulent representation of what they do. What they should be calling themselves is behaviorists. But you know the establishment, once they get ahold of a weapon, whether it's psychology, landmines or clusterbombs, they don't ever want to let it go.

Jesus, getting pissed about this makes as much sense as war.

Hi, I'm new, so I don't get how to refer you to another thread, but I posted this link in "Opinion from a Republican Representative" (World events and politics).

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/S...TheyHateUs.html

No response there so perhaps it shut the pro-war people up - the ones justifying it by painting Saddam as the bad guy, the US as the guys in white (bleached, even).

Check it out. It's brief, point form.
Here's a couple of excerpts.


* 1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically-elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter-century of dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

* 1960s (early): U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim

* 1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

* 1980-88: Iran-lraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Guff, taking Iraq's side; an aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

* 1984: U.S.-backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.

* 1990-91: U.S. rejects diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and Palestine). U.S. Ieads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted. To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.

* 1993-: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.

* 1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.

* 1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. U.S. later acknowledges there is no evidence for the chemical warfare charge.

Remarkable to me that a country with so much miltary might still finds it necessary to resort to undercover (read: underhand) tactics. Why could this be I wonder (for about two seconds). Couldn't be that overt actions would have no support, surely?

So you're blaming the US for backing people and those people's actions?

if you're not with us
you're against us

god bless america

you have been warned

Spookz is the Shit!

very intelligent responses, I must say.

Obviously geniuses.

Obviously physics.

Obviously physics.

I fail to see what the discussion has to do with physics, unless youre referring to greater mental / physical density on the part of some of the posters generating more inertia and less sense :)

Psychics, Ms. Cleo. Sorry, I can't spell. The humor of my statment has already evaporated.

I can't spell. The humor of my statment has already evaporated.


My apologies two :)
I couldnt resist taking advantage of your typo to poke a little fun, sorry.

No harm done.