NationStates Jolt Archive

The Australian Labor Party, in opposition to the John Howard led Liberal government, would win in a landslide if an election were held now, as more Australians than ever regard the Iraq war as unjustified, a new Poll has found.

A week before John Howard heads to the US for meetings with President George Bush and the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on Iraq, the poll showed a strong majority - 63 per cent - thought the war was not justified, compared with 51 per cent in September last year.

This suggests that Labor would have won an election held last Saturday with a swing of about 7 per cent.

Extract from :

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/24/1085389337405.html

COMMENT.

John Howard is certainly "on the nose" with Australian voters, not least because of his support for Bush in Iraq.

We may well be about to see "regime change" in Australia, Britain and the US. Spain, of course, has already had the opportunity for voters to express their dissatisfaction.

Along with the fact that they would apparently survive nuclear apocolypse and have those crazy kangaroos, it seems Australians have it pretty good.

Almost on my list of "countries to think about moving to but never actually do." Right behind Canada.

Along with the fact that they would apparently survive nuclear apocolypse and have those crazy kangaroos, it seems Australians have it pretty good.

Almost on my list of "countries to think about moving to but never actually do." Right behind Canada.

Our beaches and surfing is a hell of a lot better than Canada.

:lol:

Along with the fact that they would apparently survive nuclear apocolypse and have those crazy kangaroos, it seems Australians have it pretty good.

Almost on my list of "countries to think about moving to but never actually do." Right behind Canada.

Our beaches and surfing is a hell of a lot better than Canada.

:lol:
Aye, you drive a hard bargin... :)

hmm... im not sure whether it would be a good idea for us to just drop what we are doing in iraq. which was the main promise of the campaign.

assuming that mark latham has any intelligence he hopefully knows that we will probably hacve forces in iraq for atleast several more months.

Along with the fact that they would apparently survive nuclear apocolypse and have those crazy kangaroos, it seems Australians have it pretty good.

Almost on my list of "countries to think about moving to but never actually do." Right behind Canada.

Our beaches and surfing is a hell of a lot better than Canada.

:lol:
Aye, you drive a hard bargain... :)

surfers paradise>you

Along with the fact that they would apparently survive nuclear apocolypse and have those crazy kangaroos, it seems Australians have it pretty good.

Almost on my list of "countries to think about moving to but never actually do." Right behind Canada.

Our beaches and surfing is a hell of a lot better than Canada.

:lol:
Aye, you drive a hard bargain... :)

surfers paradise>you

From the Central Coast of NSW (about 100kilometres north of Sydney).

Beautiful beaches, natural bushland close by, great fishing...paradise, or will be when we can get a new Federal Government.

Is it still as hard to get into Australia unless you have certain jobs? I would love to emigrate to Oz.

hmm... im not sure whether it would be a good idea for us to just drop what we are doing in iraq. which was the main promise of the campaign.

assuming that mark latham has any intelligence he hopefully knows that we will probably hacve forces in iraq for atleast several more months.
Yes, drop that toilet plunger :wink:

hmm... im not sure whether it would be a good idea for us to just drop what we are doing in iraq. which was the main promise of the campaign.

assuming that mark latham has any intelligence he hopefully knows that we will probably hacve forces in iraq for atleast several more months.

Australia has relatively few troops in Iraq at the moment. Those that are there are generally in support roles, e.g. acting as air traffic controllers. To date, fortunately, we have ghad no casualities.

But I see no point in our troops remaining, as they seem to only be there as a token support gesture for Bush.

I personally do not believe that they enhance Australia's security or reputation.

Australia has relatively few troops in Iraq at the moment. Those that are there are generally in support roles, e.g. acting as air traffic controllers. To date, fortunately, we have ghad no casualities.

But I see no point in our troops remaining, as they seem to only be there as a token support gesture for Bush.

I personally do not believe that they enhance Australia's security or reputation.
Most countries have few from what I gather. It seems more like a gesture than anything...

Along with the fact that they would apparently survive nuclear apocolypse and have those crazy kangaroos, it seems Australians have it pretty good.

Almost on my list of "countries to think about moving to but never actually do." Right behind Canada.

Our beaches and surfing is a hell of a lot better than Canada.

:lol:
I reckon you haven't seen (a US) commercial featuring members of the US women's volleyball team playing beach volleyball on a snow-bound shore (looked a lot like Canada :D ) and then jumping into frigid waters to retrieve a stray volleyball.

Obviously, Canadian beaches are to die for :lol:

hmm... im not sure whether it would be a good idea for us to just drop what we are doing in iraq. which was the main promise of the campaign.

assuming that mark latham has any intelligence he hopefully knows that we will probably hacve forces in iraq for atleast several more months.

Australia has relatively few troops in Iraq at the moment. Those that are there are generally in support roles, e.g. acting as air traffic controllers. To date, fortunately, we have ghad no casualities.

But I see no point in our troops remaining, as they seem to only be there as a token support gesture for Bush.

I personally do not believe that they enhance Australia's security or reputation.

it would be 'bad form' for us to pull out now that we have committed troops to iraq

The only reason i'd go to australia is for the beer. But I don't even need to do that now, thanks to the fact it's all imported.

The only reason i'd go to australia is for the beer. But I don't even need to do that now, thanks to the fact it's all imported.
I heard kangaroo steaks & burgers are pretty good, too. Can't get 'em at Whole Foods :wink:

hmm... im not sure whether it would be a good idea for us to just drop what we are doing in iraq. which was the main promise of the campaign.

assuming that mark latham has any intelligence he hopefully knows that we will probably hacve forces in iraq for atleast several more months.

Australia has relatively few troops in Iraq at the moment. Those that are there are generally in support roles, e.g. acting as air traffic controllers. To date, fortunately, we have ghad no casualities.

But I see no point in our troops remaining, as they seem to only be there as a token support gesture for Bush.

I personally do not believe that they enhance Australia's security or reputation.

it would be 'bad form' for us to pull out now that we have committed troops to iraq

Must disagree. I think it is more important for us to focus on our own region, and have our troops prepared to defend our home. Iraq was certainly never a threat to Australia, and seeminly of little risk to anyone else.

A token gesture is demeaning.

hmm... im not sure whether it would be a good idea for us to just drop what we are doing in iraq. which was the main promise of the campaign.

assuming that mark latham has any intelligence he hopefully knows that we will probably hacve forces in iraq for atleast several more months.

Australia has relatively few troops in Iraq at the moment. Those that are there are generally in support roles, e.g. acting as air traffic controllers. To date, fortunately, we have ghad no casualities.

But I see no point in our troops remaining, as they seem to only be there as a token support gesture for Bush.

I personally do not believe that they enhance Australia's security or reputation.

it would be 'bad form' for us to pull out now that we have committed troops to iraq

Must disagree. I think it is more important for us to focus on our own region, and have our troops prepared to defend our home. Iraq was certainly never a threat to Australia, and seemingly of little risk to anyone else.

A token gesture is demeaning.
demeaning? we have made a committment and we must stick to it!

hmm... im not sure whether it would be a good idea for us to just drop what we are doing in iraq. which was the main promise of the campaign.

assuming that mark latham has any intelligence he hopefully knows that we will probably hacve forces in iraq for atleast several more months.

Australia has relatively few troops in Iraq at the moment. Those that are there are generally in support roles, e.g. acting as air traffic controllers. To date, fortunately, we have ghad no casualities.

But I see no point in our troops remaining, as they seem to only be there as a token support gesture for Bush.

I personally do not believe that they enhance Australia's security or reputation.

it would be 'bad form' for us to pull out now that we have committed troops to iraq

Must disagree. I think it is more important for us to focus on our own region, and have our troops prepared to defend our home. Iraq was certainly never a threat to Australia, and seemingly of little risk to anyone else.

A token gesture is demeaning.
demeaning? we have made a committment and we must stick to it!

We went there to find weapons of mass destruction... I think we should give up on that one.

We went there to topple Saddam...mission accomplished.

We went there to make Iraq "free" and democratic...but seems they themselves are not so keen on a puppet regime.

We did not go there to be associated with mistreatment of prisoners.

Time to go.

hmm... im not sure whether it would be a good idea for us to just drop what we are doing in iraq. which was the main promise of the campaign.

assuming that mark latham has any intelligence he hopefully knows that we will probably hacve forces in iraq for atleast several more months.

Australia has relatively few troops in Iraq at the moment. Those that are there are generally in support roles, e.g. acting as air traffic controllers. To date, fortunately, we have ghad no casualities.

But I see no point in our troops remaining, as they seem to only be there as a token support gesture for Bush.

I personally do not believe that they enhance Australia's security or reputation.

it would be 'bad form' for us to pull out now that we have committed troops to iraq

Must disagree. I think it is more important for us to focus on our own region, and have our troops prepared to defend our home. Iraq was certainly never a threat to Australia, and seeminly of little risk to anyone else.

A token gesture is demeaning.

yes lets leave and let Iraq fall into civil war, that will solve it

hmm... im not sure whether it would be a good idea for us to just drop what we are doing in iraq. which was the main promise of the campaign.

assuming that mark latham has any intelligence he hopefully knows that we will probably hacve forces in iraq for atleast several more months.

Australia has relatively few troops in Iraq at the moment. Those that are there are generally in support roles, e.g. acting as air traffic controllers. To date, fortunately, we have ghad no casualities.

But I see no point in our troops remaining, as they seem to only be there as a token support gesture for Bush.

I personally do not believe that they enhance Australia's security or reputation.

it would be 'bad form' for us to pull out now that we have committed troops to iraq

Must disagree. I think it is more important for us to focus on our own region, and have our troops prepared to defend our home. Iraq was certainly never a threat to Australia, and seeminly of little risk to anyone else.

A token gesture is demeaning.

yes lets leave and let Iraq fall into civil war, that will solve it

Compared to the "peace" they are having now?

Iraq is an unnatural coalition of differing and opposed groups anyway, only existing as a state because that is how the British drew the map when they were the colonial occupier.

The Kurds probably deserve their own homeland, but Turkey doesn't want to lose any territory.

I believe that leaving Iraq free to achieve self-determination, in whatever fashion, is preferable to leaving them occupied by forces that are apparently unwelcomed. From day one, the Iraqi chant has been "no to Saddam, no to America".

Irrespective, I really do not believe that our token force will sway the balance one way or the other.

hmm... im not sure whether it would be a good idea for us to just drop what we are doing in iraq. which was the main promise of the campaign.

assuming that mark latham has any intelligence he hopefully knows that we will probably hacve forces in iraq for atleast several more months.

Australia has relatively few troops in Iraq at the moment. Those that are there are generally in support roles, e.g. acting as air traffic controllers. To date, fortunately, we have ghad no casualities.

But I see no point in our troops remaining, as they seem to only be there as a token support gesture for Bush.

I personally do not believe that they enhance Australia's security or reputation.

it would be 'bad form' for us to pull out now that we have committed troops to iraq

Must disagree. I think it is more important for us to focus on our own region, and have our troops prepared to defend our home. Iraq was certainly never a threat to Australia, and seeminly of little risk to anyone else.

A token gesture is demeaning.

yes lets leave and let Iraq fall into civil war, that will solve it

Compared to the "peace" they are having now?

Iraq is an unnatural coalition of differing and opposed groups anyway, only existing as a state because that is how the British drew the map when they were the colonial occupier.

The Kurds probably deserve their own homeland, but Turkey doesn't want to lose any territory.

I believe that leaving Iraq free to achieve self-determination, in whatever fashion, is preferable to leaving them occupied by forces that are apparently unwelcomed. From day one, the Iraqi chant has been "no to Saddam, no to America".

Irrespective, I really do not believe that our token force will sway the balance one way or the other.

true, our token force is really not going to have a large impact, the problem with your theory is that the most ruthless warlord will take power, and nothing would have been acomplished, lives lost for nothing, I believe Iraq will be unstable for awhile to come, but I do believe it to be for a greater good in the long run to have international forces there, the UN should be incontrol instead of America but as they are not it shows the incompetence of the UN

true, our token force is really not going to have a large impact, the problem with your theory is that the most ruthless warlord will take power, and nothing would have been acomplished, lives lost for nothing, I believe Iraq will be unstable for awhile to come, but I do believe it to be for a greater good in the long run to have international forces there, the UN should be incontrol instead of America but as they are not it shows the incompetence of the UN

The UN was sidelined by the US.

Now, it seems that they are keen to get it back "onside" and involved in Iraq.

The present incompetence in Iraq, IMHO, seems to be in relation to air strikes on civilians and mistreatment of prisoners, many of whom are apparently "rounded up" on the slightest suspicion.

I really do not think that Australia should be associated with this incompotence.

I hate the people that say the if we leave Iraq now that we'll be leaving them in a 'civil war'. Did they have a civil war BEFORE the coalition entered? NO.
Therefore, as laws of logic would have it, the COALITION caused the 'civil war', which is in fact everyone trying to kill the coalition. There aren't Iraq-ise (I no sure what they called) killing other iraq-ise.
Its Iraq's killing Coalitions and Vice Versa.

NOTHING CIVIL WAR-ish ABOUT IT.

The only reason i'd go to australia is for the beer. But I don't even need to do that now, thanks to the fact it's all imported.
I heard kangaroo steaks & burgers are pretty good, too. Can't get 'em at Whole Foods :wink:


No one eats Kangaroo/Emu/Croc here and very few people sell them. They only sell them to lure in tourist who think that eating them makes them more Australian.

The only reason i'd go to australia is for the beer. But I don't even need to do that now, thanks to the fact it's all imported.
I heard kangaroo steaks & burgers are pretty good, too. Can't get 'em at Whole Foods :wink:


No one eats Kangaroo/Emu/Croc here and very few people sell them. They only sell them to lure in tourist who think that eating them makes them more Australian.
kangaroo meat>you

I hate the people that say the if we leave Iraq now that we'll be leaving them in a 'civil war'. Did they have a civil war BEFORE the coalition entered? NO.
Therefore, as laws of logic would have it, the COALITION caused the 'civil war', which is in fact everyone trying to kill the coalition. There aren't Iraq-ise (I no sure what they called) killing other iraq-ise.
Its Iraq's killing Coalitions and Vice Versa.

NOTHING CIVIL WAR-ish ABOUT IT.

1: It's not Civil war, it's an uprising.
2: It WOULD be Cvil war it they left, power vacuum bud.

I hate the people that say the if we leave Iraq now that we'll be leaving them in a 'civil war'. Did they have a civil war BEFORE the coalition entered? NO.
Therefore, as laws of logic would have it, the COALITION caused the 'civil war', which is in fact everyone trying to kill the coalition. There aren't Iraq-ise (I no sure what they called) killing other iraq-ise.
Its Iraq's killing Coalitions and Vice Versa.

NOTHING CIVIL WAR-ish ABOUT IT.

1: It's not Civil war, it's an uprising.
2: It WOULD be Cvil war it they left, power vacuum bud.

I ment people like Findecano Calaelen, who think differently.
yes lets leave and let Iraq fall into civil war, that will solve it

Does what he/she says mean that if someone invaded New Zealand, and left, it would definently fall into civil war?

I really do not believe that our token force will sway the balance one way or the other.

You are quite right - our forces won't sway the balance. However please consider the following consequences of pulling out of Iraq:

1. Terrorists will plan attacks against Australia regardless. Australians are not hated for being allies of the USA or for being in Iraq - but for being Christian and democratic (the very things these terrorist cowards are not and despise).

2. Australia is in a volatile situation. We are predominantly a white nation surrounded by Asian nations. We have a small population but a lot of land. Asia has a lot of people and not enough land. The only thing standing in the way of Australia being flooded from the north is the USA. Should we pull out, we are sending the US a message that we do not support them. In turn, when Indonesia demands we hand over East Timor and PNG (which are not ours to give anyway) and takes them when we don't; America will more than likely claim that they will not assist us because they are not obliged under ANZUS. As a result Australia will have lost its buffer zone. Indonesia will be right on our doorstep.

Eventually Indonesia and Australia will war against each other - give it 20 years. It is inevitable given their population growth being out of control and lack of natural resources to sustain the people. We will need the USA to help us.

Within the next 20 years it is also likely that the US will be involved in several conflicts around the world - the global atmosphere is increasingly hostile and this is not a direct result of America's actions, but of internal strife and regional wars e.g. India and Pakistan. US forces are already stretched and considering Iraq will be home for many American troops for some time to come, Australia's position is weakened significantly.

Do not forget WW2 when Britain was stretched for manpower and ships. Churchill planned to leave Australia to the Japanese and take us back when Britain defeated Hitler. Heck, Churchill even vowed to fight from Canada should they lose Britain! America, in a similar and likely situation in the near future may not be able to send ample defences against an Indonesian invasion. Missiles and satellites will not be enough to stop large armies. War is still largely fought by sheer numbers. Take Iraq for example and America's deployment of 140,000 troops.

Now when WW2 is brought up many say, well then this is all the more reason to bring Australian troops home now! We have 850 personnel in Iraq and our entire defence force equates to 50,000 full-time personnel and 23,000 Reservists. This is quite inadequate when faced with an Indonesian invasion force. We will rely heavily on the USA for external defence for some time to come.

Let us not be fooled by people who suggest that because we were wrong about WMD we must pull out from Iraq. Should we leave now - that is the coalition and not just Australia - Iraq would plunge into chaos. The Shi'ites, whom Saddam kept under his thumb represent 60% of the Iraqi population and have strong links to Iran. If Iraq and Iran were to join forces they would pose a considerable threat to world trade and the security of the middle east. Democracy would be non-existent.

While it is true Iraq is still not yet ready for a democratic government, the time will come eventually. To abandon Iraq now would not only be a blow to global security and trade, but human rights as well. I wonder if people like Smeagol know that women in many middle eastern countries have no rights whatsoever and can be killed by their brothers and fathers in what is known as "honour killings"? Perhaps people like Smeagol are also unaware of the 300,000 kurds that Saddam sent to death? Do not think a coalition-free Iraq wouldn't return to such barabarities.

On a further point, to suggest that Australia's presence in Iraq is tokenism and "symbolic" as Mark Latham claimed is a show of great ignorance. The Commander of all coalition naval forces is in fact an Australian. That means he has authority over the operations of the navies of Australia, Britain and the USA (which boasts several Carrier Battle Groups). Australians are also in control of Baghdad International Airport and play a vital role in securing supplies from the air. Australian SAS served in the front lines and went behind enemy lines during the early stages of the war and Australian jets served alongside US aircraft in the bombing of enemy targets. While our contributions are small, our SAS are the best in the world - several past US Presidents supporting this claim. In guerilla warfare, such as raids on military targets, numbers are irrelevent - skill and equipment counts. Australian troops are the best equiped in the world and well trained too. Perhaps people like Smeagol need to do some research on Australia's Armed Forces.

Like Mark Latham, Smeagol-Gollum has a lot to learn about Australia's increasing role in global affairs and the consequences of allowing Iraq to plunge into utter chaos. History has told us that leaving things be is folly. To pull out now would be a blow not only to our much relied upon relationship with the USA, but to human rights (especially women and victimised groups like the kurds) and to bringing democracy which we cherish so much.

While our forces may not alter the outcome in Iraq, they are far from a token force and play a major role in keeping order in Iraq.

I really do not believe that our token force will sway the balance one way or the other.

You are quite right - our forces won't sway the balance. However please consider the following consequences of pulling out of Iraq:

1. Terrorists will plan attacks against Australia regardless. Australians are not hated for being allies of the USA or for being in Iraq - but for being Christian and democratic (the very things these terrorist cowards are not and despise).

2. Australia is in a volatile situation. We are predominantly a white nation surrounded by Asian nations. We have a small population but a lot of land. Asia has a lot of people and not enough land. The only thing standing in the way of Australia being flooded from the north is the USA. Should we pull out, we are sending the US a message that we do not support them. In turn, when Indonesia demands we hand over East Timor and PNG (which are not ours to give anyway) and takes them when we don't; America will more than likely claim that they will not assist us because they are not obliged under ANZUS. As a result Australia will have lost its buffer zone. Indonesia will be right on our doorstep.

Eventually Indonesia and Australia will war against each other - give it 20 years. It is inevitable given their population growth being out of control and lack of natural resources to sustain the people. We will need the USA to help us.

Within the next 20 years it is also likely that the US will be involved in several conflicts around the world - the global atmosphere is increasingly hostile and this is not a direct result of America's actions, but of internal strife and regional wars e.g. India and Pakistan. US forces are already stretched and considering Iraq will be home for many American troops for some time to come, Australia's position is weakened significantly.

Do not forget WW2 when Britain was stretched for manpower and ships. Churchill planned to leave Australia to the Japanese and take us back when Britain defeated Hitler. Heck, Churchill even vowed to fight from Canada should they lose Britain! America, in a similar and likely situation in the near future may not be able to send ample defences against an Indonesian invasion. Missiles and satellites will not be enough to stop large armies. War is still largely fought by sheer numbers. Take Iraq for example and America's deployment of 140,000 troops.

Now when WW2 is brought up many say, well then this is all the more reason to bring Australian troops home now! We have 850 personnel in Iraq and our entire defence force equates to 50,000 full-time personnel and 23,000 Reservists. This is quite inadequate when faced with an Indonesian invasion force. We will rely heavily on the USA for external defence for some time to come.

Let us not be fooled by people who suggest that because we were wrong about WMD we must pull out from Iraq. Should we leave now - that is the coalition and not just Australia - Iraq would plunge into chaos. The Shi'ites, whom Saddam kept under his thumb represent 60% of the Iraqi population and have strong links to Iran. If Iraq and Iran were to join forces they would pose a considerable threat to world trade and the security of the middle east. Democracy would be non-existent.

While it is true Iraq is still not yet ready for a democratic government, the time will come eventually. To abandon Iraq now would not only be a blow to global security and trade, but human rights as well. I wonder if people like Smeagol know that women in many middle eastern countries have no rights whatsoever and can be killed by their brothers and fathers in what is known as "honour killings"? Perhaps people like Smeagol are also unaware of the 300,000 kurds that Saddam sent to death? Do not think a coalition-free Iraq wouldn't return to such barabarities.

On a further point, to suggest that Australia's presence in Iraq is tokenism and "symbolic" as Mark Latham claimed is a show of great ignorance. The Commander of all coalition naval forces is in fact an Australian. That means he has authority over the operations of the navies of Australia, Britain and the USA (which boasts several Carrier Battle Groups). Australians are also in control of Baghdad International Airport and play a vital role in securing supplies from the air. Australian SAS served in the front lines and went behind enemy lines during the early stages of the war and Australian jets served alongside US aircraft in the bombing of enemy targets. While our contributions are small, our SAS are the best in the world - several past US Presidents supporting this claim. In guerilla warfare, such as raids on military targets, numbers are irrelevent - skill and equipment counts. Australian troops are the best equiped in the world and well trained too. Perhaps people like Smeagol need to do some research on Australia's Armed Forces.

Like Mark Latham, Smeagol-Gollum has a lot to learn about Australia's increasing role in global affairs and the consequences of allowing Iraq to plunge into utter chaos. History has told us that leaving things be is folly. To pull out now would be a blow not only to our much relied upon relationship with the USA, but to human rights (especially women and victimised groups like the kurds) and to bringing democracy which we cherish so much.

While our forces may not alter the outcome in Iraq, they are far from a token force and play a major role in keeping order in Iraq.

hehehe, christian and democratic

hehehe, christian and democratic

Well both those facts play an important part as to why nations like Australia are detested by the current wave of islamic terrorists. It also has a lot to do with money too. Countries like the USA, Britain and Australia are wealthy lands, while the Middle East has a high number of poor people.

Now, many arabs follow men like Osama because they are uneducated and do not have access to the information many Westerners do. Terrorism can be a desperate way out for some people e.g. Young Palestinian men. What is needed is an educated middle east and more equitable distribution of income. The Oil Barons hold the wealth in the Middle East and the rest are left to starve. There really is no middle class. There never has been in the middle east - not since Ancient times.

However, to bring education and wealth to the ordinary arab, it requires the installation of democracy. This is essentially what the coalition is trying to do. Sadly, the acts of a few rotten eggs in the US army put this process in jeopardy.

Hardly surprising since An overwhelming Majority of Australians never supported it in the first place.

Hardly surprising since An overwhelming Majority of Australians never supported it in the first place.

Few people support war. Fewer still understand the necessity of going to war in certain instances. Most people cannot see beyond the face value. They do not see the consequences of leaving things be. Most people see what the media wants them to see. This makes it difficult to gain popular support for taking out a mass murderer thousands of miles away and installing democracy in a country which few people know much or care about.

Most people do not think beyond the front gate.

1. Terrorists will plan attacks against Australia regardless. Australians are not hated for being allies of the USA or for being in Iraq - but for being Christian and democratic (the very things these terrorist cowards are not and despise).


No, the Western Nations are not hated for being "Christian and democratic", but because those nations held the Arab nations as colonies for a long period, and their return is seen as attempt to re-impose that status. That, and the one-sided support for Israel.


2. Australia is in a volatile situation. We are predominantly a white nation surrounded by Asian nations. We have a small population but a lot of land. Asia has a lot of people and not enough land.


Please do not insert racism into this thread. We should forge ties with our neighbours, not view them as a continual threat.

Let us not be fooled by people who suggest that because we were wrong about WMD we must pull out from Iraq. Should we leave now - that is the coalition and not just Australia - Iraq would plunge into chaos. The Shi'ites, whom Saddam kept under his thumb represent 60% of the Iraqi population and have strong links to Iran. If Iraq and Iran were to join forces they would pose a considerable threat to world trade and the security of the middle east. Democracy would be non-existent.


Of course we were wrong. And of course we should pull ot. It is, however, most refreshing to see a Conservative admit to an error.


On a further point, to suggest that Australia's presence in Iraq is tokenism and "symbolic" as Mark Latham claimed is a show of great ignorance.
Perhaps people like Smeagol need to do some research on Australia's Armed Forces.

Like Mark Latham, Smeagol-Gollum has a lot to learn about Australia's increasing role in global affairs


Look at the numbers of troops involved. Of course it is tokenism.

And lets not make it personal, eh?

When the token Spanish forces moved out, the situation didn't collapse, why would it if Australia's did?

Is "our increasing role in global affairs" to be merely the deputy sherrif to the US? Or should we pursue an independent foreign policy, catering to our own interests?

Fortunately, the Australian people will have their chance to speak on this in the not too distant future.

I hate the people that say the if we leave Iraq now that we'll be leaving them in a 'civil war'. Did they have a civil war BEFORE the coalition entered? NO.
Therefore, as laws of logic would have it, the COALITION caused the 'civil war', which is in fact everyone trying to kill the coalition. There aren't Iraq-ise (I no sure what they called) killing other iraq-ise.
Its Iraq's killing Coalitions and Vice Versa.

NOTHING CIVIL WAR-ish ABOUT IT.

1: It's not Civil war, it's an uprising.
2: It WOULD be Cvil war it they left, power vacuum bud.
civil war
n.
A war between factions or regions of the same country.

source - dictonary.com

I never said civil war was civil

there was not civil war before the coalition entered because Saddam had absolute power and executed anyone who would question him, the last 'election' in Iraq gave Saddam 100% of the votes, meaning the 'oppostion party' voted for him, do you see anything wrong with that, and 'iraq-ise' as we'll call them are being killed by the terrorists, anyone who support the US are being targeted, so hence few in Iraq-ise are going to publicly support the US

1. Terrorists will plan attacks against Australia regardless. Australians are not hated for being allies of the USA or for being in Iraq - but for being Christian and democratic (the very things these terrorist cowards are not and despise).


No, the Western Nations are not hated for being "Christian and democratic", but because those nations held the Arab nations as colonies for a long period, and their return is seen as attempt to re-impose that status. That, and the one-sided support for Israel.


2. Australia is in a volatile situation. We are predominantly a white nation surrounded by Asian nations. We have a small population but a lot of land. Asia has a lot of people and not enough land.


Please do not insert racism into this thread. We should forge ties with our neighbours, not view them as a continual threat.

Let us not be fooled by people who suggest that because we were wrong about WMD we must pull out from Iraq. Should we leave now - that is the coalition and not just Australia - Iraq would plunge into chaos. The Shi'ites, whom Saddam kept under his thumb represent 60% of the Iraqi population and have strong links to Iran. If Iraq and Iran were to join forces they would pose a considerable threat to world trade and the security of the middle east. Democracy would be non-existent.


Of course we were wrong. And of course we should pull ot. It is, however, most refreshing to see a Conservative admit to an error.


On a further point, to suggest that Australia's presence in Iraq is tokenism and "symbolic" as Mark Latham claimed is a show of great ignorance.
Perhaps people like Smeagol need to do some research on Australia's Armed Forces.

Like Mark Latham, Smeagol-Gollum has a lot to learn about Australia's increasing role in global affairs


Look at the numbers of troops involved. Of course it is tokenism.

And lets not make it personal, eh?

When the token Spanish forces moved out, the situation didn't collapse, why would it if Australia's did?

Is "our increasing role in global affairs" to be merely the deputy sherrif to the US? Or should we pursue an independent foreign policy, catering to our own interests?

Fortunately, the Australian people will have their chance to speak on this in the not too distant future.

1. Australia never occupied any foreign nations.
2. It isn't racism...


2. Australia is in a volatile situation. We are predominantly a white nation surrounded by Asian nations. We have a small population but a lot of land. Asia has a lot of people and not enough land.


It is a fact. You have tried to label me racist on 3 occassions now because I point the obvious out. You would then deny the following:

(a) Australia is predominantly a white nation (94% - Encarta 2002 encyclopaedia)
(b) Australia is surrounded by Asian nations (please refer to your Atlas)
(c) Australia has a small population but a lot of land (20 million living on 7 million square miles I believe - a continent to ourselves)
(d) Asia has a lot of people and not enough land (on one continent, 50% of the world population lives)

Please do not play the racist card. I have provided facts - geographical and economic. You seem to think Australia should befriend nations whose leaders only recently demanded the following:

1. East Timor and PNG
2. That Australia becomne 50% Asian before being accepted into ASEAN

Who is the racist now? I would say the leader of Singapore for one. Perhaps also the former leader of Malaysia. I think you need to do some reading before making wild accusations without a shred of proof.

Had you read my post in full then you would realise that Australia's presence is not mere tokenism. Demeaning men and women who serve this nation is perhaps the lowest thing one could do (surpassed only by rape and murder). I doubt the 850 men and women serving in Iraq would consider their role as "token".

When some of the Spanish forces left...some are still there (basically those part of the reconstruction effort) I should add...islamic terrorists then planned another bombing in Madrid. Fortunately the plot was uncovered and the terrorists were killed in an attack on their HQ. It would clearly appear that nations are not safe from terrorism whether they support the US or not.

You mention an independent foreign policy. Well had you read my post then you will realise that our foreign policy lies with the USA.

Several posts now you have urged a union between Australia and Asia. I am beginning to believe your motives are not policy minded but personal. Your argument is based on emotion (from what you have written) rather than economic, political or cultural.

When I suggest you read up some more on this issue it is not a personal attack but advice. Your grasp of issues of Australia's place in the world is limited.

Deleted by Benicius DP

Deleted by Benicius DP

Deleted by Benicius DP

Look at the numbers of troops involved. Of course it is tokenism.

When the token Spanish forces moved out, the situation didn't collapse, why would it if Australia's did?

Is "our increasing role in global affairs" to be merely the deputy sherrif to the US? Or should we pursue an independent foreign policy, catering to our own interests?


Our forces are a token force because there are few of them, but as a percentage of our armed forces its a reasonable force, I would totally be against increasing our forces but I think we should do our part to atleast attempt to help the middle east achieive stablity no matter how small our contribution, its the moral thing to do

true, our token force is really not going to have a large impact, the problem with your theory is that the most ruthless warlord will take power, and nothing would have been acomplished, lives lost for nothing, I believe Iraq will be unstable for awhile to come, but I do believe it to be for a greater good in the long run to have international forces there, the UN should be incontrol instead of America but as they are not it shows the incompetence of the UN

The UN was sidelined by the US.

Now, it seems that they are keen to get it back "onside" and involved in Iraq.

The present incompetence in Iraq, IMHO, seems to be in relation to air strikes on civilians and mistreatment of prisoners, many of whom are apparently "rounded up" on the slightest suspicion.

I really do not think that Australia should be associated with this incompotence.

almost missed this one,

true the US sidelined the UN, the UN showed no spine, they should be there, they showed no spine when Saddam ordered the weapons inspectors out of the country.

you all condemn the US for going in where as I condemn the UN for not going in

The only reason i'd go to australia is for the beer. But I don't even need to do that now, thanks to the fact it's all imported.
I heard kangaroo steaks & burgers are pretty good, too. Can't get 'em at Whole Foods :wink:


No one eats Kangaroo/Emu/Croc here and very few people sell them. They only sell them to lure in tourist who think that eating them makes them more Australian.

i disagree with that. i for one eat kangaroo quite a lot (or used to) you can get it at like coles ithink. i know you can get it at foodland in SA. id give the others a whirl too, but i dont know where to get them from. mmmmmm. emu drum stick

ps, if anyone dosnt know its pronounced eem-you

The only reason i'd go to australia is for the beer. But I don't even need to do that now, thanks to the fact it's all imported.
I heard kangaroo steaks & burgers are pretty good, too. Can't get 'em at Whole Foods :wink:


No one eats Kangaroo/Emu/Croc here and very few people sell them. They only sell them to lure in tourist who think that eating them makes them more Australian.

i disagree with that. i for one eat kangaroo quite a lot (or used to) you can get it at like coles ithink. i know you can get it at foodland in SA. id give the others a whirl too, but i dont know where to get them from. mmmmmm. emu drum stick

ps, if anyone dosnt know its pronounced eem-you

true i have tasted Kangaroo, it tastes similar to beef but smells differently

Hardly surprising since An overwhelming Majority of Australians never supported it in the first place.

Few people support war. Fewer still understand the necessity of going to war in certain instances. Most people cannot see beyond the face value. They do not see the consequences of leaving things be. Most people see what the media wants them to see. This makes it difficult to gain popular support for taking out a mass murderer thousands of miles away and installing democracy in a country which few people know much or care about.

Most people do not think beyond the front gate.


America installed saddam in the first place

kangaroo meat is also extremely good for you. it has almost a nil fat content. also, in some parts of australia they are in plague proportions, yet its illegal to shoo them with out a culling license that at the same time means you have to destroy the body. i say package the bastards. :)

Let's hope we can send Johnny Howard home by Christmas.

DP

Hardly surprising since An overwhelming Majority of Australians never supported it in the first place.

Few people support war. Fewer still understand the necessity of going to war in certain instances. Most people cannot see beyond the face value. They do not see the consequences of leaving things be. Most people see what the media wants them to see. This makes it difficult to gain popular support for taking out a mass murderer thousands of miles away and installing democracy in a country which few people know much or care about.

Most people do not think beyond the front gate.


America installed saddam in the first place

And Iraq is hardly on our front gate.
And was never a threat to us, and seemingly, a little threat to anyone else considering the way their military collapsed when invaded.
Unfortunately, Al Qaeda is now reprotedly gaining strength from the Iraq situation. Terrorism is not being defeated by the invasion of Iraq, but enhanced.
A previous American election coined the phrase "it's the economy, stupid".
The next one in both Australia and the US should be "its the terrorists stupid".
I want to see terrorism defeated.
I do not believe that is happening at the moment.

Hardly surprising since An overwhelming Majority of Australians never supported it in the first place.

Few people support war. Fewer still understand the necessity of going to war in certain instances. Most people cannot see beyond the face value. They do not see the consequences of leaving things be. Most people see what the media wants them to see. This makes it difficult to gain popular support for taking out a mass murderer thousands of miles away and installing democracy in a country which few people know much or care about.

Most people do not think beyond the front gate.


America installed saddam in the first place

And Iraq is hardly on our front gate.
And was never a threat to us, and seemingly, a little threat to anyone else considering the way their military collapsed when invaded.
Unfortunately, Al Qaeda is now reprotedly gaining strength from the Iraq situation. Terrorism is not being defeated by the invasion of Iraq, but enhanced.
A previous American election coined the phrase "it's the economy, stupid".
The next one in both Australia and the US should be "its the terrorists stupid".
I want to see terrorism defeated.
I do not believe that is happening at the moment.

Al Qaeda would like people to think they are gaining strength. For every country which opposes terrorism there is one less place of safety for Osama and his henchmen.

Terrorism will never be defeated. But we can weaken terrorist cells significantly by depriving them of safe havens and finances. Seizing assets linked to terror cells is also vital.

Australia is influenced by many nations - including Iraq. Say Iran and a Shi'ite led Iraq decided to block world oil supplies by barricading the Strait of Hormuz or threatening shipping lanes entering the Gulf (easily done) - world oil prices would soar well into $85 US + a barrel.

I can see the price hikes at the pumps already.

Iraq under Saddam was a threat because there is no doubt he was harbouring terrorist and more than likely funding terror cells which sought to cause havoc against the West. If you think Saddam wasn't upset by the Gulf War and didn't want revenge then think again.

Besides...

Smeagol...you're for civil rights and world peace right?

If so you should support the coalition - not defy it. Under regimes like Saddam, women have absolutely no rights and hundreds of thousands of people were ethnically cleansed e.g. Kurds.

By not supporting western interference in such barbarity you are virtually supporting people like Saddam Hussein.

Before you go "super-n00ba" on me over that (with references to Bush's "you're either with us or against us") consider the reality of the situation.

If you don't support the coalition's original motives that is fine. But at least support the coalition which is helping democratise one of the most opressed nations on Earth. True, the process is slow, so give it time.

Do not turn your back on innocent men, women and children who suffered under the thumb of Saddam.

Hardly surprising since An overwhelming Majority of Australians never supported it in the first place.

Few people support war. Fewer still understand the necessity of going to war in certain instances. Most people cannot see beyond the face value. They do not see the consequences of leaving things be. Most people see what the media wants them to see. This makes it difficult to gain popular support for taking out a mass murderer thousands of miles away and installing democracy in a country which few people know much or care about.

Most people do not think beyond the front gate.


America installed saddam in the first place


No we didn't you jackass. :roll:

Hardly surprising since An overwhelming Majority of Australians never supported it in the first place.

Few people support war. Fewer still understand the necessity of going to war in certain instances. Most people cannot see beyond the face value. They do not see the consequences of leaving things be. Most people see what the media wants them to see. This makes it difficult to gain popular support for taking out a mass murderer thousands of miles away and installing democracy in a country which few people know much or care about.

Most people do not think beyond the front gate.


America installed saddam in the first place

And Iraq is hardly on our front gate.
And was never a threat to us, and seemingly, a little threat to anyone else considering the way their military collapsed when invaded.
Unfortunately, Al Qaeda is now reprotedly gaining strength from the Iraq situation. Terrorism is not being defeated by the invasion of Iraq, but enhanced.
A previous American election coined the phrase "it's the economy, stupid".
The next one in both Australia and the US should be "its the terrorists stupid".
I want to see terrorism defeated.
I do not believe that is happening at the moment.

Al Qaeda would like people to think they are gaining strength. For every country which opposes terrorism there is one less place of safety for Osama and his henchmen.

Terrorism will never be defeated. But we can weaken terrorist cells significantly by depriving them of safe havens and finances. Seizing assets linked to terror cells is also vital.

Australia is influenced by many nations - including Iraq. Say Iran and a Shi'ite led Iraq decided to block world oil supplies by barricading the Strait of Hormuz or threatening shipping lanes entering the Gulf (easily done) - world oil prices would soar well into $85 US + a barrel.

I can see the price hikes at the pumps already.

Iraq under Saddam was a threat because there is no doubt he was harbouring terrorist and more than likely funding terror cells which sought to cause havoc against the West. If you think Saddam wasn't upset by the Gulf War and didn't want revenge then think again.

Besides...

Smeagol...you're for civil rights and world peace right?

If so you should support the coalition - not defy it. Under regimes like Saddam, women have absolutely no rights and hundreds of thousands of people were ethnically cleansed e.g. Kurds.

By not supporting western interference in such barbarity you are virtually supporting people like Saddam Hussein.

Before you go "super-n00ba" on me over that (with references to Bush's "you're either with us or against us") consider the reality of the situation.

If you don't support the coalition's original motives that is fine. But at least support the coalition which is helping democratise one of the most opressed nations on Earth. True, the process is slow, so give it time.

Do not turn your back on innocent men, women and children who suffered under the thumb of Saddam.

Great post.

Hardly surprising since An overwhelming Majority of Australians never supported it in the first place.

Few people support war. Fewer still understand the necessity of going to war in certain instances. Most people cannot see beyond the face value. They do not see the consequences of leaving things be. Most people see what the media wants them to see. This makes it difficult to gain popular support for taking out a mass murderer thousands of miles away and installing democracy in a country which few people know much or care about.

Most people do not think beyond the front gate.


America installed saddam in the first place

And Iraq is hardly on our front gate.
And was never a threat to us, and seemingly, a little threat to anyone else considering the way their military collapsed when invaded.
Unfortunately, Al Qaeda is now reprotedly gaining strength from the Iraq situation. Terrorism is not being defeated by the invasion of Iraq, but enhanced.
A previous American election coined the phrase "it's the economy, stupid".
The next one in both Australia and the US should be "its the terrorists stupid".
I want to see terrorism defeated.
I do not believe that is happening at the moment.

Al Qaeda would like people to think they are gaining strength. For every country which opposes terrorism there is one less place of safety for Osama and his henchmen.

Terrorism will never be defeated. But we can weaken terrorist cells significantly by depriving them of safe havens and finances. Seizing assets linked to terror cells is also vital.

Australia is influenced by many nations - including Iraq. Say Iran and a Shi'ite led Iraq decided to block world oil supplies by barricading the Strait of Hormuz or threatening shipping lanes entering the Gulf (easily done) - world oil prices would soar well into $85 US + a barrel.

I can see the price hikes at the pumps already.

Iraq under Saddam was a threat because there is no doubt he was harbouring terrorist and more than likely funding terror cells which sought to cause havoc against the West. If you think Saddam wasn't upset by the Gulf War and didn't want revenge then think again.

Besides...

Smeagol...you're for civil rights and world peace right?

If so you should support the coalition - not defy it. Under regimes like Saddam, women have absolutely no rights and hundreds of thousands of people were ethnically cleansed e.g. Kurds.

By not supporting western interference in such barbarity you are virtually supporting people like Saddam Hussein.

Before you go "super-n00ba" on me over that (with references to Bush's "you're either with us or against us") consider the reality of the situation.

If you don't support the coalition's original motives that is fine. But at least support the coalition which is helping democratise one of the most opressed nations on Earth. True, the process is slow, so give it time.

Do not turn your back on innocent men, women and children who suffered under the thumb of Saddam.

We went to war on a lie regarding WMDs.
It was never about Saddam's regime, which had been supported by the US as a foil against Iran.
Al Qaeda had been supported as a foil against the Russians in Afghanistan.
Its a simple case of "Curses! foiled again". :lol:
Obviously, the US does not always act in its own long term best interest.
I believe it is not doing so now.
And I do not want the Australian troops being associated with some of the actions being reported in connection with US and British troops. Yes, I know its a minority and that they are being dealt with, but I doubt that that is the message being seen by the Islamic nations.
Oil? The price has skyrocketed since the invasion.
Kindly do not accuse me of supporting Saddam Hussein - that has become the familiar fall-back position of the conservatives who merely wish us to forget the lies ("incorrect intelligence" as a poor excuse) which led to the war.
Remember who actually supported both Saddam and Hussein for so long.
In any case, the polls in Australia support both of my assertions re Howard's popularity (or lack thereof) and the lack of support for the Iraq war.
Send little Johnny home by Christmas! :lol:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

kangaroo meat is also extremely good for you. it has almost a nil fat content. also, in some parts of australia they are in plague proportions, yet its illegal to shoo them with out a culling license that at the same time means you have to destroy the body. i say package the bastards. :)
Brilliant! :lol:
In a bid to placate Indonesia and keep that Fearsome Indonesian Invasion Force (hats off to "Pheonix" for coming up with this bizarre threat to Australia's security) at bay, I say pack 'em up and ship 'em north at bargain prices! Halal kangaroo... mmm... :wink:

Most countries have few [troops in Iraq] from what I gather. It seems more like a gesture than anything...
Australia is only in it, because if we weren't, then america wouldn't give us support in a time of need.

America installed saddam in the first place
No we didn't you jackass
Yeah, you did actually.

Most countries have few [troops in Iraq] from what I gather. It seems more like a gesture than anything...
Australia is only in it, because if we weren't, then america wouldn't give us support in a time of need.

America installed saddam in the first place
No we didn't you jackass
Yeah, you did actually.


We did not install Saddam, who lied to you?

In a bid to placate Indonesia and keep that Fearsome Indonesian Invasion Force (hats off to "Pheonix" for coming up with this bizarre threat to Australia's security) at bay, I say pack 'em up and ship 'em north at bargain prices! Halal kangaroo... mmm... :wink:

2004 population of Indonesia - 227,000,000
2050 population of Indonesia - 337,000,000

2004 population of Australia - 20,000,000
2050 population of Australia - 23,000,000

[both based on nett increase]

Indonesia's land mass - 735,310 square miles

Australia's land mass - 2,966,200 square miles

It doesn't take a genius to see what is going to happen :roll:

In any case, the polls in Australia support both of my assertions re Howard's popularity (or lack thereof) and the lack of support for the Iraq war.
Send little Johnny home by Christmas! :lol:

Yes, most Australians do not support the war in Iraq.

However, 61% polled said they support keeping our 850 personnel in Iraq "until the job is done".

Since the "job" will not be done until 2005-06, you're getting a lump of coal this year Smeagol.

Our beaches and surfing is a hell of a lot better than Canada.

:lol:

Damn you aren't kidding, the Gold Coast is one of the greatest places I've ever been... now I'm missing Australia again, I wonder if there are any advertising agencies hiring out there. ;)

(Oh yeah, and Kangaroo does rock!)

I also notice how Smeagol avoids the issue of 300,000 dead Kurds and the oppression of women under regimes like Saddams.

Seems Smeagol, like the UN and the rest of the world's "do-gooders" are happy to sit by and let innocent people suffer human rights abuses under tyrannical regimes and die in the name of racial and religious purity.

Of course this appears to matter not...as Smeagol says...bring the troops home because a handful of rogue yankie troops decided to act out some sick fantasies on Iraqi POW's.

Because a handful of soldiers have abused their duties in Iraq, we therefore (according to Smeagol) should pull out and allow a pro-Irani dictatorship emerge.

I wonder...

Smeagol you aren't related to Neville Chamberlain by any chance?

I also notice how Smeagol avoids the issue of 300,000 dead Kurds and the oppression of women under regimes like Saddams.

Seems Smeagol, like the UN and the rest of the world's "do-gooders" are happy to sit by and let innocent people suffer human rights abuses under tyrannical regimes and die in the name of racial and religious purity.

Of course this appears to matter not...as Smeagol says...bring the troops home because a handful of rogue yankie troops decided to act out some sick fantasies on Iraqi POW's.

Because a handful of soldiers have abused their duties in Iraq, we therefore (according to Smeagol) should pull out and allow a pro-Irani dictatorship emerge.

I wonder...

Smeagol you aren't related to Neville Chamberlain by any chance?


Preach man!

I just find it appalling how left leaning, champagne socialists can turn a blind eye to suffering under murderous regimes yet jump up and down screaming "bloody murder" when the USA and other Western powers intervene!

It is a crazy, crazy world :shock:

I just find it appalling how left leaning, champagne socialists can turn a blind eye to suffering under murderous regimes yet jump up and down screaming "bloody murder" when the USA and other Western powers intervene!

It is a crazy, crazy world :shock:


They are hypocrites, you are a smart man.

I just find it appalling how left leaning, champagne socialists can turn a blind eye to suffering under murderous regimes yet jump up and down screaming "bloody murder" when the USA and other Western powers intervene!

It is a crazy, crazy world :shock:


They are hypocrites, you are a smart man.

:oops: :oops: :oops: No, just a realist.

I also notice how Smeagol avoids the issue of 300,000 dead Kurds and the oppression of women under regimes like Saddams.
Allow me. :D

You led the rest of the world in selling him the stuff to do it. :D

And blocked a Pakistani attempt at getting a UN Resolution passed condemning it. :D

And now you will attempt to dodge the issue. :D

A bit late to discover morality. :wink:

I also notice how Smeagol avoids the issue of 300,000 dead Kurds and the oppression of women under regimes like Saddams.
Allow me. :D

You led the rest of the world in selling him the stuff to do it. :D

And blocked a Pakistani attempt at getting a UN Resolution passed condemning it. :D

And now you will attempt to dodge the issue. :D

A bit late to discover morality. :wink:

I am not the American government...lol TG you write as if I am the Almighty Chimp himself!

What I am saying is that while the coalition may have gone into Iraq under a rather shaky pretext, but at least has put an end to Saddam's murderous regime. I acknowledge that conservative politicians have ignored the plight of many peoples as well.

However...

Conservatives are not well known for standing up for poverty striken people. In fact one might say conservative politics plays a major role in keeping certain groups poor. That much I will acknowledge.

Many socialist minded people however make a big deal out of Third World debt, poverty and inequality. Left leaning political organisations and parties make a habit of preaching about civil liberties etc, but let men like Saddam Hussein do as he pleases.

It is hypocrisy.

While conservatives have done no better at removing tyrannical leaders and regimes in the past and even now, at least men like Bush do not run around saying how much they care for hard-done-by peoples and believe in equality for all etc etc etc.

Unlike some others....<glares at Smeagol>