NationStates Jolt Archive

TVNZ news has just reported that a bomb blast outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta has killed 3 people!

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/446811%3fformat=html

Yeah just heard about it on a news update.

Will Australians allow al-Qaeda to decide their election, like the Spanish?

Hell no Pan-Arab Israel, all it will do is strengthen the Governments position on anti-terrorist measures, and possibly dampen our relations with Indonesia.

Hell no Pan-Arab Israel, all it will do is strengthen the Governments position on anti-terrorist measures, and possibly dampen our relations with Indonesia.

Indeed. Appeasement never works.

Indeed. Appeasement never works.

are you sure? appeasement certainly doesn't always work. it may not usually work. but never, i strongly doubt that.

Indeed. Appeasement never works.

But provocation does? :rolleyes:

and appeasement of whom, the aussies are generally good junior partners of great britian in its appeasement of the united states.

I should send you $1 through Paypal so you can buy yourself a clue.

Indeed. Appeasement never works.
and appeasement of whom, the aussies are generally good junior partners of great britian in its appeasement of the united states.

But provocation does? :rolleyes:

The Islamofascists certainly think so.

I should send you $1 through Paypal so you can buy yourself a clue.
is that how much you paid for yours, did it come complete with prechewed thouights and annoying platitudes, and ill conceived propaganda presented as truth?

is that how much you paid for yours, did it come complete with prechewed thouights and annoying platitudes, and ill conceived propaganda presented as truth?

Wait, before I send you a dollar you must promise you'll stop smoking weed and move out of your parents' basement.

are you sure? appeasement certainly doesn't always work. it may not usually work. but never, i strongly doubt that.

Quoting Neville Chamberlain is not recommended.

Hillbilly assholes always gotta start a flame war.

The Islamofascists certainly think so.

and the national socialist zionists obviously don't.

and the national socialist zionists obviously don't.
Correct. The Jews learnt the hard way that being scattered across multiple nations, being weak and harmless, was the most effective way to become the target of persecution.

Still, if we're horrified by random carnage and destruction, rather than worrying about these attacks, maybe our primary concern should be the 1000 odd Aussies killed in car accidents every year...

Wait, before I send you a dollar you must promise you'll stop smoking weed and move out of your parents' basement.
do you just cut and paste this crap out of some sort of flaming for beginners site.

do you just cut and paste this crap out of some sort of flaming for beginners site.

School of slashdot.

FYI, anyone who thinks Britain and Australia are "appeasing" the US isn't worth debating.

Quoting Neville Chamberlain is not recommended.
nor is extrapolating universal truths from a single historical example.

and as far as i know, no one has quoted him on this thread, i certainly haven't.

apppeasment does not work.chamberlain prooved that 1938 in munich

School of slashdot.

FYI, anyone who thinks Britain and Australia are "appeasing" the US isn't worth debating.

Is that because you cannot provide a valid counter-arguement?
I assume you will pretty much dismiss anything that doesn't cater to your religious and nationalist pride?

i think britain is crawling in the a.. of america.it has always done so

Is that because you cannot provide a valid counter-arguement?
I assume you will pretty much dismiss anything that doesn't cater to your religious and nationalist pride?

Here's a counter-argument for you: Britain, Australia and America have been loyal allies for the past century and do not need to do each other favors.

I'm agnostic, I'm not white and I'm not American. Sorry to ruin your stereotypical conservative... are you still going to hold two minute hate sessions?

School of slashdot.

FYI, anyone who thinks Britain and Australia are "appeasing" the US isn't worth debating.
well that's probably for the best, since you have shown no skill at it thus far. just some mindless cliches, some second rate flaming, and then a cowards retreat into isolation against views different than your own. you really shouldn't try to debate me, you obviously aren't up to the intellectual challenge of defending the platitudes you mouth, or the party line you spout.

apppeasment does not work.chamberlain prooved that 1938 in munich
no he proved appeasement didn't work in relation to germany in 1938, that is a specific case, it doesn't necessarily establish a general rule.

no he proved appeasement didn't work in relation to germany in 1938, that is a specific case, it doesn't necessarily establish a general rule.
I think we can safely assume that appeasement will never work with leaders/nations that advocate world conquest. Hitler and the Islamic jihadists fit under this description.

no he proved appeasement didn't work in relation to germany in 1938, that is a specific case, it doesn't necessarily establish a general rule.

How about Roosevelt accepting Stalin's promise that he will demobilize the Red Army after WWII and return those troops to Soviet territory? Instead he used them to set up Soviet dictatorships all over Eastern Europe.

FDR should have listened to Churchill.

Here's a counter-argument for you: Britain, Australia and America have been loyal allies for the past century and do not need to do each other favors.

I'm agnostic, I'm not white and I'm not American. Sorry to ruin your stereotypical conservative... are you still going to hold two minute hate sessions?
loyal allies, hmmm. if they are always loyal allies does that really mean that they always have the exact same interests. or does it mean that the junior partners in the alliance bow to the will of the senior partner inorder to maintain its favor, in essence appeasing it even when their own populations and common sense tell them that the giant is stomping off down the wrong path.

loyal allies, hmmm. if they are always loyal allies does that really mean that they always have the exact same interests. or does it mean that the junior partners in the alliance bow to the will of the senior partner inorder to maintain its favor, in essence appeasing it even when their own populations and common sense tell them that the giant is stomping off down the wrong path.

Last I checked, Britain and Australia are democracies and their governments are subject to the ballot box. If the people are truly against this alliance they can always vote against the opposition party.

If John Howard and Tony Blair keep their positions, it is proof that the so-called "will of the people", or "international opinion", or whatever term leftists use to disguise their extremist agenda is total bullshit.

I just hope the Australians aren't as cowardly as the Spanish.

I think we can safely assume that appeasement will never work with leaders/nations that advocate world conquest. Hitler and the Islamic jihadists fit under this description.

well i suppose, if you can establish your enemy is really bent on world conquest, and its not just jingoistic hyperbole, then appeasement is unlikely to work. are you really sure jihadiis are bent on world conquest, and not just islamic moral transformation and self rule?

How about Roosevelt accepting Stalin's promise that he will demobilize the Red Army after WWII and return those troops to Soviet territory? Instead he used them to set up Soviet dictatorships all over Eastern Europe.

FDR should have listened to Churchill.

that may have been a tactical blunder on fdr's part, it wasn't appeasement. he didn't give stalin easterrn europe, stalin already had it.

well i suppose, if you can establish your enemy is really bent on world conquest, and its not just jingoistic hyperbole, then appeasement is unlikely to work. are you really sure jihadiis are bent on world conquest, and not just islamic moral transformation and self rule?

Moral transformation? Does that include killing schoolchildren?

that may have been a tactical blunder on fdr's part, it wasn't appeasement. he didn't give stalin easterrn europe, stalin already had it.

So you consider the Hitler-Stalin pact legitimate?

Last I checked, Britain and Australia are democracies and their governments are subject to the ballot box. If the people are truly against this alliance they can always vote against the opposition party.

If John Howard and Tony Blair keep their positions, it is proof that the so-called "will of the people", or "international opinion", or whatever term leftists use to disguise their extremist agenda is total bullshit.

I just hope the Australians aren't as cowardly as the Spanish.

you claim democracy as proof that britian and australia are truly for the war, even though neither has had a national election since the war. but then you attack the one nation that did have one and the people voted to pull out, that is the height of hypocrasy.

well i suppose, if you can establish your enemy is really bent on world conquest, and its not just jingoistic hyperbole, then appeasement is unlikely to work. are you really sure jihadiis are bent on world conquest, and not just islamic moral transformation and self rule?
Yes, as there are groups in England seeking to make northern Europe a Muslim caliphate and of course the Madrid bombers called for the reconquest of Spain which may at first glance seem ridiculous but is becomes highly realistic considering the singlemindedness of al Qaeda and the booming Muslim population in Spain. Most modern Muslims, like Nazis, believe they are inherently better than everyone else and therefore should have exceptions made for them. That is why wherever Muslims move (and they are moving around a lot these days, and out-breeding non-Muslims) they often segregate themselves and build mistrust between themselves and the majority. You see it everywhere from India to the Phillippines to Europe to Russia and China. They want self rule not only in lands held by Islam for centuries, but also they are imposing their ways on their recently acquired lebensraum.

you claim democracy as proof that britian and australia are truly for the war, even though neither has had a national election since the war. but then you attack the one nation that did have one and the people voted to pull out, that is the height of hypocrasy.

Polls showed Aznar leading his opponent until the terrorist attacks in Madrid; it is common agreement that the Spanish electorate bowed to the al-Qaeda and swung the election against the ruling party.

As for the Australian election, we will see the true opinion of the people soon.

Last I checked, Britain and Australia are democracies and their governments are subject to the ballot box. If the people are truly against this alliance they can always vote against the opposition party.

If John Howard and Tony Blair keep their positions, it is proof that the so-called "will of the people", or "international opinion", or whatever term leftists use to disguise their extremist agenda is total bullshit.

I just hope the Australians aren't as cowardly as the Spanish.

Different situation. Three people killed overseas in a lot different to losing hundreds in your capital. And this attack is pretty minor copared to Bali.

On the 'crawling to the US' charge, it's worth noting that we dragged the US into Vietnam, not the other way around, and went into Korea before Britain did. Calling us gung-ho psychotics would be a charge worth answering, but accusing OZ of pandering to nations we routinely ignore or tell to get stuffed is a bit of a joke.

So you consider the Hitler-Stalin pact legitimate?
the hitler-stalin pact was negated by the years of fighting during world war 2, stalin didn't control eastern europe after the war because he agreed with hitler to split it, he held that territory because the red army had taken it from hitler, and done the bulk of the ground fighting against hitler in the war.

the hitler-stalin pact was negated by the years of fighting during world war 2, stalin didn't control eastern europe after the war because he agreed with hitler to split it, he held that territory because the red army had taken it from hitler, and done the bulk of the ground fighting against hitler in the war.

Then why did Stalin promise Roosevelt in Tehran and other summits that he would leave Eastern Europe once Germany was defeated?

Nonetheless, you seem to support the fact that those Eastern European nations, all neutral or against Hitler before World War II, lost their right to exist simply because they lay in the shortest path from Russia (a friend of the Nazis until 1941) to Germany.

Moral transformation? Does that include killing schoolchildren?
yup, unfortunately it almost always does. i'm betting the russkies have killed more chechen babies than the other way around, as have isreal and the united states. the muslims just don't hide their butchery behind high altitude bombardment, and hellfire missle strikes and tank fire. if their gonna kill your kids the walk right on up and give them a big hug.

yup, unfortunately it almost always does. i'm betting the russkies have killed more chechen babies than the other way around, as have isreal and the united states. the muslims just don't hide their butchery behind high altitude bombardment, and hellfire missle strikes and tank fire. if their gonna kill your kids the walk right on up and give them a big hug.

If we are such butchers, where is the evidence? Just because you see some dirty raghead whine on al-bibicya about Israeli atrocities, or worse yet, al-Jazeera faking atrocities, doesn't mean those accusations are true.

On the other hand, I see evidence against Islamic barbarism all over the gym floor of School Number 1 in Beslan.

Yes, as there are groups in England seeking to make northern Europe a Muslim caliphate and of course the Madrid bombers called for the reconquest of Spain which may at first glance seem ridiculous but is becomes highly realistic considering the singlemindedness of al Qaeda and the booming Muslim population in Spain. Most modern Muslims, like Nazis, believe they are inherently better than everyone else and therefore should have exceptions made for them. That is why wherever Muslims move (and they are moving around a lot these days, and out-breeding non-Muslims) they often segregate themselves and build mistrust between themselves and the majority. You see it everywhere from India to the Phillippines to Europe to Russia and China. They want self rule not only in lands held by Islam for centuries, but also they are imposing their ways on their recently acquired lebensraum.
Interesting take on the world. This if true would be a good argument for keeping the Church and state closely linked. As in the UK the head of state is the head of the Christian (C of E ) church. And what is so wrong with a christian state? There are plenty of Muslim states out there. The only difference appears to be the UK is more accepting of other religions within it's bounds.

i really don't believe that is common agreement. the people may have just gotten sick of the governments lies and incompetent handling of the bombing as well its unpopular decision to join the coallition of the quislings and decided they had had enough. if the government hadn't lied about and attempted to cover up the truth about the bombings they might have been able to play a national pride card and won and been allowed to continue in the crusades.

Then why was Aznar leading so far in the polls until the bombing? If the liberation of Iraq truly was the deciding issue against him, why didn't the polls reflect that?

Polls showed Aznar leading his opponent until the terrorist attacks in Madrid; it is common agreement that the Spanish electorate bowed to the al-Qaeda and swung the election against the ruling party.

As for the Australian election, we will see the true opinion of the people soon.
i really don't believe that is common agreement. the people may have just gotten sick of the governments lies and incompetent handling of the bombing as well its unpopular decision to join the coallition of the quislings and decided they had had enough. if the government hadn't lied about and attempted to cover up the truth about the bombings they might have been able to play a national pride card and won and been allowed to continue in the crusades.

If we are such butchers, where is the evidence? Just because you see some dirty raghead whine on al-bibicya about Israeli atrocities, or worse yet, al-Jazeera faking atrocities, doesn't mean those accusations are true.

On the other hand, I see evidence against Islamic barbarism all over the gym floor of School Number 1 in Beslan.
name one aljazeera faked atrocity.

ps. the dirty raghead line is letting your true colors fly buddy

Interesting take on the world. This if true would be a good argument for keeping the Church and state closely linked. As in the UK the head of state is the head of the Christian (C of E ) church. And what is so wrong with a christian state? There are plenty of Muslim states out there. The only difference appears to be the UK is more accepting of other religions within it's bounds.
I don't see how my view is either pro or anti separation of church and state. The European countries which have national churches all are highly tolerant while secular nations like India and US also tolerant thus proving both forms of government can be tolerant. People of different backgrounds should be able to live together peacefully regardless the government's religious affiliation or lack thereof. Whether or not Muslim nations become secular or religious really isn't important... in either case they should accept religious and ethnic minorities.

God, the complete innacuracy of information in this thread is staggering....

It must be nice to live in ignorance. I suggest every one here goes out and meets 5 Muslims, then watch your take on the world change dramatially.

Then why was Aznar leading so far in the polls until the bombing? If the liberation of Iraq truly was the deciding issue against him, why didn't the polls reflect that?

iraq probably wasn't the leading issue, but the bombings handling may have been what defeated his regime, not the bombing itself. the war was unpopular, it may just have not been that important personally to the voters.

name one aljazeera faked atrocity.

ps. the dirty raghead line is letting your true colors fly buddy

See http://memri.org/, it documents the true nature of the so-called "new Arab media".

Oh, so the fact that I might harbor some dislike for Muslims disqualify my arguments? Well no fucking shit they killed almost 3000 people in my city and I turn on the TV and I see all these muslims celebrating. Where the fuck are all these moderate muslims all the liberals always talk about?

God, the complete innacuracy of information in this thread is staggering....

It must be nice to live in ignorance. I suggest every one here goes out and meets 5 Muslims, then watch your take on the world change dramatially.
I know many Muslims who are tolerant, liberal people. But these are exceptions and there is no denying that modern Islamic society as a whole is reflexively fundamentalist and conservative. Just look at all the Muslim nations... most have restrictions against non-Muslims, backward views on womens rights, and explicitly claim inspiration from Islam, Koran, and/or Sharia.

God, the complete innacuracy of information in this thread is staggering....

It must be nice to live in ignorance. I suggest every one here goes out and meets 5 Muslims, then watch your take on the world change dramatially.

Does my boss count? He's Lebanese, and a patriotic Republican.

Then why did Stalin promise Roosevelt in Tehran and other summits that he would leave Eastern Europe once Germany was defeated? cuz he was a liar

Nonetheless, you seem to support the fact that those Eastern European nations, all neutral or against Hitler before World War II, lost their right to exist simply because they lay in the shortest path from Russia (a friend of the Nazis until 1941) to Germany.

nope, only that stalin already controlled them, and lied about leaving, being decieved isn't appeasement. its appeasement when you knowingly give your enemy something, not when he tricks you out of it.

nope, only that stalin already controlled them, and lied about leaving, being decieved isn't appeasement. its appeasement when you knowingly give your enemy something, not when he tricks you out of it.

FDR was advised not to trust Stalin but he did so anyway. Considering how his choice was either to trust him (translation: GIVE IT TO HIM) or put his foot down, I'd say FDR appeased Stalin.

I know many Muslims who are great people. But these are exceptions and there is no denying that modern Islamic society as a whole is reflexively fundamentalist and conservative. Just look at all the Muslim nations... most have restrictions against non-Muslims, backward views on womens rights, and explicitly claim inspiration from Islam, Koran, and/or Sharia.

Perhaps, but then again, most of the Western world is harboring a deep hate towards all muslims, which only amplifies the problem. And Dubya is often claiming inspiration from the Bible, or from God directly, what makes him so different?

And explain to me what you refer to as 'backward views on womens rights'?

Perhaps, but then again, most of the Western world is harboring a deep hate towards all muslims, which only amplifies the problem. And Dubya is often claiming inspiration from the Bible, or from God directly, what makes him so different?

And explain to me what you refer to as 'backward views on womens rights'?

So inspiration from the Bible is the same thing has a deep hate towards all muslims? How ignorant. And if the Western world was indeed harboring such a deep hatred towards muslims, there would have been much more brutal retribution for every terrorist attack muslims committed.

Seems to me Western liberal self-guilt only serves to blind you against the true nature of Islamofacism.

And if you don't know about Islam's repression of women, you really need to get out more.

Does my boss count? He's Lebanese, and a patriotic Republican.


do you call him a dirty rag head much?

do you call him a dirty rag head much?

Did I call him a raghead? He doesn't go ranting about fabricated atrocities on al-bibicya. He is one of the few muslims who condemn Islamist terrorism.

Besides, I'm pretty sure he showers regularly.

I think the bombing in Jakarta may have more to do with Australia's (mis)management of its relationship with Indonesia, than its involvement in the Iraqi war. Indoensians are actually a sedate and peaceful people. Its not a question of jihad in my opinion.

FDR was advised not to trust Stalin but he did so anyway. Considering how his choice was either to trust him (translation: GIVE IT TO HIM) or put his foot down, I'd say FDR appeased Stalin.
i think he was a sick and weary man at the time, whose judgement was going toward the end.

i think he was a sick and weary man at the time, whose judgement was going toward the end.

Whatever. He appeased Stalin, and it didn't work.

Here's another great case of appeasement turning sour: The Oslo Accords.

Perhaps, but then again, most of the Western world is harboring a deep hate towards all muslims, which only amplifies the problem. And Dubya is often claiming inspiration from the Bible, or from God directly, what makes him so different?
Where do you find that the west harbors a deep hate toward muslims? All socities not just the west are welcoming of Muslims. The main action by the west that amplifies the problem is support of Israel which I agree should be revised. Besides that, the west is highly indulgent of Muslims and Muslims living in Europe or the US have full rights and enjoy very comfortable lives. Too many Muslims living in the west however do not appreciate this and denounce western society and reject peaceable coexistence. Meanwhile minorities in Islam often face persecution and oppression. Bush may use some religious rhetoric but the American government as a whole is not based on religion... most of our laws and ways are derived from secular traditions, while most Muslim Constitutions explicitly say that their government springs forth from Islam and Islam only.


And explain to me what you refer to as 'backward views on womens rights'?
Islamic law sees women as inferior... Sharia law which is in effect in northern Nigeria, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, among other places states that womens' testimony in court is worth less than mens' testimony. Cultural prejudices and Sharia procedure also make it so it is extremly hard for a female rape victim to prove that she was raped. Many times rape victims are automatically dismissed as prostitutes and the rapist gets off easy. And there is widespread "honor killings" in which male family members hunt down and murder female relatives who are viewed as dishonorable for having premarital sex or getting raped. Men are rarely prosecuted or persecuted for sex crimes.

Pan_Arab -- do you see a difference between appeasement and compromise?

God, the complete innacuracy of information in this thread is staggering....

It must be nice to live in ignorance. I suggest every one here goes out and meets 5 Muslims, then watch your take on the world change dramatially.

So very true.

I can't wait to hear Ruddock, Bolt, Downer and Howard scream and cry about how we need to take an even tougher stance on the whole situation, and be the US's bitch even more, despite the fact that that is the cause of the problem

Howard in particular just doesn't get it: life is made much easier for groups like JI and Al queada when their enemies daemonize themselves in countries like Indonesia: In the case of Aus, we daemonize ourselves by appearing to be the puppet of the US, and take an ambivolent (at best) relationship with Indonesia

Attack the root of the problem, not the symptoms- strengthen the relationship between Indonesia and SE Asia: fuck worrying about America- they can look after themselves (economically and militarily), and it's a moot point as to whether there is any real politcal incentive for them to give a crap about us.

Pan_Arab -- do you see a difference between appeasement and compromise?

Appeasement ends up hurting yourself and most likely other people as well.

Appeasement ends up hurting yourself and most likely other people as well.

What would you consider 'appeasement' to a terrorist group?

You do realize that by your own definitions, the US should have gone straight into Cuba in 1962. You also realize that this option, as opposed to the 'appeasement' that the Kennedy's actually implemented, would most likely have lead to the third world war?

Appeasement is considered a dirty word, but it's thrown around too much, the word most people actually mean is compromise. And compromise is certainly not a bad thing if it prevents warfare and the perpetuation or escalation of a crisis.

So very true.

I can't wait to hear Ruddock, Bolt, Downer and Howard scream and cry about how we need to take an even tougher stance on the whole situation, and be the US's bitch even more, despite the fact that that is the cause of the problem

Howard in particular just doesn't get it: life is made much easier for groups like JI and Al queada when their enemies daemonize themselves in countries like Indonesia: In the case of Aus, we daemonize ourselves by appearing to be the puppet of the US, and take an ambivolent (at best) relationship with Indonesia

Attack the root of the problem, not the symptoms- strengthen the relationship between Indonesia and SE Asia: fuck worrying about America- they can look after themselves (economically and militarily), and it's a moot point as to whether there is any real politcal incentive for them to give a crap about us.

Appeasement.

Believing that standing with America against terrorism is the root cause for terrorist attacks against Australia is naive and dangerous. And abandoning a strong stance against terrorism won't guarantee safety against Islamic terrorists.

What would you consider 'appeasement' to a terrorist group?

You do realize that by your own definitions, the US should have gone straight into Cuba in 1962. You also realize that this option, as opposed to the 'appeasement' that the Kennedy's actually implemented, would most likely have lead to the third world war?

Appeasement is considered a dirty word, but it's thrown around too much, the word most people actually mean is compromise. And compromise is certainly not a bad thing if it prevents warfare and the perpetuation or escalation of a crisis.

You deal with the Soviet empire differently as you would with Islamic terrorists.

Appeasement is indeed a dirty word and should be carefully applied. But in light of current events, I'd say there is a whole lot of appeasement happening around the world today. Especially in Europe. ;)

I actually never said we should not show some solidarity with the US against terrorism, but Howard is taking it dangerously too far.

It's not the core root, that's clearly that we don't have strong enough relations with SE Asia (East Timor didn't help here), and the perception that we are nothing but US lapdogs doesn't help in a nation where there is a strong distrust of US intentions (attacking Muslim countries etc). We don't need to appease them as you seem to think I meant (based on what is beyond me), but certainly improve the relationships.

Hard-lining against terrorism (read: effectively attacking anyone with the remotest possible connections to groups that oppose us) never has, and most likely never will work. It simply helps support the terrorists view that their enemy really is an aggressive, irrational and dangerous entity

Besides, central to all of this is 'who do we consider a terrorist anyway'?

You deal with the Soviet empire differently as you would with Islamic terrorists.

Appeasement is indeed a dirty word and should be carefully applied. But in light of current events, I'd say there is a whole lot of appeasement happening around the world today. Especially in Europe. ;)

Thankyou, exactly. This is not the cold war, you can't just point to a country and say "they're terrorists (new version of communists), let's go get 'em". Bush should friggin realize this. As I said before, who the hell is a terrorist anyway? What's there motivation- the US supported the Mudjahadin in Afghanistan during the war against the USSR, and provided a small amount of support to Iraq during the war against Iran, and didn't even intervene when the insurgents looked like they might topple Saddam. Do we define the US as a terrorist nation and invade them?

Let me guess about the appeasment in Europe: the French and Germans not supporting the US against Iraq?

I actually never said we should not show some solidarity with the US against terrorism, but Howard is taking it dangerously too far.

It's not the core root, that's clearly that we don't have strong enough relations with SE Asia (East Timor didn't help here), and the perception that we are nothing but US lapdogs doesn't help in a nation where there is a strong distrust of US intentions (attacking Muslim countries etc). We don't need to appease them as you seem to think I meant (based on what is beyond me), but certainly improve the relationships.

Hard-lining against terrorism (read: effectively attacking anyone with the remotest possible connections to groups that oppose us) never has, and most likely never will work. It simply helps support the terrorists view that their enemy really is an aggressive, irrational and dangerous entity

Besides, central to all of this is 'who do we consider a terrorist anyway'?

The perception that Australia is an American lapdog is plainly absurd. Countering moronic rhetoric by abandoning one of your closest allies is at best pointless, at worst, terrorists will view that as weakness and increase their attacks.

I hope you realize that the mindset of the Islamofascist movement is differently from anything you can imagine. Hard-lining is the best and only way to crush them.

Here's a counter-argument for you: Britain, Australia and America have been loyal allies for the past century and do not need to do each other favors.

I'm agnostic, I'm not white and I'm not American. Sorry to ruin your stereotypical conservative... are you still going to hold two minute hate sessions?

You are a little wrong, Australian has only been such a strong ally of the US since after WWII, before then we were in GB back pocket but now the relationship we had with GB seems to have been transferred to the US.

I wonder if this will help or damage John Howard's election chances.

Half of what everyone has said on this thread is hardly related to the bombing at all.
I don't see why people are talking about Hitler and Stalin...guys, they are dead and buried...its got nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is ridiculous and a last resort,not calculated mass genocide as Stalin and Hitler were so talented at.
I purely resent the fact that people label terrorists as islamic just because thats the way our governments and the media have emphasised the perpetrators. I especially dislike the fact that some people on this thread are intent on knocking other people's view, due to their own political, racial and religious background.
What we really should be discussing is the poor people and the horrible after affects of terrorist attacks...i mean whats the point? why fire on an embassy? its unlikely that any major impact will occur on the country you are attacking...all they are doing is killing and injuring their own people.
Anyway thats just my opinion...make of it what you will

Thankyou, exactly. This is not the cold war, you can't just point to a country and say "they're terrorists (new version of communists), let's go get 'em". Bush should friggin realize this. As I said before, who the hell is a terrorist anyway? What's there motivation- the US supported the Mudjahadin in Afghanistan during the war against the USSR, and provided a small amount of support to Iraq during the war against Iran, and didn't even intervene when the insurgents looked like they might topple Saddam. Do we define the US as a terrorist nation and invade them?

Let me guess about the appeasment in Europe: the French and Germans not supporting the US against Iraq?

I don't recall any American president actually taking a stance that translates to "let's go get 'em". Bush (unlike Kerry) realizes the Cold War is over and knows that the terrorist threat requires different methods and tactics.

I don't see how anything you said can qualify the US as a terrorist nation, unless you take a Chomskian view of world events. In which case, I should stop talking to you, immediately.

What really amuses me about the Franco-German position is that their sole stated reason for standing against the liberation of Iraq is the preservation of their oil contracts with the Baathist government. Oil for blood indeed.

The perception that Australia is an American lapdog is plainly absurd. Countering moronic rhetoric by abandoning one of your closest allies is at best pointless, at worst, terrorists will view that as weakness and increase their attacks.

I hope you realize that the mindset of the Islamofascist movement is differently from anything you can imagine. Hard-lining is the best and only way to crush them.


1) Prime Minister's describing our role as America's "deputy" in the region, and our ridiculously similar foreign policies actually give a firm grounding for those who make be so cynical to think that maybe we actually are acting like their bitch ('...and for what end?' I might add)

2) Again, you misunderstand, I never said "abandon", but really, what has the US done for Australia in the region?? In the past ten years, in the past 20 even? We had the mess of East Timor right on our doorstep, and even the relatively compassionate Clinton was reluctant to get involved. Do not be so nieve as to actually beleive that the US relationship has had boundless benefits for Australia. New Zealand, by your logic, has 'abandoned' the US: have they had their embassy bombed?

3) So again, who is an "islamofacist". Please, spare me the bigotry I've seen you put down too ("rag-head" is one such example)

I don't recall any American president actually taking a stance that translates to "let's go get 'em". Bush (unlike Kerry) realizes the Cold War is over and knows that the terrorist threat requires different methods and tactics.

I don't see how anything you said can qualify the US as a terrorist nation, unless you take a Chomskian view of world events. In which case, I should stop talking to you, immediately.

What really amuses me about the Franco-German position is that their sole stated reason for standing against the liberation of Iraq is the preservation of their oil contracts with the Baathist government. Oil for blood indeed.

1) Actually here you are entirely wrong. Bush himself a few months ago describe the current situation as "our new Cold War" (quote). What has he done to try and 'defend' America against the terrorists? Attack two countries in two years. Result: massive loss of world-wide US support that occured in the post 9/11 environment, perception by so many that the US is an aggressor, and thus resulting that for some the extremist Islamic groups may actually be right: and so a source of terrorist sympathizers is created. Bush doesn't have a clue

2) If you don't see, then re-read my post. I'm not saying I believe they are, but I am also saying that by the logic used to 'justify' iraq, the US itself deserves an invasion. Btw, Chomsky is extremely difficult to disprove.

3) As opposed to the profits made by many members of the current administration (particularly CHeney) thanks to the war in Iraq? Sorry, but in this case, I'll be siding with the corruption that makes a profit from not going to war, as opposed to that which does by doing so. (that's really, really sick)

Originally Posted by Pan-Arab Israel
Moral transformation? Does that include killing schoolchildren?

Does Bush's "Democratic Transformation" of Iraq include the same?

1) Prime Minister's describing our role as America's "deputy" in the region, and our ridiculously similar foreign policies actually give a firm grounding for those who make be so cynical to think that maybe we actually are acting like their bitch ('...and for what end?' I might add)

2) Again, you misunderstand, I never said "abandon", but really, what has the US done for Australia in the region?? In the past ten years, in the past 20 even? We had the mess of East Timor right on our doorstep, and even the relatively compassionate Clinton was reluctant to get involved. Do not be so nieve as to actually beleive that the US relationship has had boundless benefits for Australia. New Zealand, by your logic, has 'abandoned' the US: have they had their embassy bombed?

3) So again, who is an "islamofacist". Please, spare me the bigotry I've seen you put down too ("rag-head" is one such example)

So who cares what they think? Fuck them. Howard's soundbite sounds absurd to root-cause fanatics but he has a point; Australia is the only nation in the region with the guts to stand against terrorists and the power to act militarily.

Howard believes in standing with America not for any economic benefits. It's the principle of standing against a movement that has vowed to destroy Western civilization. Too bad many people still don't take Islamic terrorism seriously.

An Islamofascist is basically a Islamic fundamentalist who believes in setting up a global Islamic theocracy so his raghead ass can enslave all the infidels and beat his four wives every day. And spare me the bigotry crap, I've put up with PC for 6 years and I'll call a spade a spade.

New Zealand, by your logic, has 'abandoned' the US: have they had their embassy bombed?

Actually, whilst NZ has opposed the war in Iraq (we more or less said we didn't think it was going to make the world a safer place), we are still quite active in the war on terror. NZ played, and is still playing, a large role in Afghanistan, we also worked with Australia in East Timor.

Though NZ has not been mentioned in any of Al-Qaeda’s tapes, it has already threatened ‘all nations’ involved in East Timor and the United State’s war on terror.

Obviously we are the last on their hit list – it’s clear they are going for the big ones like Australia and other countries which went into Iraq – we are, according to them, at war. As far as I’m concerned, all western nations are at war. Our embassy could be bombed yet.

1) Actually here you are entirely wrong. Bush himself a few months ago describe the current situation as "our new Cold War" (quote). What has he done to try and 'defend' America against the terrorists? Attack two countries in two years. Result: massive loss of world-wide US support that occured in the post 9/11 environment, perception by so many that the US is an aggressor, and thus resulting that for some the extremist Islamic groups may actually be right: and so a source of terrorist sympathizers is created. Bush doesn't have a clue

When I say Cold War, that is the "old" Cold War against the Soviets. I disagree with Bush because I believe this war against Islamic terrorism is a hot war. Either way, the (old) Cold War is over and his redeployment of forces reflects his understanding of the situation.

Let me repeat. FUCK WORLD OPINION. I'm not even American and I know full well that "world opinion" is irrelevant; basically a leftist propaganda tool.

If by attacking Islamic terrorists we cause more muslims to join the terrorist forces, so be it. Many terrorists believe in setting up a global Islamic empire; they don't need any excuse to commit atrocities.

2) If you don't see, then re-read my post. I'm not saying I believe they are, but I am also saying that by the logic used to 'justify' iraq, the US itself deserves an invasion. Btw, Chomsky is extremely difficult to disprove.

Check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/189355497X/qid=1094717878/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-5884532-0006222?v=glance&s=books&n=507846. Even renowned leftist historian Alan Dershowitz wrote a recommendation. Chomsky might be convincing, but under scrutiny his "research" simply falls apart.

3) As opposed to the profits made by many members of the current administration (particularly CHeney) thanks to the war in Iraq? Sorry, but in this case, I'll be siding with the corruption that makes a profit from not going to war, as opposed to that which does by doing so. (that's really, really sick)

I beg to differ. Propping up a murderous regime so you can make billions of dollars of profit from oil sales is disgusting. Removing that regime from power is not. The accusations of war profiteering by Haliburton are piss-poor and are generally made by people who have no fucking idea how a business is run. Would you invest in a venture that has no guarantee of success and a very high chance of turning a loss? Haliburton did. Hell, with the kind of overhead required to operate in Iraq Haliburton is still probably in the red.

By the way, I have to go to bed now because I work for an evil American corporation. We might even make a profit in Iraq someday... if they buy enough computers.

Originally Posted by Pan-Arab Israel


Does Bush's "Democratic Transformation" of Iraq include the same?

That doesn't even dignify a response. Get a clue kid.

When I say Cold War, that is the "old" Cold War against the Soviets. I disagree with Bush because I believe this war against Islamic terrorism is a hot war. Either way, the (old) Cold War is over and his redeployment of forces reflects his understanding of the situation.

Let me repeat. FUCK WORLD OPINION. I'm not even American and I know full well that "world opinion" is irrelevant; basically a leftist propaganda tool.

If by attacking Islamic terrorists we cause more muslims to join the terrorist forces, so be it. Many terrorists believe in setting up a global Islamic empire; they don't need any excuse to commit atrocities.

Perhaps Bush understands the tactical differences between the Cold War and the hot one (i.e redeployment), but so could blind Freddy, its clearly no longer in Europe. He does not understand the nature of the current, and this has been my whole point throughout this thread: who is a terrorist? You've said a Islamofascist: but again, how do we then work out who they are?. There is no such thing as a country which is completely 'terrorist', at best you've got countries which may or may not give enormous support those who have avowedly and openly professed a desire to, or carried out attacks against, another country (for example, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan hiding anti-US groups). The problem is however, that realistically, the Taliban was the only country which came even close to being a legitimate target under these circumstances. Except Saudi Arabia (17 of the 9/11 hijackers), but of course, the US has some serious economic interests in the country that it cannot afford to jeapordise, even to catch some 'terrorists'.


Check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/189355497X/qid=1094717878/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-5884532-0006222?v=glance&s=books&n=507846. Even renowned leftist historian Alan Dershowitz wrote a recommendation. Chomsky might be convincing, but under scrutiny his "research" simply falls apart..

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I intend to read as much of Chomsky as I can (trying to keep an open mind and all), but this seems like it must also be read to give the other side.


I beg to differ. Propping up a murderous regime so you can make billions of dollars of profit from oil sales is disgusting. Removing that regime from power is not. The accusations of war profiteering by Haliburton is piss-poor and are generally made by people who have no fucking idea how a business is run. Would you invest in a venture that has no guarantee of success and a very high chance of turning a loss? Hell, with the kind of overhead required operating in Iraq Haliburton is still probably in the red.
.

The US was happy to do just that in the 1980's (greatest hypocracy of all there).

IN any event: Removing that regime and replacing it with what? A completely unstable situation in which hundreds have already died. There is no guarantee that this replacement government will survive under the pressure, and even if the elections do materialize, most likely, the Shi'ite majority will vote for a religious leader (which has been a stabilizing factor in their recently unstable lives).

Could you please back up your arguement that Haliburton has not made a profit. Almost all of what I have seen shows the company to have made a net profit from the war, but in the interests of keeping an open mind, I'd like to see what you've got. Remember, before the war, most people knew quite well that the Iraqi military would fall. Many (Rumsfeld,Cheney, other neo-cons) beleived that post-war Iraq would be infinately nicer than the situation now is. At the time, I would say that the probablity of success would have looked very high for the company.

11 confirmed dead. How low have terrorists sunk. First killing children in Beslan, now they're attacking peaceful diplomats. Where will the madness end?

Actually, whilst NZ has opposed the war in Iraq (we more or less said we didn't think it was going to make the world a safer place), we are still quite active in the war on terror. NZ played, and is still playing, a large role in Afghanistan, we also worked with Australia in East Timor.

Though NZ has not been mentioned in any of Al-Qaeda’s tapes, it has already threatened ‘all nations’ involved in East Timor and the United State’s war on terror.

Obviously we are the last on their hit list – it’s clear they are going for the big ones like Australia and other countries which went into Iraq – we are, according to them, at war. As far as I’m concerned, all western nations are at war. Our embassy could be bombed yet.

There is the possibilty that NZ could be attacked, but realistically, and you even admitted ("we are the last on their hit list"), it's pretty low. The NZ stance has been a particularly sensible one: certainly deal with terrorists, with force if necessary, but misadventures like Iraq should be condemned. NZ also doesn't have to worry so much about the SE Asia region considering if nothign else, it isn't as geographically close and has Australia as a 'buffer' of sorts.

Lets all appease the muslim terrorists, after that they wont attack us anymore..

( we hope)

The Left.

Lets all appease the muslim terrorists, after that they wont attack us anymore..

( we hope)

The Left.

I'm right-wing and I hate Howard (he can do OK with the economy- barring FTA of course, but his foreign policy and many of his social policies are simply a disgrace to the term 'Liberal'). Don't generalize.

The alternative to 'appeasement' as you call it (erroneously) has already been proven to be the wrong way to go (Iraq, and even to an extent Afghanistan).

Besides, can no one answer my question; "who is a terrorist?". Methinks this is because the sad fact is, there is no real answer. Technically a terrorist is someone who uses terror for a politcal end. Thus the US's "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq could be seen as terrorism itself.

Christ, I'm going to need lots of coffee tomorrow...

Perhaps Bush understands the tactical differences between the Cold War and the hot one (i.e redeployment), but so could blind Freddy, its clearly no longer in Europe. He does not understand the nature of the current, and this has been my whole point throughout this thread: who is a terrorist? You've said a Islamofascist: but again, how do we then work out who they are?. There is no such thing as a country which is completely 'terrorist', at best you've got countries which may or may not give enormous support those who have avowedly and openly professed a desire to, or carried out attacks against, another country (for example, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan hiding anti-US groups). The problem is however, that realistically, the Taliban was the only country which came even close to being a legitimate target under these circumstances. Except Saudi Arabia (17 of the 9/11 hijackers), but of course, the US has some serious economic interests in the country that it cannot afford to jeapordise, even to catch some 'terrorists'.

OK, you can twiddle your fingers about the definition of a terrorist. I know what a terrorist is. Saudi Arabia was home to 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers, but the difference between Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan is that we have a certain amount of influence over the Saudis. We can try to make them cooperate. If they still don't, fuck yeah, invade. I wonder how muslims would react to Americans taking over Mecca.... ah, who gives a shit. :)

The US was happy to do just that in the 1980's (greatest hypocracy of all there).

Oh? We bought oil from Iraq in the 80's? No... as I recall, France was by far Iraq's biggest oil customers in that era. Today, only 25% of fossil fuels consumed in America come from the Middle East... it was probably higher back in the 80's, but not much more. And it sure as hell wasn't from Iraq, we got much better deals with the Saudis.

IN any event: Removing that regime and replacing it with what? A completely unstable situation in which hundreds have already died. There is no guarantee that this replacement government will survive under the pressure, and even if the elections do materialize, most likely, the Shi'ite majority will vote for a religious leader (which has been a stabilizing factor in their recently unstable lives).

Too much al-bibicya? You really think all the Shiites support Muqtada al-Sadr or support a theocracy? I remember an AP poll in which the vast majority of Iraqis rejected a theocracy in Iraq. It is sad how the mainstream media will never, ever report progress in Iraq because as they say, good news is no news. You're right on one thing, there is no guarantee the replacement government will survive, but the situation is getting better each day.

By the way, here's some good news from Iraq and Afghanistan: http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_chrenkoff_archive.html Why don't you expand your mind a bit? :)

Could you please back up your arguement that Haliburton has not made a profit. Almost all of what I have seen shows the company to have made a net profit from the war, but in the interests of keeping an open mind, I'd like to see what you've got. Remember, before the war, most people knew quite well that the Iraqi military would fall. Many (Rumsfeld,Cheney, other neo-cons) beleived that post-war Iraq would be infinately nicer than the situation now is. At the time, I would say that the probablity of success would have looked very high for the company.

I said PROBABLY. Given the massive security requirements, danger pay, lack of infrastructure and transport and the need to fly all equipment into the area of operation, I'd guess that Haliburton is still in the red. If not, their margin is razor thin. I don't know where you've read that Haliburton is making a net profit... given the anti-Haliburton hysteria in the media I can't even tell what's true or not.

Personally, I didn't think any company can make a profit in Iraq even before the war started, even if we secured Baghdad in a day. Everything I mentioned above works against them. Even if they are, so what? I believe the liberation of Iraq is a good cause, and if Haliburton is making some money on it, well, I hope they offer public stock. :)

Now I'm really going to sleep.

I think the bombing in Jakarta may have more to do with Australia's (mis)management of its relationship with Indonesia, than its involvement in the Iraqi war.

Bullshit

Indoensians are actually a sedate and peaceful people. Its not a question of jihad in my opinion.

Heard of Jemah Islamiah?

I actually never said we should not show some solidarity with the US against terrorism, but Howard is taking it dangerously too far.

How so?

It's not the core root, that's clearly that we don't have strong enough relations with SE Asia (East Timor didn't help here), and the perception that we are nothing but US lapdogs doesn't help in a nation where there is a strong distrust of US intentions (attacking Muslim countries etc). We don't need to appease them as you seem to think I meant (based on what is beyond me), but certainly improve the relationships.

So you think we should have appeased the Indonesian militias as they exterminated the East Timorese?

Hard-lining against terrorism (read: effectively attacking anyone with the remotest possible connections to groups that oppose us) never has, and most likely never will work. It simply helps support the terrorists view that their enemy really is an aggressive, irrational and dangerous entity

Appeasement certainly helped the Spanish. Tey had another bomb on their train line three weeks after the new government took office. It was detected before it was detonated. Appeasement is a sign of weakness to terrorists, their whole operation relies on appeasement as they know they cannot win if their opponents remain dedicated to the fight.

Let me repeat. FUCK WORLD OPINION. I'm not even American and I know full well that "world opinion" is irrelevant; basically a leftist propaganda tool.

Lovely debating skills.Especially using the racist terms you used too, which I did not quote. Good way to rally people to your cause.

You might also like to learn a bit of history.

Australia has already had a terror attack and have had it affect our elections. It was called 9/11. ( and shortly after an episode we call 'Tampa'. ) We stuck with an at the time unpopular right wing govt, which we still have.

The Bali bombing, per capita, affected Australia as much as 9/11 affected the American population fatality wise. After it, most of us wanted to build a hospital on the bomb site.

Australians are not cowards. We simply aren't as xenophobic and insecure as some.

Of course, I expect that all to go over your head. Hard right wingers, such as yourself aren't known for their grasp of basic facts or reality. Feel free to dismiss everything and be on with your rants.

Lovely debating skills.Especially using the racist terms you used too, which I did not quote. Good way to rally people to your cause.

You might also like to learn a bit of history.

Australia has already had a terror attack and have had it affect our elections. It was called 9/11. ( and shortly after an episode we call 'Tampa'. ) We stuck with an at the time unpopular right wing govt, which we still have.

The Bali bombing, per capita, affected Australia as much as 9/11 affected the American population fatality wise. After it, most of us wanted to build a hospital on the bomb site.

Australians are not cowards. We simply aren't as xenophobic and insecure as some.

Of course, I expect that all to go over your head. Hard right wingers, such as yourself aren't known for their grasp of basic facts or reality. Feel free to dismiss everything and be on with your rants.


I dont think PAI was trying to enter a debate mearly stating their belief

OK, you can twiddle your fingers about the definition of a terrorist. I know what a terrorist is. Saudi Arabia was home to 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers, but the difference between Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan is that we have a certain amount of influence over the Saudis. We can try to make them cooperate. If they still don't, fuck yeah, invade. I wonder how muslims would react to Americans taking over Mecca.... ah, who gives a shit. :).

So you alone possess the knowledge of exactly who we can label a terrorist, despite the fact that CIA, ASIO, M16, Mossad and just about everyone else has immense difficulty in doing so.

Saudi Arabia is also the largest foreign investor in the US. Got influence?


Oh? We bought oil from Iraq in the 80's? No... as I recall, France was by far Iraq's biggest oil customers in that era. Today, only 25% of fossil fuels consumed in America come from the Middle East... it was probably higher back in the 80's, but not much more. And it sure as hell wasn't from Iraq, we got much better deals with the Saudis..

I never said anything about Oil. We provided intelligence and some weapons (I'll hold off on the NBC call until I've read some more solid stuff) to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, despite the fact that we were well aware that his army was using them against civilians.




Too much al-bibicya? You really think all the Shiites support Muqtada al-Sadr or support a theocracy? I remember an AP poll in which the vast majority of Iraqis rejected a theocracy in Iraq. It is sad how the mainstream media will never, ever report progress in Iraq because as they say, good news is no news. You're right on one thing, there is no guarantee the replacement government will survive, but the situation is getting better each day.

By the way, here's some good news from Iraq and Afghanistan: http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_chrenkoff_archive.html Why don't you expand your mind a bit? :).

1000 dead US troops would disagree with how Iraq's going methinks. I saw that poll too- several hundred Iraqis from all over Iraq. Pity there are what, 17 million Iraqi's all up. Polls like that are meaningless, they rely on a cross-section of the community which is vastly mis-represented unless you get a hell of alot more than even a few thousand..




I said PROBABLY. Given the massive security requirements, danger pay, lack of infrastructure and transport and the need to fly all equipment into the area of operation, I'd guess that Haliburton is still in the red. If not, their margin is razor thin. I don't know where you've read that Haliburton is making a net profit... given the anti-Haliburton hysteria in the media I can't even tell what's true or not.

Personally, I didn't think any company can make a profit in Iraq even before the war started, even if we secured Baghdad in a day. Everything I mentioned above works against them. Even if they are, so what? I believe the liberation of Iraq is a good cause, and if Haliburton is making some money on it, well, I hope they offer public stock. :)

Now I'm really going to sleep.

If you really want, I can find some sources to back up my point that Haliburton made some serious profits out of that- unsurprising given the 1.somethign billion that the US army claims they over-charged them.

Bullshit.

......his point is valid- despite the fact that they are right on our doorsteps, the efforts we put into our relationship with Indonesia is currently nothing compared to the efforts we put into maintaining ties with the US. Traditional debate involves more than arbitrary insults.


Heard of Jemah Islamiah?

Get real, one loony fringe group is not representative of the 200+ million Indonesians. Thats like saying the KKK represents the views of all Americans.


Let me spell this out for all to see: maintaining good relationships with our closest neighbour, as opposed to some distant, apathetic superpower, does not equal appeasment

Who is going to help us find terrorists in Indonesia (where our citizens have now been attacked twice) better: a sympathetic, co-operative Indonesian government, or the US?

We did try 'appeasement' (wrong word, again, but I'll use it for the sake of arguement) with the militias in East Timor, to the point where we got the UN to give us a resolution authorizing intervention. The only government which has cried about it to Australia was voted out months after anyway. There is simply no evidence to say that most Indonesians hold a grudge against Aus just because we put an end to a violent situation.

Whatever. He appeased Stalin, and it didn't work.

Here's another great case of appeasement turning sour: The Oslo Accords.
well yeah i suppose the palestinians did make a mistake in giving ground to isreal...


you seem to confuse negotiation with ones enemies with appeasement. without negotiation there is nothing but wars of genocide. if you can only win by crushing your enemy into unconditional capitulation, and your enemy is a people or a substate entity, they are unlikely to ever completely cave in to your domination(unlike a state in ww2) therefore you will have to exterminate them, or they you.

Will Australians allow al-Qaeda to decide their election, like the Spanish?

I'm sick of hearing this particular line of BS being spouted by ignorant people -
ALL OF THE POLLS TAKEN BEFORE THE TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST SPAIN SHOWED THAT THE (THEN) CURRENT GOVERNMENT WAS MOST LIKELY TO BE OUSTED ANYWAY

Look it up - it's a fact. :mad:

The persecution of the Jews can be blamed on many Jews, who have done the same thing in every country they have been in. Try and grab power (Sorry but it's true, yes I know not all Jews are like it, but the few who do are the ones causing most of the hate)

Also, a prophacy of the Israelites was to be a powerful nation (America), and a Company of Nations (Great Britain/United Kingdom) -

It was to lend and not borrow (so this rules modern Israel out)

The Israelites are the anglo-Israelites of these nations and the nations that these spawned...(Australia, Cananda, etc)_

Oh and on topic, these terrorist scum won't win...

......his point is valid- despite the fact that they are right on our doorsteps, the efforts we put into our relationship with Indonesia is currently nothing compared to the efforts we put into maintaining ties with the US. Traditional debate involves more than arbitrary insults.

So millions in financial aid are not enough? If anything Australia has been overly tolerant of Indonesia and its activities.



Get real, one loony fringe group is not representative of the 200+ million Indonesians. Thats like saying the KKK represents the views of all Americans.

Who blew up the embassy? JI. I did not say they were representative of all Indonesians. I was pointing out that JI were the group who claimed responsibility for the bombing. I was enquiring as to whether you or the poster of the comment were familiar with their platform? It certainly isn't to seek better diplomatic relations with Australia.


Let me spell this out for all to see: maintaining good relationships with our closest neighbour, as opposed to some distant, apathetic superpower, does not equal appeasment

What does appeasing and, worse, being apologetic towards a known terrorist group, JI, have to do with diplomatic relations? None.

Who is going to help us find terrorists in Indonesia (where our citizens have now been attacked twice) better: a sympathetic, co-operative Indonesian government, or the US?

You seem to have some real problems separating JI, a terrorist network with links to Al Qaeda, and the Indonesian government. They are separate entities. Appeasing JI, as you obviously support doing, does nothing for diplomatic ties with Indonesia.

We did try 'appeasement' (wrong word, again, but I'll use it for the sake of arguement) with the militias in East Timor, to the point where we got the UN to give us a resolution authorizing intervention. The only government which has cried about it to Australia was voted out months after anyway. There is simply no evidence to say that most Indonesians hold a grudge against Aus just because we put an end to a violent situation.

JI does. And for our Western ways and our white skin and our non-Muslim society. Again, JI is not the Indonesian government. Until you can get your head around that fact you will really struggle to understand the situation.

I think the bombing in Jakarta may have more to do with Australia's (mis)management of its relationship with Indonesia, than its involvement in the Iraqi war. Indoensians are actually a sedate and peaceful people. Its not a question of jihad in my opinion.
Sure, we need to put more effort into relations with Indonesia, but I'd be cautious about making a broad generalisations on Indonesia. There's a reason they have 'strength through diversity' as a motto - there are hundreds if not thousands of different cultures and societies through the islands. And sadly, some of those cultures are downright disgusting. If you don't believe me (fair enough) ask the Indonesians themselves.

So you alone possess the knowledge of exactly who we can label a terrorist, despite the fact that CIA, ASIO, M16, Mossad and just about everyone else has immense difficulty in doing so.

No, but I can make my own judgements based on my core beliefs and historical knowledge. :)

Saudi Arabia is also the largest foreign investor in the US. Got influence?

Wrong, and you should listen to how Congress is trashing the Saudis right now.

I never said anything about Oil. We provided intelligence and some weapons (I'll hold off on the NBC call until I've read some more solid stuff) to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, despite the fact that we were well aware that his army was using them against civilians.

Well aware? Really?

By the way, guess which countries sold the most arms to Saddam back then? France and Russia!

1000 dead US troops would disagree with how Iraq's going methinks. I saw that poll too- several hundred Iraqis from all over Iraq.

And you speak for the fallen soldiers? Despite the media's almost fawning coverage of anti-war parents (and a lot of their passed offspring supported the war), many of the families still support the effort.

If you really want, I can find some sources to back up my point that Haliburton made some serious profits out of that- unsurprising given the 1.somethign billion that the US army claims they over-charged them.

Please. And the case of the supposed overcharging by Haliburton was nowhere near 1 billion, and that is well documented since the media went crazy over that story.

......his point is valid- despite the fact that they are right on our doorsteps, the efforts we put into our relationship with Indonesia is currently nothing compared to the efforts we put into maintaining ties with the US. Traditional debate involves more than arbitrary insults.
Truly.
There is simply no evidence to say that most Indonesians hold a grudge against Aus just because we put an end to a violent situation.
Granted. But how are they going to react to have our idiot politicians going on about what the Indonesian courts should be doing to the Bali bombers?
I know that if some foreign politician tried to meddle in an Australian court case, I go ballistic. If the courts aren't independent, there's no point in having them.

The persecution of the Jews can be blamed on many Jews, who have done the same thing in every country they have been in.
Oh garbage.
The Jews were banned from Engalnd for 400 years - did anti-Semiticism disappear? No. Hundreds of years of never seeing a Jew didn't stop ongoing ranting about how evil they were.
One of the most common charges the Germans threw at the Jews was that they were cowards - despite the fact that in WWI Jews earned more Iron Crosses (proportionate to population) than any other group in the German army. [The guy who developed the first IQ tests (Eyseneck?) got into a great deal of trouble for pointing that out in Germany].

No anti-semeticism just *is*. It's not something the Jews have earned - unless you consider being an easy target 'earning' persecution.

Oh garbage.
The Jews were banned from Engalnd for 400 years - did anti-Semiticism disappear? No. Hundreds of years of never seeing a Jew didn't stop ongoing ranting about how evil they were.
One of the most common charges the Germans threw at the Jews was that they were cowards - despite the fact that in WWI Jews earned more Iron Crosses (proportionate to population) than any other group in the German army. [The guy who developed the first IQ tests (Eyseneck?) got into a great deal of trouble for pointing that out in Germany].

No anti-semeticism just *is*. It's not something the Jews have earned - unless you consider being an easy target 'earning' persecution.

Don't use the word "Anti-Semiticism" - use Racism, because the Jews (Well around 95% never were and will never be Semites. The Arabs are more Semites than the Jews, I am a Semite. And the Jews may have been banned, but I can assure you, they were still there, in postitions of power.

No, but I can make my own judgements based on my core beliefs and historical knowledge. :).

ok, but that still doesn't give you the ethical ability to pronounce someone as a terrorist arbitrarily.

Wrong, and you should listen to how Congress is trashing the Saudis right now..

My bad, sorry I meant to say 60% of Saudi foreign investment goes to the US (as a lovely way of balancing the massive trade deficit)

17 of the 20 hijackers (I beleive) came from SA, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, much of Al Quaida is located in Saudi Arabia and much of their funding comes from Saudis (I beleive they are the second largest giver of funding to the group after the Russian Mafia).

Surely SA was a much more logical place to start looking for terrorists then Iraq. But then agian, neo-con policy since '97 was to get Iraq, not Saudi Arabia (too much foreign investment/business interests, none of which Iraq had). For all their screaming about Saudi in Congress (which I haven't seen, could you cite me some evidence?), unless they actually do anything about it, then it's nothing but a facade.


Well aware? Really?

By the way, guess which countries sold the most arms to Saddam back then? France and Russia!.

Absolutely, and I agree that that was morally repugnant on their parts too. However, this does not detract in anyway from the US's role in the war which I have outlined. Nor does it detract from the ironic hypocracy of later denouncing him as part of an Axis of evil or some such crap

And you speak for the fallen soldiers? Despite the media's almost fawning coverage of anti-war parents (and a lot of their passed offspring supported the war), many of the families still support the effort..

No, but tell me that you would sell your life for the most misguided war since vietnam, the only benefits thus far have been to remove a dictator (whom we replaced with virtual chaos), and some serious profits for those such as Hali (check out my reply down the bottom btw, interesting stuff). I'm sure many do still support the war, but let's think about this logically. Isn't it so much easier to cope with your son's/daughter's death when you beleive they died for a good cause? I would contend that for many, the alternative- their lives were thrown away almost pointlessly, would be almost unbearable.

This war was never about democracy, that was a good selling point. Don't agree with me?



Please. And the case of the supposed overcharging by Haliburton was nowhere near 1 billion, and that is well documented since the media went crazy over that story.

No problems: http://www.rense.com/general39/sky.htm- They made an obsene profit from this little bloodbath
If you don't like that link, then simply google ""Halliburton" profits from Iraq"- a mere 44,000 results present themselves. I wouldn't say that Bush and co went in solely for the oil/profits, but it's undeniable that it would have sweetened the deal for them.

The more I look at the Bush administration, the sicker I feel that our government fawns over them to such an outrageous and ridiculous degree. Fuck em, they don't give a shit about us.

ok, but that still doesn't give you the ethical ability to pronounce someone as a terrorist arbitrarily.

Arbritrary? Where'd you get that? Something happened three years ago that really sealed the deal.

My bad, sorry I meant to say 60% of Saudi foreign investment goes to the US (as a lovely way of balancing the massive trade deficit)

You're looking at the wrong place. The American trade deficit is with Asian nations, and it far outweights any Saudi investment here.

17 of the 20 hijackers (I beleive) came from SA, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, much of Al Quaida is located in Saudi Arabia and much of their funding comes from Saudis (I beleive they are the second largest giver of funding to the group after the Russian Mafia).

Surely SA was a much more logical place to start looking for terrorists then Iraq. But then agian, neo-con policy since '97 was to get Iraq, not Saudi Arabia (too much foreign investment/business interests, none of which Iraq had). For all their screaming about Saudi in Congress (which I haven't seen, could you cite me some evidence?), unless they actually do anything about it, then it's nothing but a facade.

True, if the government of Saudi Arabia was overtly hostile and there's no way we can negotiate with them, I would have put the Saudis on the top of the hit list. Unfortunately, as a result of our cushy economic agreements, we wield a certain amount of influence there. We ought to use it before considering military action.

The accusations against the "neocons going after Iraq for big business" is nothing more than a cheap conspiracy theory.

Absolutely, and I agree that that was morally repugnant on their parts too. However, this does not detract in anyway from the US's role in the war which I have outlined. Nor does it detract from the ironic hypocracy of later denouncing him as part of an Axis of evil or some such crap

You ignore the historical context. During the 80's, all Western nations considered Iran to be a bigger threat than Iraq, except for France, who dealt with both nations. There is no evidence whatsoever that the American government had foreknowledge of Saddam's intent, that is a vicious lie.

It is a shame the US (and everyone else) failed to see the real Saddam, but it doesn't change the fact that everyone was fooled.

No, but tell me that you would sell your life for the most misguided war since vietnam, the only benefits thus far have been to remove a dictator (whom we replaced with virtual chaos), and some serious profits for those such as Hali (check out my reply down the bottom btw, interesting stuff). I'm sure many do still support the war, but let's think about this logically. Isn't it so much easier to cope with your son's/daughter's death when you beleive they died for a good cause? I would contend that for many, the alternative- their lives were thrown away almost pointlessly, would be almost unbearable.

This war was never about democracy, that was a good selling point. Don't agree with me?

Did you read my "Good news from Iraq and Afghanistan" links? I guess not. Here they are again: http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_chrenkoff_archive.html

I personally think Vietnam was a perfectly just war. But I had family there, so I'm biased. I also think the Iraq and Afghan wars are perfectly justified and those soldiers died for a good cause. Millions of Iraqis have benefitted and they believe that even though the war did a lot of harm, it was worth it. If you're too blinded by hatred of Haliburton profiteering to see that, so be it.


No problems: http://www.rense.com/general39/sky.htm- They made an obsene profit from this little bloodbath
If you don't like that link, then simply google ""Halliburton" profits from Iraq"- a mere 44,000 results present themselves. I wouldn't say that Bush and co went in solely for the oil/profits, but it's undeniable that it would have sweetened the deal for them.

The more I look at the Bush administration, the sicker I feel that our government fawns over them to such an outrageous and ridiculous degree. Fuck em, they don't give a shit about us.

The division operating in the Middle East is still taking a net loss, according to the article. And I looked up the reporter's name and found a spate of anti-Haliburton rants. Gotta love the media these days. Considering how none of the members of the Bush administration have financial ties to Haliburton, I find the whole personal profits argument rather absurd. Cheney resigned his position there before he became VP because it would be a conflict of interest if he retained any ties. But I guess he is forever tainted.

Can you tell me who the Bush administration is fawning over? Thanks.

*tips hat to Morroko*

Don't worry mate, a lot of other Aussies feel just like you do! ;)

Can't wait til John Howard gets re-elected.

Don't use the word "Anti-Semiticism" - use Racism, because the Jews (Well around 95% never were and will never be Semites. The Arabs are more Semites than the Jews, I am a Semite. And the Jews may have been banned, but I can assure you, they were still there, in postitions of power.
OMG!!!
*And the BS of the year award goes to... Austrealite!*
Yeah didn't you hear that Henry VIII was a jew?:)
So was Richard II and hell why not so was Elizabeth I!!!
For the record Semites are anyone who came from the region of the world which the arabs AND the Jews came from so we're both Semites. You can't say "I'm more Semite than you, ha!"

John Howard is a racist prick, who lied to us so we would hate some people coming to our country for salvation.

John Howard is a racist prick, who lied to us so we would hate some people coming to our country for salvation.

Really, show me evidence of this.

By the way, guess which countries sold the most arms to Saddam back then? France and Russia!

That's not to say that America was innocent. America was supplying saddam for years with nuclear weapons (which are banned by world law but for some reason America has an unlimited supply of them. Along with France and Russia though not so much since the end of the cold war) and biological weapons such as anthrax. In fact who put Saddam and Osama Bin Laden in there positions? Why our good ol' friends in the US.

John Howard is a racist prick, who lied to us so we would hate some people coming to our country for salvation.
Very true. Old Johnny boy is the ultimate opportunist - the "kids overboard/boat people" fiasco got him over the line last time, and it look now like he'll cash in on the Jakarta bombing to rally Australia behind him for this election...

...if I was the superstitious type, I'd suspect that he'd sold his soul to the devil in return for political luck...:p

Really, show me evidence of this.
Maybe the fact that his advisor who he blamed told him this went under a lie detector and was proven to be telling the truth in saying he mentioned that it wasn't true. And that John Howard refuses to do the test? And on the note of racism, he said in the 80s that there was too much asian immigration in Australia and we should start trying to reduce it. Hmmm

Very true. Old Johnny boy is the ultimate opportunist - the "kids overboard/boat people" fiasco got him over the line last time, and it look now like he'll cash in on the Jakarta bombing to rally Australia behind him for this election...

...if I was the superstitious type, I'd suspect that he'd sold his soul to the devil in return for political luck...:p

Yes, heaven forbid our leader's handling of events of national interest may assist him in being re-elected. We really should have ignored these events until after the election so as not to give Howard the unfair advantage.

Arbritrary? Where'd you get that? Something happened three years ago that really sealed the deal..

"but I can make my own judgements based on my core beliefs and historical knowledge"

In the realpolitik, given those who you imply are terrorists, that still boils down to arbitrary, even if you do base it on certain facts.

You're looking at the wrong place. The American trade deficit is with Asian nations, and it far outweights any Saudi investment here..

Both have trade deficits actually : http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_Essay_22.htm.

if the government of Saudi Arabia was overtly hostile and there's no way we can negotiate with them, I would have put the Saudis on the top of the hit list. Unfortunately, as a result of our cushy economic agreements, we wield a certain amount of influence there. We ought to use it before considering military action.

The accusations against the "neocons going after Iraq for big business" is nothing more than a cheap conspiracy theory.

If only it were true: take a look at my favorite website: www.newamericancentury.org, notice how they (specifically: Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and others such as Richard Pearle and William Kristol) have been advocating an invasion of Iraq since the late 90's, and not even based on this WMD to terrorist crap. Notice also

You ignore the historical context. During the 80's, all Western nations considered Iran to be a bigger threat than Iraq, except for France, who dealt with both nations. There is no evidence whatsoever that the American government had foreknowledge of Saddam's intent, that is a vicious lie
It is a shame the US (and everyone else) failed to see the real Saddam, but it doesn't change the fact that everyone was fooled..

Actually, there is an interview with Frank Carlucci that I watched (on an interesting, though hideously biased documentary called "the world according to George") in which he professed himself that 'there was moderate co-operation between the US and Saddam during the war (intelligence sharing against the Iranians), just as we (the US) had relations with any number of regimes (implying brutal regimes- there is no question that the CIA knew about how he executed 400 of his own Ba'ath party collegues when he grabbed power) around the world.'.

Did you read my "Good news from Iraq and Afghanistan" links? I guess not. Here they are again: http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_chrenkoff_archive.html.

No, not at all, I read it quite readily. However, I still think that tens of thousands of lives sacrificed in the process means that the benefits don't come close to being worth it. Maybe that's just me.


I personally think Vietnam was a perfectly just war. But I had family there, so I'm biased. I also think the Iraq and Afghan wars are perfectly justified and those soldiers died for a good cause. Millions of Iraqis have benefitted and they believe that even though the war did a lot of harm, it was worth it. If you're too blinded by hatred of Haliburton profiteering to see that, so be it..

I don't hate Haliburton actually, I just despise the concept of 'justice' being the 'liberation' of Iraq coming at the price of thousands of lives. Especially considering the motives which I beleive are behind this liberation (again, the PNAC website is critical here, the neo-cons i mentioned above have wanted this war for years, I know there was intelligence pointing to WMD programs, but there were also plenty of doubts [Ahmed Challabi for christs sake?!?]- basically I'd say that their eagerness to get into Iraq made them see only what they wanted to see- the intelligence suggesting WMDs were in Iraq)

I must say, in today's world, as I think you would accept, Vietnam being a 'just war' puts you in a minority, although you are of course entitled to your opinion


The division operating in the Middle East is still taking a net loss, according to the article. And I looked up the reporter's name and found a spate of anti-Haliburton rants. Gotta love the media these days. Considering how none of the members of the Bush administration have financial ties to Haliburton, I find the whole personal profits argument rather absurd. Cheney resigned his position there before he became VP because it would be a conflict of interest if he retained any ties. But I guess he is forever tainted.

Can you tell me who the Bush administration is fawning over? Thanks.

Actually the Howard government fawning over the Bush admin.

Cheney still has plenty of stock options in Haliburton(roughly $45 million when he left), and as you said, tainted forever- even if not directly, he is still going to be partial to them. More importantly forever, his wife is on the board of Boeing (or was it Northrop/Grumman- don't remember)- so she can only do well out of this war too.

Maybe the fact that his advisor who he blamed told him this went under a lie detector and was proven to be telling the truth in saying he mentioned that it wasn't true. And that John Howard refuses to do the test?

Since then the advisor has faced an enquiry in which his story was proven to be false. As far as I can see, there is only one person who has maintained their story through the whole event and another who has changed their story 2 or 3 times. Lie detectors are inaccurate, hence they are inadmissable in court.

And on the note of racism, he said in the 80s that there was too much asian immigration in Australia and we should start trying to reduce it. Hmmm

Still waiting for evidence from you.

OMG!!!
*And the BS of the year award goes to... Austrealite!*
Yeah didn't you hear that Henry VIII was a jew?:)
So was Richard II and hell why not so was Elizabeth I!!!


I don't know about Richard the 2nd but i don't think Elizabeth I or Henry VIII were jewish. Henry didn't like the catholic religion so made the church of England so he could divorce. Doesn't that make him christian not jew? Elizabeth I was also christian, being the daughter of Henry VIII. The other daughter mary killed loads of protestants and was going to kill elizabeth because of it

Tygaland you can't seriously believe him?

I don't know about Richard the 2nd but i don't think Elizabeth I or Henry VIII were jewish. Henry didn't like the catholic religion so made the church of England so he could divorce. Doesn't that make him christian not jew? Elizabeth I was also christian, being the daughter of Henry VIII. The other daughter mary killed loads of protestants and was going to kill elizabeth because of it
It was surprisingly sarcastic! None of the British people in power were Jewish because the Jews were not in the country at the time. You think that a Jewish monarch kicked the Jews out?

Tygaland you can't seriously believe him?

Hmmm...do I believe a person who has maintained their story throughout or do I believe a person who has changed their story many times? I believe Howard acted on information he had that was delivered to him by someone who is now trying to save face.
Why did it take until the election for this person to be so outraged by the lies he perceived Howard to have made? If his motivation was for the truth to be heard, why wait til now? Why not say something then? If the advisor is telling the truth then which of his stories is the truth?

It was surprisingly sarcastic! None of the British people in power were Jewish because the Jews were not in the country at the time. You think that a Jewish monarch kicked the Jews out?

Err didn't notice the sarcasm. My mistake

Err didn't notice the sarcasm. My mistake
I probably should have made it slightly clearer but I didn't think that anyone would take that seriously!

So millions in financial aid are not enough? If anything Australia has been overly tolerant of Indonesia and its activities.

Mate, there is more to foreign relations then just pumping money into a country.
In the post Suharto era, Indonesia has made incredible democratic progress (one of the few historical transitions from dictatorship to democracy in peace). Our intervention in East Timor was certainly justified in my opinion, however, Aus should have sold it's case to the Indonesian govt (basically through the usual diplomatic statements etc) far more strongly. As it was, communications with the Indonesians was far less than it should have been (hell, all we needed to do was state the atrocities that were being commited there and we would have been seen in a much better light). Unfortunately, it appears that the perception of many in the country today is that we assisted the fragmentation of the country (if you take a brief look at their history, you can see just how bad a thing this fragmentation is seen to be)



Who blew up the embassy? JI. I did not say they were representative of all Indonesians. I was pointing out that JI were the group who claimed responsibility for the bombing. I was enquiring as to whether you or the poster of the comment were familiar with their platform? It certainly isn't to seek better diplomatic relations with Australia..

....Ok....my point was to say, the majority of Indonesians are not going to support some radicalist terrorist group that wants nothing more than to blow the crap out of everyone.



What does appeasing and, worse, being apologetic towards a known terrorist group, JI, have to do with diplomatic relations? None..

...and I'm not saying we should be tolerant of them. I am, however, saying that a strong US relationship is not going to help us fight terrorists in Indonesia, but if we spend more effort helping the Indonesians help us fight JI, instead of sending troops to a war which, realistically, has nothign to do with Australia)


You seem to have some real problems separating JI, a terrorist network with links to Al Qaeda, and the Indonesian government. They are separate entities. Appeasing JI, as you obviously support doing, does nothing for diplomatic ties with Indonesia.

wrong- I say help the Indonesians, improve our image there, I've never said we should say "yay JI, we love you.". My point is, we don't want to be seen as saying "JI and Indonesia are one and the same: we hate you both"

JI does. And for our Western ways and our white skin and our non-Muslim society. Again, JI is not the Indonesian government. Until you can get your head around that fact you will really struggle to understand the situation.

You've demonstrated an incredible ablity to completely misunderstand my entire arguement. Let me spell it out: Bugger US, US doesn't do much against JI, they are worried about Al Quaeda. Lets worry about the Indonesians, get our image from one of being a 'deputy' (read: bitch) of the US in the region, who want's to see the end of the Indonesian republic (through 'assisting the fragmentation'- by helping East Timor independence), and instead spend more time improving the relationships (best way I can think of off the top of my head would be to encourage our companies to invest in Indonesia through subsidies), and improve trade and military relationships (to a point we have started doing the latter- joint training ops with their special forces in Austrlia recently)

My whole point during this thread has been this: instead of simply invading any country which may or may not hold terrorist (willingly in the case of Afghan and unwillingly in the case of Indonesia), a far more effective stratergy is to give the governments of the countries incentive to fight the terrorist groups themselves. In the case of say Afghanistan, I'm happy to concede that no such incentive could have existed, given the closeness of the relationship of the insane fundamentalist regime and the insane fundamentalist terror groups. However, Indonesia is far different (like I said, in what 7 years, look how far they have come. They still have a way to go, but shouldn't we encourage this trend?), and we have the potential to get them to do as I have suggested. However, the perception that we are the US's "deputy" in the region is naturally, quite patronizing to those in the area.

*tips hat to Morroko*

Don't worry mate, a lot of other Aussies feel just like you do! ;)

Cheers mate

OMG!!!
*And the BS of the year award goes to... Austrealite!*
Yeah didn't you hear that Henry VIII was a jew?:)
So was Richard II and hell why not so was Elizabeth I!!!
For the record Semites are anyone who came from the region of the world which the arabs AND the Jews came from so we're both Semites. You can't say "I'm more Semite than you, ha!"

And the "I don't have a clue" award goes to Sanctaphrax...

You do know that a Semite is a descendant of Shem - one of Noah's sons, the modern Jews are for the most part (roughly 90%) are descendants of Ham, a brother of Shem. The Arabs are more descendants of Shem than the Jews. All the Kings of England are descendants of King David, fulfilling the prophacy that there would always be a Davidic King to rule over Israel...

All the Kings of England are descendants of King David, fulfilling the prophacy that there would always be a Davidic King to rule over Israel...
EH???
Don't you mean the kings of Israel are descendants of David?
I doubt that Lizzie would appreciate being called a Jew! Same for Richard and William!

And the "I don't have a clue" award goes to Sanctaphrax...

You do know that a Semite is a descendant of Shem - one of Noah's sons, the modern Jews are for the most part (roughly 90%) are descendants of Ham, a brother of Shem. The Arabs are more descendants of Shem than the Jews. All the Kings of England are descendants of King David, fulfilling the prophacy that there would always be a Davidic King to rule over Israel...
Sorry for this but how did we get from "Bombing outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta" to Israeli bible times?

EH???
Don't you mean the kings of Israel are descendants of David?
I doubt that Lizzie would appreciate being called a Jew! Same for Richard and William!

You don't get it, the Jews are not, nor were they ever, or will ever be the ISRAELITES!

King David was an Israelite, the British Royal Family are Israelites, not Jews!

Sure maybe .5% of the Jews today might be lost Israelites, but they will be found!

Mate, there is more to foreign relations then just pumping money into a country.

Never said there wasn't. Australia has done much to foster relations with the various governments of Indonesia over the years. The fact is, we are a majority white, majority christian nation. Indonesia will always eye us with an element of suspicion and likewise we will always eye them with an element of suspicion.

In the post Suharto era, Indonesia has made incredible democratic progress (one of the few historical transitions from dictatorship to democracy in peace). Our intervention in East Timor was certainly justified in my opinion, however, Aus should have sold it's case to the Indonesian govt (basically through the usual diplomatic statements etc) far more strongly. As it was, communications with the Indonesians was far less than it should have been (hell, all we needed to do was state the atrocities that were being commited there and we would have been seen in a much better light). Unfortunately, it appears that the perception of many in the country today is that we assisted the fragmentation of the country (if you take a brief look at their history, you can see just how bad a thing this fragmentation is seen to be)

Are you serious? The atrocities in East Timor were presented to the Indonesian government before Interfet forces entered East Timor. The Indonesian government said they "were handling the situation". Nothing changed. How long would you have advocated we wait before acting? How many more people would have to have been massacred by the pro-Jakarta militia?


....Ok....my point was to say, the majority of Indonesians are not going to support some radicalist terrorist group that wants nothing more than to blow the crap out of everyone.

I never said they did, you accused me of saying as such. That accusation was baseless.

...and I'm not saying we should be tolerant of them. I am, however, saying that a strong US relationship is not going to help us fight terrorists in Indonesia, but if we spend more effort helping the Indonesians help us fight JI, instead of sending troops to a war which, realistically, has nothign to do with Australia)

Ummm..who has sent police and forensic experts to assist the Indonesians in finding the perpetrators of the Jakarta bombing? Australia.
Who sent forensic teams to Bali to assist the investigation into the Bali bombings? Australia.
The fact that you find assisting the US and assisting the Indonesians as mutually exclusive concepts amazes me. Are you saying we should allow Jakarta to dictate who our allies are? We should cast aside the Australia-US alliance, the alliance to our strongest ally, to placate the Indonesian government because they have a dented pride over the liberation of East Timor from Indonesian militias?

wrong- I say help the Indonesians, improve our image there, I've never said we should say "yay JI, we love you.". My point is, we don't want to be seen as saying "JI and Indonesia are one and the same: we hate you both"

Who has said anything of the sort? Not me, not the Australian government. What are you talking about?

You've demonstrated an incredible ablity to completely misunderstand my entire arguement. Let me spell it out: Bugger US, US doesn't do much against JI, they are worried about Al Quaeda. Lets worry about the Indonesians, get our image from one of being a 'deputy' (read: bitch) of the US in the region, who want's to see the end of the Indonesian republic (through 'assisting the fragmentation'- by helping East Timor independence), and instead spend more time improving the relationships (best way I can think of off the top of my head would be to encourage our companies to invest in Indonesia through subsidies), and improve trade and military relationships (to a point we have started doing the latter- joint training ops with their special forces in Austrlia recently)

I think you will find it was you who took artistic licence with my comments and you are now backpedalling.
What a great idea, screw our strongest allies!! Instead let our foreign policy be dictated by Jakarta. If standing by our allies and fighting an evil that is threatening the world is being a "bitch" then I am happy for our nation to be perceived as such.
Invest in Indonesia...hmmm...what a new concept. I think you will find that there is a massive amount of investment in Indonesia from Australian companies. Indonesia is also one of our biggest trade partners. And you are right, we have held joint military exercises with the Indonesians.

My whole point during this thread has been this: instead of simply invading any country which may or may not hold terrorist (willingly in the case of Afghan and unwillingly in the case of Indonesia), a far more effective stratergy is to give the governments of the countries incentive to fight the terrorist groups themselves. In the case of say Afghanistan, I'm happy to concede that no such incentive could have existed, given the closeness of the relationship of the insane fundamentalist regime and the insane fundamentalist terror groups. However, Indonesia is far different (like I said, in what 7 years, look how far they have come. They still have a way to go, but shouldn't we encourage this trend?), and we have the potential to get them to do as I have suggested. However, the perception that we are the US's "deputy" in the region is naturally, quite patronizing to those in the area.

What countries has Australia invaded recently? Do you really think Saddam would have taken incentives to fight terrorism as a favour to the west? You must be joking.
As I have said, I will not settle for our nation to have its foreign affairs dictated to by Indonesia. We have the right to ally with who we please. We have not threatened Indonesia and have tried to maintain good diplomatic ties. The problem with your comments is that you see everything as Australia's fault.

Sorry for this but how did we get from "Bombing outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta" to Israeli bible times?

I don't know, but I didn't start it.

I don't know, but I didn't start it.
Uh huh if you say so!

You don't get it, the Jews are not, nor were they ever, or will ever be the ISRAELITES!

King David was an Israelite, the British Royal Family are Israelites, not Jews!

Sure maybe .5% of the Jews today might be lost Israelites, but they will be found!
No they aren't! They are in no way related to King David. They are in no way connected to Israel. They probably couldn't find Israel on a map.
And the Jews aren't Israelites at the moment, they're Jews!!! The one that live in Israel, like me are Israeli! Sorry that you don't like it but hard luck:)

Well, we did help invade Iraq with no good reason as far as the UN is concerned, and certainly on a false premise. Saddam and his mates may very well have deserved it you leave yourself open to recriminations if you accept that the ends justify the means. Several countries are not crazy about the way Australia is run, but I would be pretty pissed off if they used that as an excuse to invade us because we were not running our show the way they wanted us to.

Regrettably by aligning ourselves so closely with the US we are now targets, it would most likely have happened anyway, but maybe not as soon or to this extent. It's a way of life now, sooner or later an attack will occur in Oz, it will be a measure of us as a nation how we react when it does.

In the meantime the government (whichever it is) have to pursue and punish those that plan or execute these attacks, try to get our allies neighbours to help us do it. As the public we have to go about our business as usual and not give in to it. Easier said than done.

No they aren't! They are in no way related to King David. They are in no way connected to Israel. They probably couldn't find Israel on a map.
And the Jews aren't Israelites at the moment, they're Jews!!! The one that live in Israel, like me are Israeli! Sorry that you don't like it but hard luck:)

You can be an Israeli, you will never be an Israelite

The Jemaah Islamiah never stops doing those stuff. Terrorists eat bombs, live bombs, talk bombs, breathe bombs. Bombs are part of their anatomy.

On a second note, it intrigues me as to why Australia is planning to buy cruise missiles. You have the AGM-84 SLAM-ER, a German and some other design on consideration, no?

You can be an Israeli, you will never be an Israelite
Neither will you so HA!

Neither will you so HA!

...you can go "Ha" all you want, but I know that I am a true Israelite, true Christian, true Child of YHWH

...you can go "Ha" all you want, but I know that I am a true Israelite, true Christian, true Child of YHWH
I'm not a true christian because, as previously mentioned i'm not a christian. If you are however then you're not a Semite are you? no!
I agree that you're a true child. The Jewish G-D is the same as the Christian and the Muslim G-D so don't go waving your religion in my face.

I thought this thread was about the Jakarta bombing.... :confused:

I'm not a true christian because, as previously mentioned i'm not a christian. If you are however then you're not a Semite are you? no!
I agree that you're a true child. The Jewish G-D is the same as the Christian and the Muslim G-D so don't go waving your religion in my face.

Clearly you have no idea of what comes out of your mouth!

Christianity is a FAITH, not a Race, anyone can be a Christian if the Holy Spirit enters them...

A Semite is a Race which come from Shem (Shemites) - son of Noah

Jews are another Race which come from Ham - son of Noah

Go back and read books...!

http://www.apor1.org/media/trophy.gif

But provocation does? :rolleyes:

:headbang: The last time there was appeasement Hitler had taken over most of Europe

Don't use the word "Anti-Semiticism" - use Racism, because the Jews (Well around 95% never were and will never be Semites. The Arabs are more Semites than the Jews, I am a Semite. And the Jews may have been banned, but I can assure you, they were still there, in postitions of power.
I grant you that many Jews are not Semitic - (Hell, the mass conversion of the Khazars during the middle ages means that if there's a pureblooded Aryan in the world, he's almost certainly Jewish) - but the inaccuracy of the term suits the nature of attitude: illogical, self-contradictory and resistant to facts.

And no, they weren't there 'in positions of power'. Firstly, we know they weren't there because to do so they'd have had to have taken part in Christian religious worship - which they would have considered blasphemous; eaten unclean foods etc, ignoring Jewish religious law; worked on the Sabbath, etc, etc. The Jews simply *can't* hide, not without abandoning their faith.

Secondly, we *know* who was pulling the strings behind the thrones in most cases. Since I can't give 2000 years of history, I give you a simple challenge - name one aspect of Western society which is the result of Jewish 'manipulation'.

Thirdly, do you really think that if the Jews were ruling the world from behind the scenes, that they'd sit back and not improve their standing in society? The Holocaust wasn't unique; Jews have had to deal with persecution ever since they were chased out of Judea in the 2nd Century.

Finally, what the blazes does this have to do with the attack on the Embassy?

John Howard is a racist prick, who lied to us so we would hate some people coming to our country for salvation.

Spoken like a true moron.

My apologies for so belated a reply. It appears that "instant" notification actually means "week later" notification :rolleyes:

Never said there wasn't. Australia has done much to foster relations with the various governments of Indonesia over the years. The fact is, we are a majority white, majority christian nation. Indonesia will always eye us with an element of suspicion and likewise we will always eye them with an element of suspicion.

Indeed, however, allow me to share one of my favorite quotes regarding the issue (found whilst searching for analyses of the topic for a SAC in my International Studies subject a month ago)- "The Howard government remains one of the most unpopular foreign governments in Indonesia," said Greg Fealy, an expert on regional affairs at the Australian National University. "The two countries certainly work together as neighbours, but it's pragmatic. There's no warmth in the relationship."

Of course, his word is not gospel. Therefore I propose another quote, from Howard, in december 2002:

- “If you believed that somebody was going to launch an attack against your country, either of a conventional kind or of a terrorist kind, and you had a capacity to stop it and there was no alternative other than to use that capacity, then of course you would have to use it."

The Indonesians, quite predictably, took this as a proposal for a Australian version of the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. Now, from their point of view, less than two months after the Bali bombings, going to help relations? Not only Indonesia expressed outrage, but Malaysia too

Are you serious? The atrocities in East Timor were presented to the Indonesian government before Interfet forces entered East Timor. The Indonesian government said they "were handling the situation". Nothing changed. How long would you have advocated we wait before acting? How many more people would have to have been massacred by the pro-Jakarta militia?

Ahh- allow me to clarify here: not only should we have sold our intervention in ET to the Indonesians at the time, under Habibie, but we should have continued to reiterate this under sucessive (and what has clearly been more liberal governments). At the time, Habibie was still very much an authoritarian ruler (he clearly gave ET the plebiscite only with the most extreme reluctance) who was always going to favor using the TNI to supply and even support the pro-Jakarta thugs in ET. Thankfully, he is now long gone from power.

As it is, most Indonesians still beleive the garbage that he (effectively) fed then at the time which strongly implied that Aus wasn't going in for humanitarian reasons, but more because of our 'desire' to see the fragmentation of the Republic. Under Wahid and Sukarnoputri, we should have taken advantage of a continued liberalisation of the press, and issued statements which more clearly presented our position to the Indonesian people. Howard and co have as of yet done no such thing...


I never said they did, you accused me of saying as such. That accusation was baseless.

You stated and I quote "heard of Jemaah Islamiah" and I replied, quite truthfully, that although such a group clearly exists in Indonesia, it is a fringe group with little real support in the mainstream society.

Ummm..who has sent police and forensic experts to assist the Indonesians in finding the perpetrators of the Jakarta bombing? Australia.
Who sent forensic teams to Bali to assist the investigation into the Bali bombings? Australia.
The fact that you find assisting the US and assisting the Indonesians as mutually exclusive concepts amazes me. Are you saying we should allow Jakarta to dictate who our allies are? We should cast aside the Australia-US alliance, the alliance to our strongest ally, to placate the Indonesian government because they have a dented pride over the liberation of East Timor from Indonesian militias?

I have clearly stated many times that my contention is not to abandon the US relationship in favour of Indonesia at all, but be careful of compromising the relationship with Indonesia and SE Asia in favour of the US. Yes, we have done some things to help the relationship (as you have rightly pointed out), but the gains from said actions is pissed away when they are overshadowed by other actions (by Aus) that leave the Indonesians etc questioning whether it is in their national interest to maintain close relationships with Aus, as (they think) we may act primarily in the interests of the US, not them, were a problem to occur between them and the US.

Maybe its just me, but when I hear - "I suppose America wants a puppet of its own in this region whom they can trust who will do whatever they wish," referring to Australia by the Malaysian Deputy Defense Minister Shafie Apdal I get a bit concerned as to how a relationships with our closest neighbours may actually be going. Let me state, once again, what we need to do (imho). Support the US, but not to the extent where such clearly importent individuals in our closest neighbour's governments perceive the relationship to with them to be so close that it may jepoardize their own national interests, when realistically, that is not our intention at all (or bloody shouldn't be!)

Who has said anything of the sort? Not me, not the Australian government. What are you talking about?

you (or perhaps it was PAI, either way) claimed my stance was "appeasment", which I am saying is clearly a load of crap. Indeed, my intention is merely to create more incentive for the Indonesians to take a harder line against terrorists, thus I intend in no way shape or form to 'appease' the aims of terrorist groups.

I think you will find it was you who took artistic licence with my comments and you are now backpedalling.
What a great idea, screw our strongest allies!! Instead let our foreign policy be dictated by Jakarta. If standing by our allies and fighting an evil that is threatening the world is being a "bitch" then I am happy for our nation to be perceived as such.
Invest in Indonesia...hmmm...what a new concept. I think you will find that there is a massive amount of investment in Indonesia from Australian companies. Indonesia is also one of our biggest trade partners. And you are right, we have held joint military exercises with the Indonesians.

My immediate response would be "we already allow our foreign policy to be dictated by Washington, even when it is not in our interests. The point is to make it so that Canberra, not Jakarta or Washington do so...you know, like sovereign nations do?". Standing by our allies (on the other side of the world) does not need to involve blowing $800 million on supporting them in Iraq, and it does not need to involve being seen as a 'bitch' (sorry, "puppet") to our closest neighbours, the neighbours in which terrorist groups may or may not be lurking and the neighbours whose governments could make fine allies to Aus in fighting said intracountry groups who have killed 88 our of citizens in the past 2 years. We don't need to suck up to either, NZ hasn't, and it has still maintained very happy relationships with aforementioned countries (Indonesia, Malaysia in particular).

What countries has Australia invaded recently? Do you really think Saddam would have taken incentives to fight terrorism as a favour to the west? You must be joking.

...... did you forget Iraq? Irrelevant: Saddam's closest links to terrorists were a reasonably informal agreement ten years ago for co-operation, which never materialized to anything anyway.

As I have said, I will not settle for our nation to have its foreign affairs dictated to by Indonesia.

Good, and I will not settle for Washington to do so either.

We have the right to ally with who we please. We have not threatened Indonesia and have tried to maintain good diplomatic ties.

Yes we have, or they think that we have: refer to my quote from Howard before. Simply set the record straight with them: we want to be partners, and not "pragmatic" partners.

The problem with your comments is that you see everything as Australia's fault.

Correction: I see many problems that simply need not be as the fault of the Howard government's policy of being allies with the US (which I applaud) to the extend that it is not within our interests to do so (which I clearly do not)

My apologies for so belated a reply. It appears that "instant" notification actually means "week later" notification :rolleyes:

Never said there wasn't. Australia has done much to foster relations with the various governments of Indonesia over the years. The fact is, we are a majority white, majority christian nation. Indonesia will always eye us with an element of suspicion and likewise we will always eye them with an element of suspicion.

Indeed, however, allow me to share one of my favorite quotes regarding the issue (found whilst searching for analyses of the topic for a SAC in my International Studies subject a month ago)- "The Howard government remains one of the most unpopular foreign governments in Indonesia," said Greg Fealy, an expert on regional affairs at the Australian National University. "The two countries certainly work together as neighbours, but it's pragmatic. There's no warmth in the relationship."

Of course, his word is not gospel. Therefore I propose another quote, from Howard, in december 2002:

- “If you believed that somebody was going to launch an attack against your country, either of a conventional kind or of a terrorist kind, and you had a capacity to stop it and there was no alternative other than to use that capacity, then of course you would have to use it."

The Indonesians, quite predictably, took this as a proposal for a Australian version of the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. Now, from their point of view, less than two months after the Bali bombings, going to help relations? Not only Indonesia expressed outrage, but Malaysia too

Are you serious? The atrocities in East Timor were presented to the Indonesian government before Interfet forces entered East Timor. The Indonesian government said they "were handling the situation". Nothing changed. How long would you have advocated we wait before acting? How many more people would have to have been massacred by the pro-Jakarta militia?

Ahh- allow me to clarify here: not only should we have sold our intervention in ET to the Indonesians at the time, under Habibie, but we should have continued to reiterate this under sucessive (and what has clearly been more liberal governments). At the time, Habibie was still very much an authoritarian ruler (he clearly gave ET the plebiscite only with the most extreme reluctance) who was always going to favor using the TNI to supply and even support the pro-Jakarta thugs in ET. Thankfully, he is now long gone from power.

As it is, most Indonesians still beleive the garbage that he (effectively) fed then at the time which strongly implied that Aus wasn't going in for humanitarian reasons, but more because of our 'desire' to see the fragmentation of the Republic. Under Wahid and Sukarnoputri, we should have taken advantage of a continued liberalisation of the press, and issued statements which more clearly presented our position to the Indonesian people. Howard and co have as of yet done no such thing...


I never said they did, you accused me of saying as such. That accusation was baseless.

You stated and I quote "heard of Jemaah Islamiah" and I replied, quite truthfully, that although such a group clearly exists in Indonesia, it is a fringe group with little real support in the mainstream society.

Ummm..who has sent police and forensic experts to assist the Indonesians in finding the perpetrators of the Jakarta bombing? Australia.
Who sent forensic teams to Bali to assist the investigation into the Bali bombings? Australia.
The fact that you find assisting the US and assisting the Indonesians as mutually exclusive concepts amazes me. Are you saying we should allow Jakarta to dictate who our allies are? We should cast aside the Australia-US alliance, the alliance to our strongest ally, to placate the Indonesian government because they have a dented pride over the liberation of East Timor from Indonesian militias?

I have clearly stated many times that my contention is not to abandon the US relationship in favour of Indonesia at all, but be careful of compromising the relationship with Indonesia and SE Asia in favour of the US. Yes, we have done some things to help the relationship (as you have rightly pointed out), but the gains from said actions is pissed away when they are overshadowed by other actions (by Aus) that leave the Indonesians etc questioning whether it is in their national interest to maintain close relationships with Aus, as (they think) we may act primarily in the interests of the US, not them, were a problem to occur between them and the US.

Maybe its just me, but when I hear - "I suppose America wants a puppet of its own in this region whom they can trust who will do whatever they wish," referring to Australia by the Malaysian Deputy Defense Minister Shafie Apdal I get a bit concerned as to how a relationships with our closest neighbours may actually be going. Let me state, once again, what we need to do (imho). Support the US, but not to the extent where such clearly importent individuals in our closest neighbour's governments perceive the relationship to with them to be so close that it may jepoardize their own national interests, when realistically, that is not our intention at all (or bloody shouldn't be!)

Who has said anything of the sort? Not me, not the Australian government. What are you talking about?

you (or perhaps it was PAI, either way) claimed my stance was "appeasment", which I am saying is clearly a load of crap. Indeed, my intention is merely to create more incentive for the Indonesians to take a harder line against terrorists, thus I intend in no way shape or form to 'appease' the aims of terrorist groups.

I think you will find it was you who took artistic licence with my comments and you are now backpedalling.
What a great idea, screw our strongest allies!! Instead let our foreign policy be dictated by Jakarta. If standing by our allies and fighting an evil that is threatening the world is being a "bitch" then I am happy for our nation to be perceived as such.
Invest in Indonesia...hmmm...what a new concept. I think you will find that there is a massive amount of investment in Indonesia from Australian companies. Indonesia is also one of our biggest trade partners. And you are right, we have held joint military exercises with the Indonesians.

My immediate response would be "we already allow our foreign policy to be dictated by Washington, even when it is not in our interests. The point is to make it so that Canberra, not Jakarta or Washington do so...you know, like sovereign nations do?". Standing by our allies (on the other side of the world) does not need to involve blowing $800 million on supporting them in Iraq, and it does not need to involve being seen as a 'bitch' (sorry, "puppet") to our closest neighbours, the neighbours in which terrorist groups may or may not be lurking and the neighbours whose governments could make fine allies to Aus in fighting said intracountry groups who have killed 88 our of citizens in the past 2 years. We don't need to suck up to either, NZ hasn't, and it has still maintained very happy relationships with aforementioned countries (Indonesia, Malaysia in particular).

What countries has Australia invaded recently? Do you really think Saddam would have taken incentives to fight terrorism as a favour to the west? You must be joking.

...... did you forget Iraq? Irrelevant: Saddam's closest links to terrorists were a reasonably informal agreement ten years ago for co-operation, which never materialized to anything anyway.

As I have said, I will not settle for our nation to have its foreign affairs dictated to by Indonesia.

Good, and I will not settle for Washington to do so either.

We have the right to ally with who we please. We have not threatened Indonesia and have tried to maintain good diplomatic ties.

Yes we have, or they think that we have: refer to my quote from Howard before. Simply set the record straight with them: we want to be partners, and not "pragmatic" partners.

The problem with your comments is that you see everything as Australia's fault.

Correction: I see many problems that simply need not be as the fault of the Howard government's policy of being allies with the US (which I applaud) to the extend that it is not within our interests to do so (which I clearly do not)

My apologies for so belated a reply. It appears that "instant" notification actually means "week later" notification :rolleyes:

I never use the instant notifcation thing, I don't think I'll use it after this info!

Indeed, however, allow me to share one of my favorite quotes regarding the issue (found whilst searching for analyses of the topic for a SAC in my International Studies subject a month ago)- "The Howard government remains one of the most unpopular foreign governments in Indonesia," said Greg Fealy, an expert on regional affairs at the Australian National University. "The two countries certainly work together as neighbours, but it's pragmatic. There's no warmth in the relationship."


Which reflects the "mistrust" I mentioned. The fact of the matter is that the relationship will never be more than pragmatic. I really could not care less what the governments in SE Asia think of our government. Our government is willing to work with and assist these nations but we will always be the "white nations transplanted into the region". As such we will never have the warm relationship with Indonesia unless both sides make concessions. Unfortunately, SE Asia wants Australia to become like them rather than accepting our differences and working on mutual interests.

Of course, his word is not gospel. Therefore I propose another quote, from Howard, in december 2002:

- “If you believed that somebody was going to launch an attack against your country, either of a conventional kind or of a terrorist kind, and you had a capacity to stop it and there was no alternative other than to use that capacity, then of course you would have to use it."

The Indonesians, quite predictably, took this as a proposal for a Australian version of the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. Now, from their point of view, less than two months after the Bali bombings, going to help relations? Not only Indonesia expressed outrage, but Malaysia too

Outrage in Malaysia, quelle surprise. Malaysia has a habit of making racist statements about Australia, Mahathir was the best at it. Did you think those comments assisted relationships between Australia and Malaysia?
Stating that as a nation we will do ll possible to prevent attacks on our nation? That bastard! What was he thinking?



Ahh- allow me to clarify here: not only should we have sold our intervention in ET to the Indonesians at the time, under Habibie, but we should have continued to reiterate this under sucessive (and what has clearly been more liberal governments). At the time, Habibie was still very much an authoritarian ruler (he clearly gave ET the plebiscite only with the most extreme reluctance) who was always going to favor using the TNI to supply and even support the pro-Jakarta thugs in ET. Thankfully, he is now long gone from power.

We did try to "sell" the intervention to the Indonesians. They weren't buying. Your comments contradict themselves. On one hand you are saying we should have worked with the Indonesian government to get rid of the militia in East Timor, then on the other hand you are saying Habibie was dispicable and supported using the TNI against the East Timorese.
There was strong evidence that the TNI were assisting the militia in East Timor against the UN Interfet forces there. The plight of the East Timorese was raised with the Indonesians many times prior to intervention by the UN. Australia is not responsible for the propaganda put out by the Indonesians during and after the liberation of East Timor.

As it is, most Indonesians still beleive the garbage that he (effectively) fed then at the time which strongly implied that Aus wasn't going in for humanitarian reasons, but more because of our 'desire' to see the fragmentation of the Republic. Under Wahid and Sukarnoputri, we should have taken advantage of a continued liberalisation of the press, and issued statements which more clearly presented our position to the Indonesian people. Howard and co have as of yet done no such thing...

Oh, so Indonesians fed years of propaganda would suddenly see the light after reading a story in the newspaper saying the opposite? Would it not have carried more wait if Wahid or Sukarnoputri corrected the misinformation of Habibie themselves? Wouldn't that have ensured a larger proportion of Indonesians believed it rather than a letter in a newspaper from those invaders from Australia? As I have said, the culture of suspicion between our nations is the reason for the propaganda being used. The circle is completed as the propaganda then propagates the suspicion.

You stated and I quote "heard of Jemaah Islamiah" and I replied, quite truthfully, that although such a group clearly exists in Indonesia, it is a fringe group with little real support in the mainstream society.

Yes, I did. The person I was replying to was saying the bombing in Jakarta was Indonesians wanting better diplomatic and trade relations with Australia. I asked if they had heard of JI and what their aims were. Afterall, they were the group that claimed the responsibility for the bombing. I did not say they were representative of all Indonesians, they are however a terrorist network linked to Al Qaeda that is targeting Australians. To say they are doing so for better international relations between our countries is, quite frankly, bullshit.

I have clearly stated many times that my contention is not to abandon the US relationship in favour of Indonesia at all, but be careful of compromising the relationship with Indonesia and SE Asia in favour of the US. Yes, we have done some things to help the relationship (as you have rightly pointed out), but the gains from said actions is pissed away when they are overshadowed by other actions (by Aus) that leave the Indonesians etc questioning whether it is in their national interest to maintain close relationships with Aus, as (they think) we may act primarily in the interests of the US, not them, were a problem to occur between them and the US.

How have we favoured the US over SE Asia? By joining a war on terrorism? Joining forces with our allies to protect ourselves and the world from terrorist is selling out SE Asia? The only way this would be true was if you are saying that terrorism is a mode of operation of SE Asian nations.
What actions by Australia has left Indonesians questioning whether it is in their interest to have close ties with Australia? East Timor was a UN sanctioned action, so thats out. What else?
Australia acts in its own interests. At the moment the war on terrorism is in our interests. It should be in the interests of all nations to remove this blight on our world. We do not act in the sole interests of the US but where our interests are mutual then I see no reason why we should not work with the US.

Maybe its just me, but when I hear - "I suppose America wants a puppet of its own in this region whom they can trust who will do whatever they wish," referring to Australia by the Malaysian Deputy Defense Minister Shafie Apdal I get a bit concerned as to how a relationships with our closest neighbours may actually be going. Let me state, once again, what we need to do (imho). Support the US, but not to the extent where such clearly importent individuals in our closest neighbour's governments perceive the relationship to with them to be so close that it may jepoardize their own national interests, when realistically, that is not our intention at all (or bloody shouldn't be!)

I take it then that you take more credence from a derogatory comment from a foreign government minister that from your own government. Malaysia is a Muslim country, do you not think they have another motive to make such comments? To try and discredit Australia and make themselves look powerful to their citizens?
So you are saying we should ask the permission of SE Asian nations before entering into any activities with our strongest ally? I cannot see any other result from your comments.

you (or perhaps it was PAI, either way) claimed my stance was "appeasment", which I am saying is clearly a load of crap. Indeed, my intention is merely to create more incentive for the Indonesians to take a harder line against terrorists, thus I intend in no way shape or form to 'appease' the aims of terrorist groups.

I said no such thing. What I did say was that it was JI that bombed our embassy in Jakarta, not the Indonesian government. I did not say I hated the Indonesian government, I do hate JI as I hate all terrorist groups.

My immediate response would be "we already allow our foreign policy to be dictated by Washington, even when it is not in our interests. The point is to make it so that Canberra, not Jakarta or Washington do so...you know, like sovereign nations do?". Standing by our allies (on the other side of the world) does not need to involve blowing $800 million on supporting them in Iraq, and it does not need to involve being seen as a 'bitch' (sorry, "puppet") to our closest neighbours, the neighbours in which terrorist groups may or may not be lurking and the neighbours whose governments could make fine allies to Aus in fighting said intracountry groups who have killed 88 our of citizens in the past 2 years. We don't need to suck up to either, NZ hasn't, and it has still maintained very happy relationships with aforementioned countries (Indonesia, Malaysia in particular).

Sorry, but this is complete crap. The US does not dictate our foreign policy and to say so is to speak complete bullshit. Standing by our allies for a cause that our country supports involves whatever it takes to provide the support required.
If foreign countries see us as a "bitch" or a "puppet" then thats their prerogative. Calling our country names will not change what the government feels is right. Nor should it.
The Bali bombing occurred before Iraq was invaded, so what was the reason for that bombing? East Timor? A UN conflict?
I'm sorry, but nothing you have said here changes my view that you want our government policy to be run by Indonesia, Malaysia etc before we do anything. Quite frankly, I see that as insulting and removing sovereignty from our nation.

...... did you forget Iraq? Irrelevant: Saddam's closest links to terrorists were a reasonably informal agreement ten years ago for co-operation, which never materialized to anything anyway.

....and his financial rewards for families of Palestinian suicide bombers and his sheltering of Al-Zarqawi in Iraq after he fled Afghanistan due to the UN sanctioned war there.

Good, and I will not settle for Washington to do so either.

Washington don't so you have nothing to worry about.

Yes we have, or they think that we have: refer to my quote from Howard before. Simply set the record straight with them: we want to be partners, and not "pragmatic" partners.

We have not said we want to be "pragmatic" partners. Partnership requires mutual incentive to do so. Our country should not sell itself out or scrap alliances to have better relationships with other nations.

Correction: I see many problems that simply need not be as the fault of the Howard government's policy of being allies with the US (which I applaud) to the extend that it is not within our interests to do so (which I clearly do not)

How is it not within our interests to be allied with the US? Last I knew, our alliance had zero to do with Indonesia or Malaysia. It is between the US and us. No-one else.

Which reflects the "mistrust" I mentioned. The fact of the matter is that the relationship will never be more than pragmatic. I really could not care less what the governments in SE Asia think of our government. Our government is willing to work with and assist these nations but we will always be the "white nations transplanted into the region". As such we will never have the warm relationship with Indonesia unless both sides make concessions. Unfortunately, SE Asia wants Australia to become like them rather than accepting our differences and working on mutual interests.


I see that arguing this is unlikely to get us anywhere, as it is simply a difference of opinion. I see it that we can possibly become closer partners with those also in the region, but you do not.

Outrage in Malaysia, quelle surprise. Malaysia has a habit of making racist statements about Australia, Mahathir was the best at it. Did you think those comments assisted relationships between Australia and Malaysia?
Stating that as a nation we will do ll possible to prevent attacks on our nation? That bastard! What was he thinking? .


Allow me to make a correction- Mahathir and co have made racist remarks about us, not Malaysia as a country. Furthermore: having our own governments do the same thing does not help improve the situation- describing them as "recalcitrant" and not so long ago having the 'white Australia' policy, and indeed I doubt I have to say much at all about Hanson's influence.

Surely you can imagine the flaws in Australia adopting the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. 1) We don't have the military capacity to do so against any SE Asian nation without it being a disaster for us- thus saying we would do so makes us look like idiots. 2) If Indonesia were to claim some radical, neo-nazi group had some obscure plans to attack them and instead of consulting our government for co-operative action against them, launched an invasion of our territory, we would be outraged. Surely we should hold them to the same standard. 3) As if Iraq hadn't taught us the errors of pre-emptive warfare anyway...


We did try to "sell" the intervention to the Indonesians. They weren't buying. Your comments contradict themselves. On one hand you are saying we should have worked with the Indonesian government to get rid of the militia in East Timor, then on the other hand you are saying Habibie was dispicable and supported using the TNI against the East Timorese.
There was strong evidence that the TNI were assisting the militia in East Timor against the UN Interfet forces there. The plight of the East Timorese was raised with the Indonesians many times prior to intervention by the UN. Australia is not responsible for the propaganda put out by the Indonesians during and after the liberation of East Timor..


What I am saying is this: our action in ET was certainly justified: but Habibie may or may not have supported the pro-Jakarta militias (he gave them a referendum but then supported militias against them?!). Whatever the truth, there is a strong perception in Indonesia icurrently that Australia's actions were an attempt to disintegrate their Republic. Now naturally, this is not true, but we have not taken advantage of the rapidly liberalizing media in Indonesia to correct this assumption, and we have not strengthened the ties with their political leaders to the point where they would endorce such statements on our part. Had we, or if we do so in the future, and said leader co-operate, then it would strongly strengthen our own position in Indonesia, as a partner/ally motivated by humanitarian motives rather than an aggressor which overtly plots Indonesias demise.

Oh, so Indonesians fed years of propaganda would suddenly see the light after reading a story in the newspaper saying the opposite? Would it not have carried more wait if Wahid or Sukarnoputri corrected the misinformation of Habibie themselves? Wouldn't that have ensured a larger proportion of Indonesians believed it rather than a letter in a newspaper from those invaders from Australia? As I have said, the culture of suspicion between our nations is the reason for the propaganda being used. The circle is completed as the propaganda then propagates the suspicion..

Answered above: at the very least, it would raise doubts as to truth of the perception that Australia is acting against Indonesia. I'm not saying it would absolutely, definately work with each and every Indonesian- but it certainly couldn't harm us. Hopefully, SBY now in power could prove to be more willing to closen the relationship with us than Sukarnoputri.

Yes, I did. The person I was replying to was saying the bombing in Jakarta was Indonesians wanting better diplomatic and trade relations with Australia. I asked if they had heard of JI and what their aims were. Afterall, they were the group that claimed the responsibility for the bombing. I did not say they were representative of all Indonesians, they are however a terrorist network linked to Al Qaeda that is targeting Australians. To say they are doing so for better international relations between our countries is, quite frankly, bullshit..

Though I would contend that it is within our interests to closen diplomatic and economic ties with Indo, if his contention was as you said is was, then you are correct, JI had no intention to do this.


How have we favoured the US over SE Asia? By joining a war on terrorism? Joining forces with our allies to protect ourselves and the world from terrorist is selling out SE Asia? The only way this would be true was if you are saying that terrorism is a mode of operation of SE Asian nations.
What actions by Australia has left Indonesians questioning whether it is in their interest to have close ties with Australia? East Timor was a UN sanctioned action, so thats out. What else?.

Good questions. The impact of our recent involvement in Iraq cannot be underestimated. Specifically- it has perpetuated a suspicion that under the Howard government in particular, Australia may act to support a US stance on an issue rather than act in its own interests.

Lets take a look at Iraq. Involvement has cost us roughly $800 million AUD and we have sent 1000 personell to the other side of the world to help a superpower defeat an already cripelled enemy. The primary reason for doing so- WMDs. Even if there had been it is unlikely that Australia would have been under any kind of real threat- we are a relatively tiny nation population and militarily speaking, we did support US action in Afghanistan and this raised our target profile, but so did everyone else, and why would you attack this small, rather insignificant nation compared to the "Great Satan" or world powers like the UK, NATO etc?. The group which did the october 2002 bombings had no relationship whatsoever to Saddam. As for any terrorist links themselves, most US reports now say (specifically the 9/11 commission) that the best tie to Iraq that Al Quaeda had was an unofficial meeting in Prague ten years ago for some co-operation, and this didn't even eventuate to anything anyway."Australia has strengthened it's ties to the US through Iraq?" No- even the US leaders themselves have stated that regardless of a pro-Iraq action Howard govt. or a Labour counterpart, it would regard our alliance as "sacrosanct". Whether one contends that US involvement in Iraq was right or wrong is irrelevant, a simple analysis of Australia's involvement shows that it was not directly in our interests to do so. Even for humanitarian causes: the US is a superpower- we are not, let them deal with it.

Thus, we supported a war that has cost us a huge amount, has raised our target profile and has provided no direct benefit. With this in mind, it is understandable that SE Asian nations have wondered that in the event of an issue with the US involving themselves, Australia could not be relied upon to take their side, even if it is in it's interest to do so. Even our value as a mediator to a potential conflict is somewhat compromised. And, as I have said, what benefit has all this sacrifice and drawbacks gained us?

Australia acts in its own interests. At the moment the war on terrorism is in our interests. It should be in the interests of all nations to remove this blight on our world. We do not act in the sole interests of the US but where our interests are mutual then I see no reason why we should not work with the US.

Dealt with above. Even if we do act in our own interests, whenever we side with the americans from now on, SE Asia may regard it with suspicion

I take it then that you take more credence from a derogatory comment from a foreign government minister that from your own government. Malaysia is a Muslim country, do you not think they have another motive to make such comments? To try and discredit Australia and make themselves look powerful to their citizens?

I'm wondering what your insinuating here...

So you are saying we should ask the permission of SE Asian nations before entering into any activities with our strongest ally? I cannot see any other result from your comments.

Your entitled to your opinion and perception, but it's erroneous. I don't say beg for permission from SE Asia to help out the US, but I do say, do not blindly follow the Americans if it is not in our interests to do so, why jeapordize our relationships with our regional neighbours in particular to do so.

An interesting comment from a ADF website I found recently-
The thing that is unique about the Howard Government’s approach is that it enthusiastically and energetically supports the alliance with the United States as a central feature of Australian foreign policy but is sees no need for that relationship to be set with a context of constrained power. It neither recognizes constraints on American power, nor acknowledges any need for such constraints, either by way of a traditional balance of power or in terms of institutional constraints. In adopting such a position it places itself at odds with the concerns of realists specialists on international relations, who see unconstrained power as inherently destabilizing, and with those of institutionalists, who see embedded power as essential to the prosecution of American interests and the maintenance of global order

I said no such thing. What I did say was that it was JI that bombed our embassy in Jakarta, not the Indonesian government. I did not say I hated the Indonesian government, I do hate JI as I hate all terrorist groups.

Then it must have been PAI, and my previous responsed regarding this were directed towards him. It is good to see that you acknowledge this all the same.


Sorry, but this is complete crap. The US does not dictate our foreign policy and to say so is to speak complete bullshit. Standing by our allies for a cause that our country supports involves whatever it takes to provide the support required..

Yet we get ourselves involved in Iraq? And we support and ahve adopted(as jsut one example) a US policy of defending Taiwan against a possible Chinese attack despite it being completely against our interests to do so? There are plenty of other parallels.

If foreign countries see us as a "bitch" or a "puppet" then thats their prerogative. Calling our country names will not change what the government feels is right. Nor should it.

Nor should we give them reason to do so.


The Bali bombing occurred before Iraq was invaded, so what was the reason for that bombing? East Timor? A UN conflict?
I'm sorry, but nothing you have said here changes my view that you want our government policy to be run by Indonesia, Malaysia etc before we do anything. Quite frankly, I see that as insulting and removing sovereignty from our nation.

I don't claim to know the reason for the bombing in Indonesia- I think apart from the bombers themselves no one can say for sure.

I certainly don't want SE Asian nations dictating our policy as you think I do: instead, I want us to at the very least consider what it is that motivates us to take different policies to their own, and evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of adopting their policies on issues. Similarly, I would deeply like us to do the same regarding motivations and benefits/negatives of adopting Washingtons stance on issues. Iraq would be the first I'd be looking at.

....and his financial rewards for families of Palestinian suicide bombers and his sheltering of Al-Zarqawi in Iraq after he fled Afghanistan due to the UN sanctioned war there..

I haven't seen any proof indicated either of those, but for the sake of arguement, I'll concede they are true- my point is "so what?". This is not Australia's problem and it was directly against our interests to get involved. I agree that Saddam was a scumbag blah blah blah, but that's not the point.

Washington don't so you have nothing to worry about..

If only that were true.


We have not said we want to be "pragmatic" partners. Partnership requires mutual incentive to do so. Our country should not sell itself out or scrap alliances to have better relationships with other nations..

Conversely, this is my point regarding our US relationship entirely! Why should we jeapordize relationships by fueling doubts with our closest neighbours to satisfy an apathetic superpower on the other side of the world? NZ does not, and yet it maintains decent ties with both SE Asian nation AND the US. It also has not blown millions of dollars and sent large portions of its military around the globe to help the US in pointless operations, and yet it is at no higher risk from terrorist attack or difficulties with the US.

How is it not within our interests to be allied with the US? Last I knew, our alliance had zero to do with Indonesia or Malaysia. It is between the US and us. No-one else.

You have misread me. I am very much pro a US alliance, but I will not ever support extending such a relationship to the point where we support the US despite it not being in our interests to do so. By doing this, we create unneeded doubt in countries which could be very beneficial to Australia (e.g. through acceptence into ASEAN, by maintaining closer military ties- Howard made a good move with his $100 million dollar plan recently, but pissed alot of the goodwill that afforded us with his idiotic rhetoric of pre-emptive strikes.)

I see that arguing this is unlikely to get us anywhere, as it is simply a difference of opinion. I see it that we can possibly become closer partners with those also in the region, but you do not.

I do see we can become closer partners with SE Asian neighbours but not by selling ourselves out and pandering to their egos.

Allow me to make a correction- Mahathir and co have made racist remarks about us, not Malaysia as a country. Furthermore: having our own governments do the same thing does not help improve the situation- describing them as "recalcitrant" and not so long ago having the 'white Australia' policy, and indeed I doubt I have to say much at all about Hanson's influence.

Mahatir was representing Malaysia. You use Howard's words to represent Australia but baulk at applying the same to Mahatir's? Seeing as we have huge numbers of migrants, the vast majority from SE Asia I find your delving into history as feeble. Hanson was a beat up. The political parties that so feared she might gain support sabotaged her and thrust her into the limelight in Asia.

Surely you can imagine the flaws in Australia adopting the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. 1) We don't have the military capacity to do so against any SE Asian nation without it being a disaster for us- thus saying we would do so makes us look like idiots. 2) If Indonesia were to claim some radical, neo-nazi group had some obscure plans to attack them and instead of consulting our government for co-operative action against them, launched an invasion of our territory, we would be outraged. Surely we should hold them to the same standard. 3) As if Iraq hadn't taught us the errors of pre-emptive warfare anyway...

Thats assuming your assumption that Howard was alluding to "pre-emptive warfare". You yourself said it was an interpretation. The rest is rhetoric based on your beliefs and have no basis in this argument.

What I am saying is this: our action in ET was certainly justified: but Habibie may or may not have supported the pro-Jakarta militias (he gave them a referendum but then supported militias against them?!). Whatever the truth, there is a strong perception in Indonesia icurrently that Australia's actions were an attempt to disintegrate their Republic. Now naturally, this is not true, but we have not taken advantage of the rapidly liberalizing media in Indonesia to correct this assumption, and we have not strengthened the ties with their political leaders to the point where they would endorce such statements on our part. Had we, or if we do so in the future, and said leader co-operate, then it would strongly strengthen our own position in Indonesia, as a partner/ally motivated by humanitarian motives rather than an aggressor which overtly plots Indonesias demise.

If, what you said previously is true and that Habibie was lying (which he was) and that Sukarnoputri knows this. Then why would she not denounce the lies. You have not answered my question at all.

Answered above: at the very least, it would raise doubts as to truth of the perception that Australia is acting against Indonesia. I'm not saying it would absolutely, definately work with each and every Indonesian- but it certainly couldn't harm us. Hopefully, SBY now in power could prove to be more willing to closen the relationship with us than Sukarnoputri.

Your answer above scouted the issue without actually answering what I asked. If the Indonesian government under Habibie lied about Australia's intentions in East Timor then is it not the current governments responsibility to correct that misrepresentation? Anything Australia says on the issue contrary to Habibie will be pretty much ignored as propaganda.

Though I would contend that it is within our interests to closen diplomatic and economic ties with Indo, if his contention was as you said is was, then you are correct, JI had no intention to do this.

Thank you.


Good questions. The impact of our recent involvement in Iraq cannot be underestimated. Specifically- it has perpetuated a suspicion that under the Howard government in particular, Australia may act to support a US stance on an issue rather than act in its own interests.

This is your opinion. Australia does not blindly follow the US. If you have proof, that is, excerpts from parliamentary voting or presentations to parliament that were direct from Washington, I'll be happy to see it. Until then, the carte blanche application of "Australia follows the US regardless of the consequences" is complete crap and not an argument of any substance.

Lets take a look at Iraq. Involvement has cost us roughly $800 million AUD and we have sent 1000 personell to the other side of the world to help a superpower defeat an already cripelled enemy.

No, the troops and money were committed as part of the war on terror. Not solely to fight Iraq.

The primary reason for doing so- WMDs. Even if there had been it is unlikely that Australia would have been under any kind of real threat- we are a relatively tiny nation population and militarily speaking, we did support US action in Afghanistan and this raised our target profile, but so did everyone else, and why would you attack this small, rather insignificant nation compared to the "Great Satan" or world powers like the UK, NATO etc?.

Great Satan? You've lost me there. The threat from Iraq was two-fold. One that IF they had WMD which was supported by intelligence from various intelligence agencies worldwide that these weapons could fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or other terrorist networks. Secondly, Iraq was already sponsoring terrorist attacks by paying money to families of suicide bombers, not to mention harbouring Al-Zarqawi. That is why Australia was right to assist the US in Iraq and that is why it was in Australia's best interests to do so.
I do not understand your reference to the UK and NATO. Are you implying they are in the same mould as Al Qaeda and Iraq?

The group which did the october 2002 bombings had no relationship whatsoever to Saddam. As for any terrorist links themselves, most US reports now say (specifically the 9/11 commission) that the best tie to Iraq that Al Quaeda had was an unofficial meeting in Prague ten years ago for some co-operation, and this didn't even eventuate to anything anyway."Australia has strengthened it's ties to the US through Iraq?" No- even the US leaders themselves have stated that regardless of a pro-Iraq action Howard govt. or a Labour counterpart, it would regard our alliance as "sacrosanct". Whether one contends that US involvement in Iraq was right or wrong is irrelevant, a simple analysis of Australia's involvement shows that it was not directly in our interests to do so. Even for humanitarian causes: the US is a superpower- we are not, let them deal with it.

No-one said that the Bali bombers had anything to do with Saddam. JI is connected to Al Qaeda and Al-Zarqawi was connected to Al Qaeda but besides from that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the Bali bombings. I have mentioned Saddam's terrorist ties in the above comment and also in my last post.
Who said Australia has strengthened its ties with the US in Iraq? The fact that you point out that our involvement in the war in Iraq would have had no effect on the US-Australia alliance lends credence to my view that Austrralia does not blindly follow the US. Your comments here actually contradict your view that Australia is a US puppet.
I disagree, for the reasons cited above, that involvement in Iraq was not in our best interests. Your opinion that the US alone should look after humanitarian efforts is, to be honest, selfish. Every nation that has the menas to assist in ridding the world of terrorism or human suffering should do so.

Thus, we supported a war that has cost us a huge amount, has raised our target profile and has provided no direct benefit.

As I said, the Bali bombings occurred before the Iraq war. So your logic is flawed. We were already targets before the Iraq war. Spain was an Al Qaeda target because the Moors were driven out of Spain in the 15th century. Al Qaeda is at war with western society, not an individual country. America being the most powerful is the obvious choice for demonisation by terrorist groups.

With this in mind, it is understandable that SE Asian nations have wondered that in the event of an issue with the US involving themselves, Australia could not be relied upon to take their side, even if it is in it's interest to do so. Even our value as a mediator to a potential conflict is somewhat compromised. And, as I have said, what benefit has all this sacrifice and drawbacks gained us?

Again, the "mindless Australia" argument. What sacrifices and drawbacks? Standing up to the terrorists that targeted us is a drawback? As I have said, Australia makes its decisions based on the interest of our country. If a situation between a SE Asian nation and the US arose then Australia would mediate or lobby either side to solve the situation.

Dealt with above. Even if we do act in our own interests, whenever we side with the americans from now on, SE Asia may regard it with suspicion

So? Again, you are suggesting we behave in a manner that suits SE Asia rather than ourselves?

I'm wondering what your insinuating here...

Not insinuating anything. Malaysia is Muslim, Australia is assisting a fight against Islamic terrorists. The terrorists are trying to convince the Muslim world that the US and its allies are fighting Islam. Does it then not surprise you that Malaysia would be less than enthused at our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Your entitled to your opinion and perception, but it's erroneous. I don't say beg for permission from SE Asia to help out the US, but I do say, do not blindly follow the Americans if it is not in our interests to do so, why jeapordize our relationships with our regional neighbours in particular to do so.

Again, prove to me Australian government process is directed by the US. If our relationships with our neighbours are jeaopardised by making decisions that have no bearing on them then you are suggesting we simply blindly follow SE Asian direction.

An interesting comment from a ADF website I found recently-
The thing that is unique about the Howard Government’s approach is that it enthusiastically and energetically supports the alliance with the United States as a central feature of Australian foreign policy but is sees no need for that relationship to be set with a context of constrained power. It neither recognizes constraints on American power, nor acknowledges any need for such constraints, either by way of a traditional balance of power or in terms of institutional constraints. In adopting such a position it places itself at odds with the concerns of realists specialists on international relations, who see unconstrained power as inherently destabilizing, and with those of institutionalists, who see embedded power as essential to the prosecution of American interests and the maintenance of global order

Link? Without any context this paragraph means nothing. There is no evidence of anything said and what has been said actually draws no conclusion whatsoever.



Then it must have been PAI, and my previous responsed regarding this were directed towards him. It is good to see that you acknowledge this all the same.

Thank you again.

Yet we get ourselves involved in Iraq? And we support and ahve adopted(as jsut one example) a US policy of defending Taiwan against a possible Chinese attack despite it being completely against our interests to do so? There are plenty of other parallels.

Actually, the US and Australia refuse to acknowledge Taiwan. They both pander to China. I think you should get your facts straight. The US campaigned against the push for independence in Taiwan which seems ironic as the US is advocating democracy in Iraq yet denying it to the Taiwanese, all to appease the Chinese. Then again, most countries in the west are doing the same.

Nor should we give them reason to do so.

We don't.

I don't claim to know the reason for the bombing in Indonesia- I think apart from the bombers themselves no one can say for sure.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work it out. JI claimed it, I suggest you do a quick search and see what JI is all about and who they call friends.

I certainly don't want SE Asian nations dictating our policy as you think I do: instead, I want us to at the very least consider what it is that motivates us to take different policies to their own, and evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of adopting their policies on issues. Similarly, I would deeply like us to do the same regarding motivations and benefits/negatives of adopting Washingtons stance on issues. Iraq would be the first I'd be looking at.

Ah, so we should assimilate ourselves to their way of government? I have gathered you are against the war in Iraq. That has jack to do with SE Asia.

I haven't seen any proof indicated either of those, but for the sake of arguement, I'll concede they are true- my point is "so what?". This is not Australia's problem and it was directly against our interests to get involved. I agree that Saddam was a scumbag blah blah blah, but that's not the point.

See my earlier comments about the ramifications of Saddam's terrorist connections. It was not solely Australia's "problem", it was a global problem.

If only that were true.

Prove to me that it isn't.

Conversely, this is my point regarding our US relationship entirely! Why should we jeapordize relationships by fueling doubts with our closest neighbours to satisfy an apathetic superpower on the other side of the world? NZ does not, and yet it maintains decent ties with both SE Asian nation AND the US. It also has not blown millions of dollars and sent large portions of its military around the globe to help the US in pointless operations, and yet it is at no higher risk from terrorist attack or difficulties with the US.

Again, how is an alliance with the US jeopardising our relationships with SE Asia? You danced around the question earlier, then crapped on about Iraq. So I am asking you again to explain the direct impact of Australia's alliance with the US on our relationships with SE Asian countries. If you can produce something that shows that, then show me why we should alter our foreign policy to appease these nations and how.
I couldn't care less about NZ, they can do what they like. They dismantled their navy, should we do that too?

You have misread me. I am very much pro a US alliance, but I will not ever support extending such a relationship to the point where we support the US despite it not being in our interests to do so.

What is in our best interests and not in our best interests is subjective.

By doing this, we create unneeded doubt in countries which could be very beneficial to Australia (e.g. through acceptence into ASEAN, by maintaining closer military ties- Howard made a good move with his $100 million dollar plan recently, but pissed alot of the goodwill that afforded us with his idiotic rhetoric of pre-emptive strikes.)

Show me how the alliance "created unneeded doubt". The rhetoric about "pre-emptive" strikes was your spin on comments about national security. I see nothing wrong with pledging to protect our nation from attacks, either by other nations or by terrorist organisations.

I do see we can become closer partners with SE Asian neighbours but not by selling ourselves out and pandering to their egos..

Fair enough, and I see that we can do the same thing towards the US

Mahatir was representing Malaysia. You use Howard's words to represent Australia but baulk at applying the same to Mahatir's? .

Let's take a look at how representative and 'democratic' the government under Mahathir was: so corrupt was the judicial/legislative system that his cheif political opponent at one stage was convicted of sodomy (a disturbing offence at the best of times. Right up there with.....oh wait) in a hotel that wasn't even built at the time. I'm sure the majority of Malaysians would definately agree justice was done here. Point being: neither our comments or their comments have accurately detailed the entire countries position on such issues, and are nothing but inflamatory and worthless. I can't stop the corrupt ex-leader of Malaysia speaking such crap, but I most certainly can object to our own leaders perpetuating the problem.

Seeing as we have huge numbers of migrants, the vast majority from SE Asia I find your delving into history as feeble. Hanson was a beat up. The political parties that so feared she might gain support sabotaged her and thrust her into the limelight in Asia.

Your missing the point entirely here: we have a reasonably popular leader (in Queensland, I beleive at one stage One Nation had roughly 25% of the electorate support) spewing undeniably racist and xenophobic rhetoric. Now thankfully she was rejected, however the very presence of such an individual in politics is naturally going to cause a stir in the countries and groups which she has denounced (or however you would describe it).

Thats assuming your assumption that Howard was alluding to "pre-emptive warfare". You yourself said it was an interpretation. The rest is rhetoric based on your beliefs and have no basis in this argument.

How else would you describe it? I beleive even Andrew Bolt and other Howard sycophants described it as such. I just found a particularly interesting time detailing the impact- I was going to write it out myself again, but this covers what I wished to say anyway (NB: note the date, just a few days after Howard declared it)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/02/1038712887466.html

If, what you said previously is true and that Habibie was lying (which he was) and that Sukarnoputri knows this. Then why would she not denounce the lies. You have not answered my question at all..

Simply: why should she? We had not asked her to, there was no imperative for her to do so. In an issue like this, it is our responsibility to take the initiative: after all, it is our name which needs to be cleared. Hopefully, we can do so under SBY (time will tell how this guys works out, still, there is considerable potential)

Your answer above scouted the issue without actually answering what I asked. If the Indonesian government under Habibie lied about Australia's intentions in East Timor then is it not the current governments responsibility to correct that misrepresentation? Anything Australia says on the issue contrary to Habibie will be pretty much ignored as propaganda..

As I said above, it's our problem. They (respective government's since Habibie) have a million other things to worry about (the respective government's own good name for one example). If given the incentive of a strong relationship etc etc, to maintain, it is likely that current leaders will endorse our explanations for our actions. Of course, this will not happen if we continue to isolate them....[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

Welcome


This is your opinion. Australia does not blindly follow the US. If you have proof, that is, excerpts from parliamentary voting or presentations to parliament that were direct from Washington, I'll be happy to see it. Until then, the carte blanche application of "Australia follows the US regardless of the consequences" is complete crap and not an argument of any substance..

I'm not saying we have always, but the fact that we have at all.

No, the troops and money were committed as part of the war on terror. Not solely to fight Iraq..

Just about everyone else saw Iraq was unrelated to the war on terror. If I may direct your attentions again to the US 9/11 commission, said commission itself declared Iraq extraneous to the War on Terror. Thus, Iraq was a seperate action, unrelated to the WoT. For further information on why it is that Iraq was always going to be taken out, check out www.newamericancentury.org (I'm not kidding here, check dates, names and policies here- Wolfowitz in particular has wanted to invade Iraq since '91)

Great Satan? You've lost me there. The threat from Iraq was two-fold. One that IF they had WMD which was supported by intelligence from various intelligence agencies worldwide that these weapons could fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or other terrorist networks. Secondly, Iraq was already sponsoring terrorist attacks by paying money to families of suicide bombers, not to mention harbouring Al-Zarqawi. That is why Australia was right to assist the US in Iraq and that is why it was in Australia's best interests to do so.
I do not understand your reference to the UK and NATO. Are you implying they are in the same mould as Al Qaeda and Iraq?.

Great Satan was a partial joke, but more my way of illustrating how Al Quaeda is more interested with the US ("Great Satan" as they call it). As for the 'threat'- the intelligence was so questionable, our own intelligence officers resigned over it. Also, again, there is no evidence to suggest that Aus would have even been a significant target for the US- US, UK, provisional government in Afghanistan, even France, Germany etc would have made far more enticing targets, then a remote, insignificant target near SE Asia. You haven't answered my question as how Saddam's alleged funding of Palestinian suicide bombers is in any way a threat to Australia, on the other side of the world, nor how harbouring Al-Zarqawi, who would be far more enraged with
the US and others would in any real way be a threat to Australia.

My reference to UK, NATO etc was to show that even if Al Quaeda decided to start striking purposefully at US allies as well, there would be far more consequential targets for them (UK, NATO- i.e.- world powers with large economic influence and military power) than Australia.

No-one said that the Bali bombers had anything to do with Saddam. JI is connected to Al Qaeda and Al-Zarqawi was connected to Al Qaeda but besides from that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the Bali bombings. I have mentioned Saddam's terrorist ties in the above comment and also in my last post.

But you have in no way showed how they are a threat and required anything more than nominal support of US action in Iraq. At the very least, we could have simply declared support for the US but simply not committed troops or money.

Let the US go in- by all means, they are a superpower and can happily committed hundreds of thousands of troops and billions of dollars. We don't even have hundreds of thousands of troops and our entire defence budget is about a quarter of what they were given to deal with Iraq.

Who said Australia has strengthened its ties with the US in Iraq? The fact that you point out that our involvement in the war in Iraq would have had no effect on the US-Australia alliance lends credence to my view that Austrralia does not blindly follow the US. Your comments here actually contradict your view that Australia is a US puppet.

Andrew Bolt and Allan Jones and a host of other pro-Iraq involvement commentators argued this, particularly before the war, argued that it was directly necessary for Australia to get involved in order to strengthen our relationships. You missed the point of my 'sacrosanct' arguement- it was to say that we did not have to follow the US in, but we did anyway, and to no benefit, only drawbacks- and therefore debunks the position of those I mentioned above who stated that this was not the case.


disagree, for the reasons cited above, that involvement in Iraq was not in our best interests. Your opinion that the US alone should look after humanitarian efforts is, to be honest, selfish. Every nation that has the menas to assist in ridding the world of terrorism or human suffering should do so.

My opinion is based on pragmatism- I'd love to save hundreds/millions etc etc whenever some crazed dictator is installed/takes control. But with the US is the one with the massive military, the enormous economy etc etc, not Australia. I agree with your last statement- but the operative words are "that has the means"- the US would have done the job just as well without our support.

As I said, the Bali bombings occurred before the Iraq war. So your logic is flawed. We were already targets before the Iraq war. Spain was an Al Qaeda target because the Moors were driven out of Spain in the 15th century. Al Qaeda is at war with western society, not an individual country. America being the most powerful is the obvious choice for demonisation by terrorist groups.

Indeed, we were targeted before the war. However, being see as the pawn of an aggressor against a Muslim country doesn't help our efforts to cut back support from individuals and prevent further such attacks in the largest Muslim country in the world, does it? Nor does it create insentive for the government of such a country to double its efforts to crack down on the group responsible for such atrocities.

Again, the "mindless Australia" argument. What sacrifices and drawbacks? Standing up to the terrorists that targeted us is a drawback? As I have said, Australia makes its decisions based on the interest of our country. If a situation between a SE Asian nation and the US arose then Australia would mediate or lobby either side to solve the situation..

Right, you seemed to have missed my entire point: direct involvement in Iraq =/= furthering Australia's interests. Thus, we- and our regional neighbours - see an alarming precedent being set for Australia to get involved with US actions when it is not in our interests to do so. It's been costly and pointless for us, yet we have. The natural question that then gets raised in the minds of the observers of such involvement is "If they got involved when it wasn't in their interests to do so there, isn't it possible that they could do so again? What happens if their faulty intelligence points in our (SE Asian) direction?".

So? Again, you are suggesting we behave in a manner that suits SE Asia rather than ourselves?.

Nope, I've told you that before.

Not insinuating anything. Malaysia is Muslim, Australia is assisting a fight against Islamic terrorists. The terrorists are trying to convince the Muslim world that the US and its allies are fighting Islam. Does it then not surprise you that Malaysia would be less than enthused at our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq?.

Surely you recognise the fact that the majority of muslims around the world completely denounce said Islamic terrorists for what they are: murdering phsycopaths that simply use religion as a cover for their bigotry. You would be hard pressed to produce evidence that the Malaysian and more particularly, the Indonesian governments have any reason to question our participation in these actions based on the concept that we are attacking Islam, not terrorists. They may question our involvement based on whether it is in our interests to do so, and they have, but Islam has very little to do with it.

Again, prove to me Australian government process is directed by the US. If our relationships with our neighbours are jeaopardised by making decisions that have no bearing on them then you are suggesting we simply blindly follow SE Asian direction..

You cannot underestimate the precedent Iraq leaves. Australia went in, for no benefit of its own, as part of a US action. Perhaps a better question is "where has Australian foreign policy under Howard and that of the US actually differed?" I think one would be hard pressed to find such an example that is of any major consequence. That, as I have described before, leave SE Asian nations questioning whether we take stances based on our own movements. Thus, it is clearly not in our interests to leave them questioning our reliability as an ally in order to persue such worthless adventures. Questioning and even disagreeing with US policies when it is not in our interest to agree with them does not, in any way, equate to kowtowing to SE Asian nations.

Link? Without any context this paragraph means nothing. There is no evidence of anything said and what has been said actually draws no conclusion whatsoever.[/QUOTE]


Whoops, I forgot to chuck that one in: http://www.defence.gov.au/adc/Conference_Papers/web%20Reus-Smit.doc

My point is to highlight a view, even in the defence force, that Howard is assuming that there are no constraints on American power, nor acknowledges any need for such constraints. What does this mean: according to the author, Howard sees unlimited US power as a good thing, which surely it is not.


Thank you again..

Welcome again.

Actually, the US and Australia refuse to acknowledge Taiwan. They both pander to China. I think you should get your facts straight. The US campaigned against the push for independence in Taiwan which seems ironic as the US is advocating democracy in Iraq yet denying it to the Taiwanese, all to appease the Chinese. Then again, most countries in the west are doing the same..

Perhaps are not aware of the US's avowed policy of defending Taiwan should it come under attack from China. For example: when China made noises regarding missiles in 1996 (as a result of Taiwan's own noise about independance), the US sent an entire carrier group into the straits of Formosa. You should also be aware that the US is not denying democracy to Taiwan, it is not recognising it in organisations such as the UN (which it Bush and co claims is obselete/ineffective anyway). It's other avowed policy is to encourage re-unification with the People's Republic, but stipulates this peace process MUST be peaceful. Thus, it seems unlikely that until PRC becomes democratic, or for some reason Taiwan accepts the proposal of limiting it's autonomy by joining the PRC , it's unlikely to happen. The US's policy can be summed up as "Strategic Ambiguity", or as some would say "Dangerous Ambivolence".

Why Australia should be involved at all is beyond me. In response to Downer's remarks (which actually made sense- what benefit would there be for us getting involved at all?) the US said (I belelive through ambassador Schieffer) that it "expected" Australian support in the event that war broke out between Taiwan and China, and the US fufilled its promise of defence for Taiwan. Now what would the benefits be for Australia- defence of a nation? Altruistic, but meaningless. Economic? In the process, we would jeapordize our relationship with China, one of the fastest growing economies and market in the world....Drawbacks- Economic as Ive said. Militarily- we would risk troops and have to spend a crapload of money in doing so. We would also expose Australia as a target.

Thus we get another example of following US policy, despite its clear negative drawbacks. Why bother?

We don't.

And yet we act in ways that indicates we do.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work it out. JI claimed it, I suggest you do a quick search and see what JI is all about and who they call friends.

I know who they are, I despise them as you do. But why Bali, and why attack Australians, and not say, Americans, is the question which has not been answered.

Ah, so we should assimilate ourselves to their way of government? I have gathered you are against the war in Iraq. That has jack to do with SE Asia..

Incorrect: effects the stablity and value of our relationships with SE Asian countries as described above. "Puppet" of the US is not a good look when one wishes to closen economic and military ties to the region (which is clearly in our interests to do so).

See my earlier comments about the ramifications of Saddam's terrorist connections. It was not solely Australia's "problem", it was a global problem.

There was no problem. And there was no threat to Australia from Saddam, even if there was to the US. We are just too small to get involved in crap like this.

Prove to me that it isn't.

Again, look at the ridiculous parallels in foreign policies (of which Iraq and Taiwan are the best examples). The US has clearly had an undue influence in our thinking, and it has not benefited us to let them do so.

Again, how is an alliance with the US jeopardising our relationships with SE Asia? You danced around the question earlier, then crapped on about Iraq. So I am asking you again to explain the direct impact of Australia's alliance with the US on our relationships with SE Asian countries. If you can produce something that shows that, then show me why we should alter our foreign policy to appease these nations and how.
I couldn't care less about NZ, they can do what they like. They dismantled their navy, should we do that too?.

You clearly missed the point again. So, once more, let me state why: Australia now has a nasty precedent of supporting the US against its own interests. This raises doubts as to the reliability and worth of Australia as a partner to said SA Asian nations. In a relationship between countries as close geographically and economically to our own, the fewer the doubts in said relationship the better. Through Iraq and other policies, we have increased the doubts. As a result, we have our isolated our closest neighbours in order to assist a superpower (whose problems in Iraq were not our own) not to mention the drain on manpower and money we have created in doing so. The implications of this therefore are: said SE Asian governments are given less incentive to crack down on terrorism in their own nations in order to prevent strikes against us, as well as the broader implications that involve primarily the economy (e.g. the fact that we have not been admitted into ASEAN). This is further aggravated by our beloved PM declaring the option of pre-emptive strikes against said sovereign nations.

NZ is an excellent example, as I showed before, of how a nation in our region, with similar interests and motives can operate: remains close, but not too close with the US, and the same w/SE Asia. I'm not saying we should mirror their policies completely, but certainly we should consider the impacts and ramifications of their policies are, and whether we could benefit- or simply not suffer drawbacks- as a result of the impacts of adopting similar policies.

What is in our best interests and not in our best interests is subjective..

But based on logic.

Show me how the alliance "created unneeded doubt". The rhetoric about "pre-emptive" strikes was your spin on comments about national security. I see nothing wrong with pledging to protect our nation from attacks, either by other nations or by terrorist organisations.

I think I've dealt with this above- bottom line: it makes them question how willing we are to act in the interests of the US, not just our own, and makes them therefore question the value of us as an ally. Not just my spin it would seem. I see nothing wrong from strengthening relationships with regional governments to create incentive for them to deal with terrorists. Furthermore, we are under practically no threat of invasion by said regional nations (just to clarify here)

Fair enough, and I see that we can do the same thing towards the US

Thats your opinion, we will have to agree to disagree.

Let's take a look at how representative and 'democratic' the government under Mahathir was: so corrupt was the judicial/legislative system that his cheif political opponent at one stage was convicted of sodomy (a disturbing offence at the best of times. Right up there with.....oh wait) in a hotel that wasn't even built at the time. I'm sure the majority of Malaysians would definately agree justice was done here. Point being: neither our comments or their comments have accurately detailed the entire countries position on such issues, and are nothing but inflamatory and worthless. I can't stop the corrupt ex-leader of Malaysia speaking such crap, but I most certainly can object to our own leaders perpetuating the problem.

Mahathir made racist comments about us while still in power, not after. That asides, I still find it amazing that you absovle any SE Asian politician from any responsibility for anything, yet expect Australia's government to bend over backwards to take responsibility for everything. You raised Howard's comments as some sort of reflection of Australian sentiment yet brush off similar comments from Mahathir as "not our problem". Well then, Howard's comments are not their problem...so, there is no problem!

Your missing the point entirely here: we have a reasonably popular leader (in Queensland, I beleive at one stage One Nation had roughly 25% of the electorate support) spewing undeniably racist and xenophobic rhetoric. Now thankfully she was rejected, however the very presence of such an individual in politics is naturally going to cause a stir in the countries and groups which she has denounced (or however you would describe it).

Racist policy, such as removing ATSIC as it was corrupt and flawed...not Labor and the Coalition supported its removal. Hanson also called for welfare to be need based and not racially based...thats not racist, the policy she wanted to change was. She advocated reductions in Asian immigration as they were not assililating into our society. Now, that is either based on fact or it is a racist lie. I think that it had an element of truth to it. There was an article by Andrew Bolt on Sunday, it is on the Herald-Sun website (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au) that showed that a large proportion of Hanson's policies that were so abhorrent then have been adopted by the various political parties..even the Greens. The fact that Hanson even made the headlines was because of the smear campaign run against her before the election. While I did not agree with a lot of what she said, her treatment was a disgrace to this nation.

How else would you describe it? I beleive even Andrew Bolt and other Howard sycophants described it as such. I just found a particularly interesting time detailing the impact- I was going to write it out myself again, but this covers what I wished to say anyway (NB: note the date, just a few days after Howard declared it)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/02/1038712887466.html

Yes, but the thing you have chosen not to take into acount is that he stated it would be as a "last resort". I think that is fair enough. Or do you suppose we wait until a number of citizens are killed in an attack we knew was coming and then react?



Simply: why should she? We had not asked her to, there was no imperative for her to do so. In an issue like this, it is our responsibility to take the initiative: after all, it is our name which needs to be cleared. Hopefully, we can do so under SBY (time will tell how this guys works out, still, there is considerable potential)

Because she should be responsible for correcting the lies of her predecessor. t is not our responsibility to interfere in their internal affairs, it is their responsibility to correct what was said in the interest of better relations. Again, you absolve Indonesia of any responsibility for anything.

As I said above, it's our problem. They (respective government's since Habibie) have a million other things to worry about (the respective government's own good name for one example). If given the incentive of a strong relationship etc etc, to maintain, it is likely that current leaders will endorse our explanations for our actions. Of course, this will not happen if we continue to isolate them....

No, it is not our problem. It is a problem created by them and it should be corrected by them. We are not isolating anyone. How is not correcting another leaders lies isolating them? In order to promote better relation, Indonesia should correct the lies.

I'm not saying we have always, but the fact that we have at all.

I did not say always. I said never. It is your interpretation that our activities in the war on terror are not in our best interest. I do not share your interpretation.

Just about everyone else saw Iraq was unrelated to the war on terror. If I may direct your attentions again to the US 9/11 commission, said commission itself declared Iraq extraneous to the War on Terror. Thus, Iraq was a seperate action, unrelated to the WoT. For further information on why it is that Iraq was always going to be taken out, check out www.newamericancentury.org (I'm not kidding here, check dates, names and policies here- Wolfowitz in particular has wanted to invade Iraq since '91)

I think you will find the 9/11 commission found Saddam was not directly involved in the attack on 9/11. Not the War on Terror. The war with Iraq is most certainly a part of the War on Terror.
The invasion of Iraq would not have been necessary had the UN authorised Saddam's removal in '91. Since '91, Saddam thumbed his nose at UN sanctions and UN resolutions. The resultant terorrist activity that culminated in 9/11 meant that Afghanistan was invaded and Al Qaeda's camps destroyed. The Taliban government that sheltered them was removed. This then made the question of WMD in Iraq even more vital. Intelligence suggested he had WMD, were we to wait and see? Or remove the threat before any damage was done?

Great Satan was a partial joke, but more my way of illustrating how Al Quaeda is more interested with the US ("Great Satan" as they call it). As for the 'threat'- the intelligence was so questionable, our own intelligence officers resigned over it. Also, again, there is no evidence to suggest that Aus would have even been a significant target for the US- US, UK, provisional government in Afghanistan, even France, Germany etc would have made far more enticing targets, then a remote, insignificant target near SE Asia. You haven't answered my question as how Saddam's alleged funding of Palestinian suicide bombers is in any way a threat to Australia, on the other side of the world, nor how harbouring Al-Zarqawi, who would be far more enraged with
the US and others would in any real way be a threat to Australia.

This is naivity. Al Qaeda is at war with western society, not just the US or the UK or NATO. Their goal is for the world to convert to Islam and live under Islamic Law. Last I checked, Australia was part of the western society. Last I checked it was Australians that were the targets of the Bali bombings before the invasion of Iraq. How then do you conclude that Australia was not a target before joining the war in Iraq?

My reference to UK, NATO etc was to show that even if Al Quaeda decided to start striking purposefully at US allies as well, there would be far more consequential targets for them (UK, NATO- i.e.- world powers with large economic influence and military power) than Australia.

See above.

But you have in no way showed how they are a threat and required anything more than nominal support of US action in Iraq. At the very least, we could have simply declared support for the US but simply not committed troops or money.

The current situation in Iraq clearly shows why more than nominal support was required. This fight in Iraq is crucial to the war on terror. If this war is lost because people think it is not worth the effort then terrorists have won the battle. The resultant security vacuum (you think it is unstable now!) of a full withdrawal from Iraq would enable opportunist groups, not least the Iranians to get a foothold in Iraq. I really think you do not see the bigger picture of what is happening here.
Al-Zarqawi is a terrorist leader with ties to Al Qaeda. If he was allowed to set up shop in Iraq, which he had begun to do before the US invaded then we would have Afghanistan all over again. Only this time, they would have access to far more diacbolical weapons. This would have posed a threat, not just to Australia, but the western world. Again, the big picture.

Let the US go in- by all means, they are a superpower and can happily committed hundreds of thousands of troops and billions of dollars. We don't even have hundreds of thousands of troops and our entire defence budget is about a quarter of what they were given to deal with Iraq.

So what? Because our contribution is less than the US does not mean it is not needed or appreciated.

Andrew Bolt and Allan Jones and a host of other pro-Iraq involvement commentators argued this, particularly before the war, argued that it was directly necessary for Australia to get involved in order to strengthen our relationships. You missed the point of my 'sacrosanct' arguement- it was to say that we did not have to follow the US in, but we did anyway, and to no benefit, only drawbacks- and therefore debunks the position of those I mentioned above who stated that this was not the case.

I know what you meant but it contradicted your previous assertion that we follow the US purely because of our alliance. By showing that the alliance was not in jeopardy if we refused to help in Iraq, you showed that we acted in our own interests, not the US's.


My opinion is based on pragmatism- I'd love to save hundreds/millions etc etc whenever some crazed dictator is installed/takes control. But with the US is the one with the massive military, the enormous economy etc etc, not Australia. I agree with your last statement- but the operative words are "that has the means"- the US would have done the job just as well without our support.

Again, so what? We can assist with the resources we do have. The size of our contribution in comparison to the US is not relevant.

Indeed, we were targeted before the war. However, being see as the pawn of an aggressor against a Muslim country doesn't help our efforts to cut back support from individuals and prevent further such attacks in the largest Muslim country in the world, does it? Nor does it create insentive for the government of such a country to double its efforts to crack down on the group responsible for such atrocities.

So Indonesia needs incentives to crack down on terrorism? We need to appease the Indonesians so that they then do their job and try and thwart terrorist attacks in their country? The war on terror is to remove the breeding grounds for fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups. Removing the oppressive regimes and giving them the choice to choose their government. Giving these nations the chance to improve their existance by allowing a less corrupt government handle the profits from their natural resources. This looks at the big picture, not just the "if we hide and do nothing then we will be OK" picture.

Right, you seemed to have missed my entire point: direct involvement in Iraq =/= furthering Australia's interests.

Your opinion...an opinion I do not share.

Thus, we- and our regional neighbours - see an alarming precedent being set for Australia to get involved with US actions when it is not in our interests to do so. It's been costly and pointless for us, yet we have. The natural question that then gets raised in the minds of the observers of such involvement is "If they got involved when it wasn't in their interests to do so there, isn't it possible that they could do so again? What happens if their faulty intelligence points in our (SE Asian) direction?".

Again, that is your opinion. I see no "alarming precedent" only alarmists.

Nope, I've told you that before.

Yet everything you say contradicts this.

Surely you recognise the fact that the majority of muslims around the world completely denounce said Islamic terrorists for what they are: murdering phsycopaths that simply use religion as a cover for their bigotry. You would be hard pressed to produce evidence that the Malaysian and more particularly, the Indonesian governments have any reason to question our participation in these actions based on the concept that we are attacking Islam, not terrorists. They may question our involvement based on whether it is in our interests to do so, and they have, but Islam has very little to do with it.

So, if the war on terror was targeting Jews or Buddhists you are saying Malaysia would be just as alarmed? Somehow I doubt it.

You cannot underestimate the precedent Iraq leaves.

But, quite clearly, you can overstate it.

Australia went in, for no benefit of its own, as part of a US action.

Again, purely your opinion.

Perhaps a better question is "where has Australian foreign policy under Howard and that of the US actually differed?" I think one would be hard pressed to find such an example that is of any major consequence. That, as I have described before, leave SE Asian nations questioning whether we take stances based on our own movements. Thus, it is clearly not in our interests to leave them questioning our reliability as an ally in order to persue such worthless adventures. Questioning and even disagreeing with US policies when it is not in our interest to agree with them does not, in any way, equate to kowtowing to SE Asian nations.

No, just because our foreign policy has paralleled does not mean it was done to follow the US. These decisions, in my opinion, are in our self interests. You obviously disagree but that does not make your opinions undeniable fact.

Link? Without any context this paragraph means nothing. There is no evidence of anything said and what has been said actually draws no conclusion whatsoever.


Whoops, I forgot to chuck that one in: http://www.defence.gov.au/adc/Conference_Papers/web%20Reus-Smit.doc



My point is to highlight a view, even in the defence force, that Howard is assuming that there are no constraints on American power, nor acknowledges any need for such constraints. What does this mean: according to the author, Howard sees unlimited US power as a good thing, which surely it is not.

So it is hearsay. A person's opinion on what another person is thinking. Hardly evidence of anything.

Perhaps are not aware of the US's avowed policy of defending Taiwan should it come under attack from China. For example: when China made noises regarding missiles in 1996 (as a result of Taiwan's own noise about independance), the US sent an entire carrier group into the straits of Formosa.

And the problem with that is? Its called trying to avert a war. Possibly a nuclear strike. Makes sense to me.

You should also be aware that the US is not denying democracy to Taiwan, it is not recognising it in organisations such as the UN (which it Bush and co claims is obselete/ineffective anyway). It's other avowed policy is to encourage re-unification with the People's Republic, but stipulates this peace process MUST be peaceful. Thus, it seems unlikely that until PRC becomes democratic, or for some reason Taiwan accepts the proposal of limiting it's autonomy by joining the PRC , it's unlikely to happen. The US's policy can be summed up as "Strategic Ambiguity", or as some would say "Dangerous Ambivolence".

Actually, Alexander Downer made a speech a while back denouncing the independence movement in Taiwan. Taiwan is a political football. Taiwan represents democracy, but as they are at loggerheads with China, and the west are trying to court China for many reasons, Taiwan gets left out in the cold. I actually think Taiwan should become an independent nation, but that is not going to happen in the near future. The US does not support Taiwanese independence for fear it will upset China.

Why Australia should be involved at all is beyond me. In response to Downer's remarks (which actually made sense- what benefit would there be for us getting involved at all?) the US said (I belelive through ambassador Schieffer) that it "expected" Australian support in the event that war broke out between Taiwan and China, and the US fufilled its promise of defence for Taiwan. Now what would the benefits be for Australia- defence of a nation? Altruistic, but meaningless. Economic? In the process, we would jeapordize our relationship with China, one of the fastest growing economies and market in the world....Drawbacks- Economic as Ive said. Militarily- we would risk troops and have to spend a crapload of money in doing so. We would also expose Australia as a target.

Australia isn't involved. If tensions grew to the point of war then the deployment of US and allied troops in protection of Taiwan would more than likely avert the war rather than escalate it. The gains? Regional stability and a democratic Taiwan. Australia a target for what? A Chinese invasion?

Thus we get another example of following US policy, despite its clear negative drawbacks. Why bother?

There are always risks in life. If you want to live in an insular country that has not interest in anything then go and live in North Korea.

And yet we act in ways that indicates we do.

No, the way you interpret our actions indicates we do. I do not interpret them the way yoo do.

I know who they are, I despise them as you do. But why Bali, and why attack Australians, and not say, Americans, is the question which has not been answered.

I think Amrozi said it best, "who cares, they are all white people"

Incorrect: effects the stablity and value of our relationships with SE Asian countries as described above. "Puppet" of the US is not a good look when one wishes to closen economic and military ties to the region (which is clearly in our interests to do so).

Being described as a puppet is not our problem. As I said, being called names is not a reason to change foreign policy. The actions in Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with SE Asia. They are using the false perception of us blindly following the US to try and gain some leverage to change our policies. Obviously you have bought it. I certainly hope that the government (whoever that may be) does not fall for this rhetoric.

There was no problem. And there was no threat to Australia from Saddam, even if there was to the US. We are just too small to get involved in crap like this.

Crap. We are an affluent, western nation. We were a target before the Iraq war and we are during it. Nothing has changed.

Again, look at the ridiculous parallels in foreign policies (of which Iraq and Taiwan are the best examples). The US has clearly had an undue influence in our thinking, and it has not benefited us to let them do so.

Again, you are posting your opinions as undeniable fact. Prove to me we were instructed by the US to go to Iraq. Prove to me that the US dictated our policies on Taiwan. I would lend more credence to our policies on Taiwan as being dictated by China.

You clearly missed the point again. So, once more, let me state why: Australia now has a nasty precedent of supporting the US against its own interests.

Again, your opinion. Not bona fide fact.

This raises doubts as to the reliability and worth of Australia as a partner to said SA Asian nations.

Thats their problem, not ours. Again, it seems as though you are saying we need to run our policies by SE Asia. You deny thats what you mean, but how else can this be interpreted?

In a relationship between countries as close geographically and economically to our own, the fewer the doubts in said relationship the better.

I agree. But prostituting your policies to make this happen is not the way to go about it.

Through Iraq and other policies, we have increased the doubts. As a result, we have our isolated our closest neighbours in order to assist a superpower (whose problems in Iraq were not our own) not to mention the drain on manpower and money we have created in doing so. The implications of this therefore are: said SE Asian governments are given less incentive to crack down on terrorism in their own nations in order to prevent strikes against us, as well as the broader implications that involve primarily the economy (e.g. the fact that we have not been admitted into ASEAN). This is further aggravated by our beloved PM declaring the option of pre-emptive strikes against said sovereign nations.[/QUOTE]

So SE Asian governments need an incentive to crack down on terrorists? So we are to be blackmailed?
If SE Asian nations are refusing to crack down on terrorists as you say they are then I see the option of pre-emptive strikes as fair and reasonable. If nations refuse to fight the terror networks in their country then we have a duty to our citizens to protect them from the threat that has been ignored in these countries.

NZ is an excellent example, as I showed before, of how a nation in our region, with similar interests and motives can operate: remains close, but not too close with the US, and the same w/SE Asia. I'm not saying we should mirror their policies completely, but certainly we should consider the impacts and ramifications of their policies are, and whether we could benefit- or simply not suffer drawbacks- as a result of the impacts of adopting similar policies.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with our policies. NZ can do what they like. Australia is a sovereign nation and as such will make its own decisions.

But based on logic.

No, based on opinion.

I think I've dealt with this above- bottom line: it makes them question how willing we are to act in the interests of the US, not just our own, and makes them therefore question the value of us as an ally.

If they do not see us as a worthy ally then thats there problem. Our nation should not be blackmailed into conforming to SE Asian policies.

Not just my spin it would seem. I see nothing wrong from strengthening relationships with regional governments to create incentive for them to deal with terrorists. Furthermore, we are under practically no threat of invasion by said regional nations (just to clarify here)

I never said we were under threat from invasion from SE Asian nations. If these nations refuse to crack down on terrorsists then it would be negligent of our government not to hold the option of pre-emptive attacks. We have a right to defend ourselves, nations have a duty to combat terrorist groups operating in their country.

Mahathir made racist comments about us while still in power, not after. That asides, I still find it amazing that you absovle any SE Asian politician from any responsibility for anything, yet expect Australia's government to bend over backwards to take responsibility for everything. You raised Howard's comments as some sort of reflection of Australian sentiment yet brush off similar comments from Mahathir as "not our problem". Well then, Howard's comments are not their problem...so, there is no problem!

By that logic, Howard should be rushing to apologize for Keatings labelling of Malaysia as recalcitrant/racist comments made by our politicians in the past (my favourite being, during the 1960's I beleive our immigration minister claimed "two wongs do not make a white"). Notice how he isn't. I'm not absolving them of any such thing- pay attention. I am saying, quite simply, we must take the initiative, showing that in Malaysia we are not bigots (thus discrediting all of the bullshit Mahathir said, and therefore reducing his supporter's credibility). In Indonesia, we should simply state why we went in, and ask for Sukarnoputri's (now Yudoyohno's) endorsement. International realtions is not ideologically motivated- countries rarely act out of some altuistic motivation to make amends for some previous misgiving. It is our problem, it doesn't affect the current government's of the day in Malaysia and Indonesia, but it does affect our image and international standing in the region. It is directly in our interest to do this. Of course, if the Malaysians etc wish the current Australian government to assist clarifying its own position in Australia, then I see no reason not too.

Racist policy, such as removing ATSIC as it was corrupt and flawed...not Labor and the Coalition supported its removal. Hanson also called for welfare to be need based and not racially based...thats not racist, the policy she wanted to change was. She advocated reductions in Asian immigration as they were not assililating into our society. Now, that is either based on fact or it is a racist lie. I think that it had an element of truth to it. There was an article by Andrew Bolt on Sunday, it is on the Herald-Sun website (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au) that showed that a large proportion of Hanson's policies that were so abhorrent then have been adopted by the various political parties..even the Greens. The fact that Hanson even made the headlines was because of the smear campaign run against her before the election. While I did not agree with a lot of what she said, her treatment was a disgrace to this nation..

Her treatment in courts was a disgrace to this nation. Her bigotry and fearmongernig brought on the rest: http://www.lamp.ac.uk/~alh/local/hanson1.html

"Asians swamping our nation"

5th paragraph from the bottoms good too- yes Pauline, the Asians are coming to get us.....

In all fairness, she had at least a couple of good ideas- strengthening the UN etc, but overall, she was just a bigot.

I read Bolts article. I find it disturbing, not only because I went so low as to willingly read something that Bolt said, but more importantly, because at least one or two of his points seem to be correct.

Yes, but the thing you have chosen not to take into acount is that he stated it would be as a "last resort". I think that is fair enough. Or do you suppose we wait until a number of citizens are killed in an attack we knew was coming and then react?.

define "last resort"? Do we actually have the capacity to do this against say Indonesia- a country with an army far larger than ours? Do we have the capacity to withstand a counter assault.


Because she should be responsible for correcting the lies of her predecessor. t is not our responsibility to interfere in their internal affairs, it is their responsibility to correct what was said in the interest of better relations. Again, you absolve Indonesia of any responsibility for anything..

How altruistic. But - 1) Our international image, damaged as it is by a president she had no links to 5 years ago is simply not her problem (she's had plenty of other things to worry about, worrying about our image is not going to get her reelected for example). 2) She should be, but we don't live in this wonderful world where politics is primarily concerned with correcting lies said by unrelated Presidents 5 years ago against another country. As I said, it is the same reason why Howard doesn't rush to make amends for the slurs of his own predecessorrs. Simply put: we get an endorsement from the current leader, explaining our actions, problem dealt with.

No, it is not our problem. It is a problem created by them and it should be corrected by them. We are not isolating anyone. How is not correcting another leaders lies isolating them? In order to promote better relation, Indonesia should correct the lies.

Correction: it is a problem created by Habibie, not Sukarnoputri or Yodohyono etc. Again, we should look at it from their (SBY's MSP's) point of view- what's in it for them? Why should they take the iniative during a hectic election campaign, or a hectic presidency to simply come out and increase our image.

I did not say always. I said never. It is your interpretation that our activities in the war on terror are not in our best interest. I do not share your interpretation.

No, as I said many times before, our activies in the War in Iraq are not in our interest.

I think you will find the 9/11 commission found Saddam was not directly involved in the attack on 9/11. Not the War on Terror. The war with Iraq is most certainly a part of the War on Terror.
The invasion of Iraq would not have been necessary had the UN authorised Saddam's removal in '91. Since '91, Saddam thumbed his nose at UN sanctions and UN resolutions. The resultant terorrist activity that culminated in 9/11 meant that Afghanistan was invaded and Al Qaeda's camps destroyed. The Taliban government that sheltered them was removed. This then made the question of WMD in Iraq even more vital. Intelligence suggested he had WMD, were we to wait and see? Or remove the threat before any damage was done?.

This is an opinion of yours, but what are you basing it on? Your patern of logic is not completely sequitur- one nation's government (barbaric as it was) collapses, so another regime must instantly fall too?

This is naivity. Al Qaeda is at war with western society, not just the US or the UK or NATO. Their goal is for the world to convert to Islam and live under Islamic Law. Last I checked, Australia was part of the western society. Last I checked it was Australians that were the targets of the Bali bombings before the invasion of Iraq. How then do you conclude that Australia was not a target before joining the war in Iraq?.

(From Al Quaeda's point of view. I am not saying I know exactly how I think, but they have shown a similar pattern of logic in their previous actions). The US is a superpower. Kill its citizens and you shock 250 million inhabitants of the world's largest power. Britain/NATO countries world powers, each with large armies. Kill its citizens and you shock and dismay hundreds of millions of them. Australia is, by comparison, tiny- 25,000 soldiers, 20 million people. Kill it's citizens and you shock less people. Now, I say "you shock it's people"- indeed I'm sure there are individuals in other countries that are just as horrified, but clearly, it is even more devestating for the country who primarily lost citizens.

My point: Killing US citizens and NATO country citizens (and I'm just using them as large, convenient examples here) leaves larger, more powerful countries in shock. Thus, they are far better targets for Al Quaeda (and I do mean Al Quaeda- JI is a completely different story here) I hate to say this, but when it comes to direct military and political hegemony, Australia is pretty insignificant on the world scale.

The current situation in Iraq clearly shows why more than nominal support was required. This fight in Iraq is crucial to the war on terror. If this war is lost because people think it is not worth the effort then terrorists have won the battle.

Opinion.

Faulty intelligence pointing to a target who, at best, may have been a terrorist in Iraq. A terrorist with a crapload more of a grudge against the US, UK so on so forth than Australia

Even if it is to deal with terrorists (which it would appear not to- did you read that "Newamericancentury.org" website I posted) and the mythical WMDs, the countries which alleged terrorists would have targeted actually have the military capacity to deal with Iraq. Those in Iraq are a superpower and a couple of world powers (S Korea, Japan). How again does our (tiny nation's) commitment make all the difference there?

The resultant security vacuum (you think it is unstable now!) of a full withdrawal from Iraq would enable opportunist groups, not least the Iranians to get a foothold in Iraq. I really think you do not see the bigger picture of what is happening here.

The Americans have as of early March 2004 over 114,000 US personnel and over 23,000 coalition personnel from 35 nations were deployed in Iraq. Over 26,000 US and Coalition personnel were deployed in Kuwait, providing logistical support to Operation Iraqi Freedom (source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm). Do you honestly think that 1000 Australian personnel are all that's making the difference in Iraq between liberation and freedom and total anarchy? I agree, a full withdrawal, of all coalition forces Removing 1000 personnel (not even 1000 combat troops) would in no way effect the overall situation, and it would plug a significant drain on our government's budget, not to mention removing 1000 of our citizens from a warzone.

Al-Zarqawi is a terrorist leader with ties to Al Qaeda. If he was allowed to set up shop in Iraq, which he had begun to do before the US invaded then we would have Afghanistan all over again. Only this time, they would have access to far more diacbolical weapons. This would have posed a threat, not just to Australia, but the western world. Again, the big picture.

Why? You claim Saddam hid Al Zaquawi- fact is, that evidence, like a shiteload used to justify this war is again, questionable. US intelligence indicated that he may have recieved medical treatment in Bahgdad, possibly having a leg amputated. Very few beleive this now (he's been busy for a recent amputee!). I think Newsweek put it best earlier this year: "The stark fact is that we don’t even know for sure how many legs Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi has, let alone whether the Jordanian terrorist, purportedly tied to al Qaeda, is really behind the latest outrages in Iraq."

Quite frankly, the entire western world is not our problem. I have already established why it is that Australia, of all the western countries, would be one of the least likely to be hit by Al Queada- it's simply not as significant and effective a target for a terrorists precious WMDs. The entire western world (primarily NATO and the US has more than enough firepower to deal with Iraq on their own)

So what? Because our contribution is less than the US does not mean it is not needed or appreciated..

Lol, appreciated I'm sure, needed? Hardly. The Americans could have filled their positions instantly- you know, being a superpower and all. Certainly not for our own security- as I've said, JI attacks us, not Al Quaeda, which has little incentive to worry about us, when they can attack the US and others.

Our deployment simply has not helped AUSTRALIA.


I know what you meant but it contradicted your previous assertion that we follow the US purely because of our alliance. By showing that the alliance was not in jeopardy if we refused to help in Iraq, you showed that we acted in our own interests, not the US's.

Not quite. I asserted that many proponents of our involvement held that the said involvement was critical to our alliance. After they said this, the US effectively contradicted them saying that, in their opinion, regardless of whether Aus had sent troops or not, they would have considered the alliance sacrosanct.

And the problem with that is? Its called trying to avert a war. Possibly a nuclear strike. Makes sense to me..

No nuclear strike likely against Australia- honestly you drastically overestimate the threat that Al Queada posses to Australia. Why would they bother- as I have said -attacking so insignificant a nation.

Actually, Alexander Downer made a speech a while back denouncing the independence movement in Taiwan. Taiwan is a political football. Taiwan represents democracy, but as they are at loggerheads with China, and the west are trying to court China for many reasons, Taiwan gets left out in the cold. I actually think Taiwan should become an independent nation, but that is not going to happen in the near future. The US does not support Taiwanese independence for fear it will upset China. .

I'd love them to become independent as well, Quite simply, they can't. Without retaliation from China that is. There would be absolutely no gain for Australia in assisting the US getting involved in a war with China- even the US and China themselves have conceded that if it ever came to that, it would be messy for both of them (one superpower and one soon to be superpower, how do you think the pitifully small ADF would fare in all of this!?!)

Australia isn't involved. If tensions grew to the point of war then the deployment of US and allied troops in protection of Taiwan would more than likely avert the war rather than escalate it..

Irrelevant, the point is, current Howard government policy would be to assist the US in an actual, shooting war in defence of Taiwan. Thus, we would be involved, and we would lose much, and gain nothign in doing so.

The gains? Regional stability and a democratic Taiwan. Australia a target for what? A Chinese invasion?.

How lovely, after a war between 1 and a half superpowers....
Not necessarily an invasion, but of all the countries in the world which we can be making economic deals with, China (in my opinion) is the one we most want to do it with at the moment- rapidly liberalising consumer market of 1.2 Billion people, how Australian companies afford not to get in their quickly? Of course, had we just supported their opponents in a war, we may not be likely to get their co-operation (and there are plenty of examples of them using the threat of cancellation of trade deals whenever someone makes noises about supporting Taiwanese Independance)

There are always risks in life. If you want to live in an insular country that has not interest in anything then go and live in North Korea..

That's a pitiful way of dismissing it. There is no reason to increase the risk to our own country unnecessarily. Last I looked, Taiwan and Iraq had nothing to do with Australia- and yes, as a citizen of the country, I may, just as everyone else does, put our own interests first.


Being described as a puppet is not our problem. As I said, being called names is not a reason to change foreign policy. The actions in Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with SE Asia. They are using the false perception of us blindly following the US to try and gain some leverage to change our policies. Obviously you have bought it. I certainly hope that the government (whoever that may be) does not fall for this rhetoric..

Or maybe it's that they actually do see us as a puppet. As I have said- we have two extremely good examples (Iraq, Taiwan) of Australian policy closely following US policy for no benefit to Aus.

Crap. We are an affluent, western nation. We were a target before the Iraq war and we are during it. Nothing has changed..

Relative to the Americans, to Canada, to most NATO counties, we are insignificant. Stop thinking we are so much more than we are in reality. Our GDP is what, $800 billion- the US's is nearly $11 trillion. We cannot afford to jeapordize our position -in the area especially- in order to appease the Americans.

Again, you are posting your opinions as undeniable fact. Prove to me we were instructed by the US to go to Iraq. Prove to me that the US dictated our policies on Taiwan. I would lend more credence to our policies on Taiwan as being dictated by China..

I never said instructed. We certainly were requested on both counts. I said we "follow" many US policies, to our own loss, I never said we were "forced to follow". Our position on China should be to overlook Taiwan- we have no real interest in that country, and China's incredibly quickly growing markets would be a real boon for Australian business. However, said boon is certainly put at risk, and, worst case scenario- lost, when we pointlessly join the US in rhetoric about 'defending Taiwan' when in reality, we couldn't do much and we would simply piss the Chinese off.

Again, your opinion. Not bona fide fact..

Based upon a sequitur interpretation of events and facts- ok, what benefit did AUSTRALIA directly gain from Iraq? remebering that Al Queada would most likely not even bother with us given our actual global significance.

Thats their problem, not ours. Again, it seems as though you are saying we need to run our policies by SE Asia. You deny thats what you mean, but how else can this be interpreted?.

SE Asia's positions on issues should be taken into greater account when working out our own policies. As I have shown, there are plently of benefits from a close relationship with them, and thus directly in our interests to, at the very least, consider the impacts and repercussions of our actions in the area. This is not letting "Asia run our policy", this is creating policies which sensibly take into consideration any potential problems that said policy may involve, specifically- in our region (as,being our closest neighbours, they should be our primary concern)

I agree. But prostituting your policies to make this happen is not the way to go about it..

So how should we? By joining the US in wars contrary to our own interest, and giving our neighbours reason to suspect our reliablity as an ally?

So SE Asian governments need an incentive to crack down on terrorists? So we are to be blackmailed?.

Don't sensationalize- who are you more likely to assist, a distant, dubious nation or a close ally?

If SE Asian nations are refusing to crack down on terrorists as you say they are then I see the option of pre-emptive strikes as fair and reasonable. If nations refuse to fight the terror networks in their country then we have a duty to our citizens to protect them from the threat that has been ignored in these countries..

I never said "refusing"- don't put words in my mouth, but we are hardly giving them reason to go out and actively hunt for terrorists in their countries which see us as a target. In their eyes- we regularly act contrary to our own interests in favor of the US, we are arrogant (to suggest that we would even have the capacity to pre-emptively attack them, beleive me, we don't have half the military power required for say, Indonesia). They are not refusing, but then again, how are we, Australia, giving them any reason to take the initiative and rigorously investigate possible terrorist links?


No, based on opinion..

Opinion, based on logic

If they do not see us as a worthy ally then thats there problem. Our nation should not be blackmailed into conforming to SE Asian policies.

Again, stop sensationalizing. This is not blackmail. One thing that historically has been seen is that the best foreign policies when regarding allies (especially regional allies) are those which take the other's positions into account. We do have to be sensitive to their positions, as we would expect the same from them.

I never said we were under threat from invasion from SE Asian nations. If these nations refuse to crack down on terrorsists then it would be negligent of our government not to hold the option of pre-emptive attacks. We have a right to defend ourselves, nations have a duty to combat terrorist groups operating in their country.

We have neither the capacity to launch a pre-emptive strike nor the ability to survive the other countries retaliation. ANY strike against their country would be regarded by them in the same way as we would had their struck against ours- it is simply not the point whether we hit terrorists or not, it is the fact that we did not get their co-operation in doing so. And they most likely would co-operate with us against some abhorrent target like JI bombers planning to attack us. Why? Because it makes alot of sense for them to do so, they remove the possibility of an international incident quickly and efficiently, can appear to their constituencies as being a benevolent force and it at the very least, doesn't hurt their relationship with Aus.

By that logic, Howard should be rushing to apologize for Keatings labelling of Malaysia as recalcitrant/racist comments made by our politicians in the past (my favourite being, during the 1960's I beleive our immigration minister claimed "two wongs do not make a white"). Notice how he isn't. I'm not absolving them of any such thing- pay attention. I am saying, quite simply, we must take the initiative, showing that in Malaysia we are not bigots (thus discrediting all of the bullshit Mahathir said, and therefore reducing his supporter's credibility). In Indonesia, we should simply state why we went in, and ask for Sukarnoputri's (now Yudoyohno's) endorsement. International realtions is not ideologically motivated- countries rarely act out of some altuistic motivation to make amends for some previous misgiving. It is our problem, it doesn't affect the current government's of the day in Malaysia and Indonesia, but it does affect our image and international standing in the region. It is directly in our interest to do this. Of course, if the Malaysians etc wish the current Australian government to assist clarifying its own position in Australia, then I see no reason not too.

Ah, so you have stumbled across my point. You see, you raised the issue that the misconceptions created by Habibie over our action as part of a UN intervention force in East Timor were an issue that needed to be dealt with. I argued it was a non-issue.
All the name-calling and lies are a non-issue. We need not worry ourselves with the lies of others. We don't need the Indonesian President's endorsement, we do not need Malaysia's endorsement. It would be nice to have them but we do not need to go crawling to these nations for anything.



Her treatment in courts was a disgrace to this nation. Her bigotry and fearmongernig brought on the rest: http://www.lamp.ac.uk/~alh/local/hanson1.html

"Asians swamping our nation"

5th paragraph from the bottoms good too- yes Pauline, the Asians are coming to get us.....

In all fairness, she had at least a couple of good ideas- strengthening the UN etc, but overall, she was just a bigot.

If that is the case then why give her the coverage she received from the smear campaign? Any publicity is good publicity as they say. The monster that was/is Pauline Hanson was created by media hype and smear campaigns ably assisted by both sides of politics.

I read Bolts article. I find it disturbing, not only because I went so low as to willingly read something that Bolt said, but more importantly, because at least one or two of his points seem to be correct.

Amazing what happens when you read the other side's version of events isn't it. Bolt's comments tend to be spot on from what I can see, of course you tend to favour someone like Jill Singer. I read both.


define "last resort"? Do we actually have the capacity to do this against say Indonesia- a country with an army far larger than ours? Do we have the capacity to withstand a counter assault.

"Last Resort", when there is no other alternative. As you say, Indonesia is not who we are fighting, terrorists are who we would be targeting in a pre-emptive strike.

How altruistic. But - 1) Our international image, damaged as it is by a president she had no links to 5 years ago is simply not her problem (she's had plenty of other things to worry about, worrying about our image is not going to get her reelected for example).

Likewise, we have more important things to worry about than a lot of hot air from Indonesia. Our image is not damaged from our actions, just by the opinions of those that would always view us with suspicion. Not a concern.

2) She should be, but we don't live in this wonderful world where politics is primarily concerned with correcting lies said by unrelated Presidents 5 years ago against another country. As I said, it is the same reason why Howard doesn't rush to make amends for the slurs of his own predecessorrs. Simply put: we get an endorsement from the current leader, explaining our actions, problem dealt with.

We don't need their endorsement. We have done nothing wrong, if they have a problem it si their problem, not ours.

Correction: it is a problem created by Habibie, not Sukarnoputri or Yodohyono etc. Again, we should look at it from their (SBY's MSP's) point of view- what's in it for them? Why should they take the iniative during a hectic election campaign, or a hectic presidency to simply come out and increase our image.

Never said it was not Habibie that created the lies. I couldn't care less if there was anything in it for them. As I said, we have done no wrong and have no reason to go grovelling to Indonesia to get their endorsement.

No, as I said many times before, our activies in the War in Iraq are not in our interest.

Your opinon, I disagree.

This is an opinion of yours, but what are you basing it on? Your patern of logic is not completely sequitur- one nation's government (barbaric as it was) collapses, so another regime must instantly fall too?

Ok, let me try again. Iraq was reported to have WMD in the lead up to the invasion. This was after the Taliban was brought down in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda's camps were destroyed. The reason for the invasion of Iraq was to 1) remove the threat of WMD in Iraq, 2) remove a regime sympathetic to terrorists and as a result 3) Remove the likelihood that a terroist sympathising regime could supply WMD to terrorist networks. That is the basis for my opinion that the involvement of Australia in the war on terror is warranted and is for the betterment of the world, western society and by association, Australia.

(From Al Quaeda's point of view. I am not saying I know exactly how I think, but they have shown a similar pattern of logic in their previous actions). The US is a superpower. Kill its citizens and you shock 250 million inhabitants of the world's largest power. Britain/NATO countries world powers, each with large armies. Kill its citizens and you shock and dismay hundreds of millions of them. Australia is, by comparison, tiny- 25,000 soldiers, 20 million people. Kill it's citizens and you shock less people. Now, I say "you shock it's people"- indeed I'm sure there are individuals in other countries that are just as horrified, but clearly, it is even more devestating for the country who primarily lost citizens.

As I said, that is a naive approach. Al Qaeda is at war with western civilisation. Not just the "main players". Al Qaeda seeks to convert the world to Islam and bring everyone under Islamic Law. That means us too. Or do you prefer we sit back and wait for that threat to come to us or do we do as we are doing now and confront it before it arrives?

My point: Killing US citizens and NATO country citizens (and I'm just using them as large, convenient examples here) leaves larger, more powerful countries in shock. Thus, they are far better targets for Al Quaeda (and I do mean Al Quaeda- JI is a completely different story here) I hate to say this, but when it comes to direct military and political hegemony, Australia is pretty insignificant on the world scale.

I am under no illusions of Australia's military might or more importantly lackthereof. However, that does not mean we do not do whatever we can to fight this threat to our way of life.

Opinion.

Yes. As is your argument.

Faulty intelligence pointing to a target who, at best, may have been a terrorist in Iraq. A terrorist with a crapload more of a grudge against the US, UK so on so forth than Australia

See above, the threat is to western civilisation. That means us too.

Even if it is to deal with terrorists (which it would appear not to- did you read that "Newamericancentury.org" website I posted) and the mythical WMDs, the countries which alleged terrorists would have targeted actually have the military capacity to deal with Iraq. Those in Iraq are a superpower and a couple of world powers (S Korea, Japan). How again does our (tiny nation's) commitment make all the difference there?

Yes, read the website. Again, as the threat is to western civilisation it does concern us and as such we should assist where we can in the fight against the threat of terrorism.



The Americans have as of early March 2004 over 114,000 US personnel and over 23,000 coalition personnel from 35 nations were deployed in Iraq. Over 26,000 US and Coalition personnel were deployed in Kuwait, providing logistical support to Operation Iraqi Freedom (source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm). Do you honestly think that 1000 Australian personnel are all that's making the difference in Iraq between liberation and freedom and total anarchy?

Hmmm...your continual theme is that we are too insignificant to matter. I disagree. We should do all possible to fight this threat to our way of life.

I agree, a full withdrawal, of all coalition forces Removing 1000 personnel (not even 1000 combat troops) would in no way effect the overall situation, and it would plug a significant drain on our government's budget, not to mention removing 1000 of our citizens from a warzone.

Well, those citizens are in our military. That means they fight from time to time. Currently there is a threat to our way of life and our government is right in committing those troops to contribute to that fight.

Why? You claim Saddam hid Al Zaquawi- fact is, that evidence, like a shiteload used to justify this war is again, questionable. US intelligence indicated that he may have recieved medical treatment in Bahgdad, possibly having a leg amputated. Very few beleive this now (he's been busy for a recent amputee!). I think Newsweek put it best earlier this year: "The stark fact is that we don’t even know for sure how many legs Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi has, let alone whether the Jordanian terrorist, purportedly tied to al Qaeda, is really behind the latest outrages in Iraq."

Someone is behind them. Whether it is Al Zarqawi or another leader it makes no difference. Foreign terrorists are in Iraq, Al Zarqawi was in Iraq and more than likely still is. It has been reported he was killed in an air strike, who knows? Regardless of who is orchestrating the attacks, they still need to be stopped.

Quite frankly, the entire western world is not our problem. I have already established why it is that Australia, of all the western countries, would be one of the least likely to be hit by Al Queada- it's simply not as significant and effective a target for a terrorists precious WMDs. The entire western world (primarily NATO and the US has more than enough firepower to deal with Iraq on their own)

Yes it is our problem, we are part of the western world. Whether we are first or last on the hitlist is irrelevant. We are a target, we were before Iraq and we are after the invasion. Therefore we must invest resources to fight this threat.

Lol, appreciated I'm sure, needed? Hardly. The Americans could have filled their positions instantly- you know, being a superpower and all. Certainly not for our own security- as I've said, JI attacks us, not Al Quaeda, which has little incentive to worry about us, when they can attack the US and others.

It is needed to show we are serious in our attempts to fight terrorism. You play the "little Australia" card too much. We have to make a statement against terrorists. Providing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan shows we do take the fight seriously. Whether we sent 1000 troops or 10, it makes no difference.

Our deployment simply has not helped AUSTRALIA.

Your opinion and I disagree. The removal of terrorism networks does help Australia along with the rest of the world.


Not quite. I asserted that many proponents of our involvement held that the said involvement was critical to our alliance. After they said this, the US effectively contradicted them saying that, in their opinion, regardless of whether Aus had sent troops or not, they would have considered the alliance sacrosanct.

People can say what they like. The fact that, regardless of whether Australia did or did not contribute troops to the war on terror in Iraq, there would have been no affect on the alliance with the US shows that we did not blindly follow the US. Our government made a decision in the interests of national security...to try and rid the threat of terrorism.

No nuclear strike likely against Australia- honestly you drastically overestimate the threat that Al Queada posses to Australia. Why would they bother- as I have said -attacking so insignificant a nation.

I wasn't talking about Australia. A nuclear strike anywhere would have repercussions for everyone. It is this exact sentiment "we are to insignificant" that is naive. We are a western nation with western values, therefore we are a target, now and in the future while terrorist networks are still functioning.

I'd love them to become independent as well, Quite simply, they can't. Without retaliation from China that is. There would be absolutely no gain for Australia in assisting the US getting involved in a war with China- even the US and China themselves have conceded that if it ever came to that, it would be messy for both of them (one superpower and one soon to be superpower, how do you think the pitifully small ADF would fare in all of this!?!)

You are running on a tangent here. You stated that Australia blindly follows policy dictated by the US with regards to Taiwan. That is absolutely untrue, in fact China has more influence on our relations with Taiwan than anyone.

Irrelevant, the point is, current Howard government policy would be to assist the US in an actual, shooting war in defence of Taiwan. Thus, we would be involved, and we would lose much, and gain nothign in doing so.

Show me government policy stating we are committed to go to war over Taiwan.

How lovely, after a war between 1 and a half superpowers....
Not necessarily an invasion, but of all the countries in the world which we can be making economic deals with, China (in my opinion) is the one we most want to do it with at the moment- rapidly liberalising consumer market of 1.2 Billion people, how Australian companies afford not to get in their quickly? Of course, had we just supported their opponents in a war, we may not be likely to get their co-operation (and there are plenty of examples of them using the threat of cancellation of trade deals whenever someone makes noises about supporting Taiwanese Independance)

Which proves my point that China dictates our Taiwan policy, not the US. Thank you for confirming that.

That's a pitiful way of dismissing it. There is no reason to increase the risk to our own country unnecessarily. Last I looked, Taiwan and Iraq had nothing to do with Australia- and yes, as a citizen of the country, I may, just as everyone else does, put our own interests first.

As I said, there will be no war over Taiwan because no-one is going to stand up for Taiwan against China because of politics. I have also pointed out why Iraq is a concern of Australia. You don't put Australia first, you put SE Asia first.


Or maybe it's that they actually do see us as a puppet. As I have said- we have two extremely good examples (Iraq, Taiwan) of Australian policy closely following US policy for no benefit to Aus.

Again, Australia's policy mirrors the US with regards to Taiwan because both nations are tiptoeing around China. China is calling th shots, not the US. Are we the puppets of the Chinese according to SE Asia or is that puppetry acceptable because China is Asian?
We owe no explanation to SE Asia over Iraq. I have shown why I believe the efforts in Iraq do benefit Australia.

Relative to the Americans, to Canada, to most NATO counties, we are insignificant. Stop thinking we are so much more than we are in reality. Our GDP is what, $800 billion- the US's is nearly $11 trillion. We cannot afford to jeapordize our position -in the area especially- in order to appease the Americans.

Here we go again with the "little Australia" thing. Did you think we were insignificant in WWI, WWII? I could not care less what our GDP is compared to the US or Canada. We are committing troops to protect our way of life. We hav offered what we can and that should be commended, not belittled. We did not do it to appease the Americans. We did it to protect what we have in our country.

I never said instructed. We certainly were requested on both counts. I said we "follow" many US policies, to our own loss, I never said we were "forced to follow". Our position on China should be to overlook Taiwan- we have no real interest in that country, and China's incredibly quickly growing markets would be a real boon for Australian business. However, said boon is certainly put at risk, and, worst case scenario- lost, when we pointlessly join the US in rhetoric about 'defending Taiwan' when in reality, we couldn't do much and we would simply piss the Chinese off.

No, we follow our own policies based on information concerning our nation. This is the real problem I have with people with your views. Screw everyone, forget Taiwan, forget people dying in terror attacks. This is ll well and good until we are in jeopardy, then what? Australia has made no rhetoric about defending Taiwan. As I said, our government is kowtowing to the Chinese which you seem to think is a good thing.

Based upon a sequitur interpretation of events and facts- ok, what benefit did AUSTRALIA directly gain from Iraq? remebering that Al Queada would most likely not even bother with us given our actual global significance.

Your naive perspective about significance is a flaw. We are part of western society, therefore we are a target of Al Qaeda. See my above comments expanding on this.



SE Asia's positions on issues should be taken into greater account when working out our own policies. As I have shown, there are plently of benefits from a close relationship with them, and thus directly in our interests to, at the very least, consider the impacts and repercussions of our actions in the area. This is not letting "Asia run our policy", this is creating policies which sensibly take into consideration any potential problems that said policy may involve, specifically- in our region (as,being our closest neighbours, they should be our primary concern)

So you finally admit it, you do think we should run our policies by SE Asian countries. It took a while but you finally said it.

So how should we? By joining the US in wars contrary to our own interest, and giving our neighbours reason to suspect our reliablity as an ally?

Again, thats your opinion. I believe it is in our interests for reasons previously stated. If our neighbours suspect our reliability then they should take another look. Australia has made a habit of standing by its allies to fight evil. Look through our history and you will see that too.

Don't sensationalize- who are you more likely to assist, a distant, dubious nation or a close ally?

It should be irrelevant. A nation should do all in its power to root out terrorist networks in their country. If they choose to turn a blind eye then they leave themselves open to pre-emptive strikes to remove that terror threat.

I never said "refusing"- don't put words in my mouth, but we are hardly giving them reason to go out and actively hunt for terrorists in their countries which see us as a target. In their eyes- we regularly act contrary to our own interests in favor of the US, we are arrogant (to suggest that we would even have the capacity to pre-emptively attack them, beleive me, we don't have half the military power required for say, Indonesia). They are not refusing, but then again, how are we, Australia, giving them any reason to take the initiative and rigorously investigate possible terrorist links?

They should not need a reason, they should be doing it of their own volition. Afterall, their citizens were killed in Bali and Jakarta. Are they not compelled to protect their citizens?


Opinion, based on logic

No, just opinion.

Again, stop sensationalizing. This is not blackmail. One thing that historically has been seen is that the best foreign policies when regarding allies (especially regional allies) are those which take the other's positions into account. We do have to be sensitive to their positions, as we would expect the same from them.

Stop supporting the US or we won't seek out and disable terror cells in our country..sounds like blackmail to me. You forget that the terrorists in their country also kill their citizens when targeting others. That should be all they need to seriously combat terror cells in their countries.

We have neither the capacity to launch a pre-emptive strike nor the ability to survive the other countries retaliation. ANY strike against their country would be regarded by them in the same way as we would had their struck against ours- it is simply not the point whether we hit terrorists or not, it is the fact that we did not get their co-operation in doing so. And they most likely would co-operate with us against some abhorrent target like JI bombers planning to attack us. Why? Because it makes alot of sense for them to do so, they remove the possibility of an international incident quickly and efficiently, can appear to their constituencies as being a benevolent force and it at the very least, doesn't hurt their relationship with Aus.

So, if they combat JI or other terror groups as you say then the pre-emptive strike option will not be called upon. Therefore, no problem. If these countries do the right thing and combat terror in their countries then they have nothing to worry about.

Ah, so you have stumbled across my point. You see, you raised the issue that the misconceptions created by Habibie over our action as part of a UN intervention force in East Timor were an issue that needed to be dealt with. I argued it was a non-issue.
All the name-calling and lies are a non-issue. We need not worry ourselves with the lies of others. We don't need the Indonesian President's endorsement, we do not need Malaysia's endorsement. It would be nice to have them but we do not need to go crawling to these nations for anything. .

I disagree, it's certainly not crawling, what possible harm could there be in raising the country's profile in the eyes of our closest neighbours. As I pointed out through that quote from the ANU expert, we aren't terribly popular, and this lack of popularity simply isn't helpful when it can be so easily redressed. This doesn't involve any crawling whatsoever, I can't imagine what your basing that concept on....



If that is the case then why give her the coverage she received from the smear campaign? Any publicity is good publicity as they say. The monster that was/is Pauline Hanson was created by media hype and smear campaigns ably assisted by both sides of politics..

Not true. That priniciple works for advertising a product, but labelling a political opponent as a bigot and racist (which she clearly was) turns away large amounts of people. I agree, she was daemonized- but then again with comments from her very own mouth ("swamped by asians"...... :eek:!?!) she made it easy for all to do so.

Amazing what happens when you read the other side's version of events isn't it. Bolt's comments tend to be spot on from what I can see, of course you tend to favour someone like Jill Singer. I read both..

I read neither, I specifically aim to stay away from the clearly biased fringe on both sides of politics. Bolt's a twit, but I'm no more swayed by loony Bob-Brown sycophants either. I resrict my reading to the mainstream of both sides (indeed, I am somewhat mandated to do so in order to perform well in my International Studies subject). Please don't think I'm some left-wing, Greens/Labour (who aren't even left wing) loving hippie or something, beleive me, my views are quite centrist with a slight lean to the right economically speaking. However, on matters of foreign policy, I think Howard has now screwed up one too many times.


"Last Resort", when there is no other alternative. As you say, Indonesia is not who we are fighting, terrorists are who we would be targeting in a pre-emptive strike..

And how, pray tell, do you think a sovereign nation such as Indonesia would see it? Let's say we did bomb some (conveniently) isolated outpost of terrorism in Indonesia- that's not the point. No country will ever tolerate any deliberate attack on it's soil without it's co-operation/authorisation, not the Indonesians, certainly not us, not anyone. If said country were to allow one or two strikes without permission, it not only lowers its regard in the international community ("hell, they'll let us bomb them without causing a stir"), but most importantly in a democracy, the constituents of whatever leader was in power would NEVER forgive them for allowing an unauthorized strike to go ahead unreciprocated. Thus, even if we were to strike at terrorists, Indonesia would demand retaliation- and I must stress were the situation reversed we would do exactly the same thing- and I'm sure you know what and Indonesian retaliation against our tiny military would end up meaning. Pre-emptive strikes didn't work for a superpower in Iraq, what on earth makes you think a nation with our (acknowledged by you) lack of outright firepower could pull it off against the Indonesians?

Likewise, we have more important things to worry about than a lot of hot air from Indonesia. Our image is not damaged from our actions, just by the opinions of those that would always view us with suspicion. Not a concern..

As I said before, your opinion is that we will "always (be viewed) with suspicion", and I disagree. Personally, my opinion for what should be done is based on the concept that we have enjoy good relations with other Asian nations (South Korea and Japan being two perfect examples), so I see certainly a precedent indicating potential for doing so with other Asian nations (ones which, in my opinion are of greater strategic value to Australia given their proximity and their potential as trading partners). Thus, it is my opinion that we simply need to dispell whatever negative image we have in said nations with some somewhat simple diplomatic maneurvering on our part. This involves most importantly of all, a shift of perceptions in other countries that our foreign policy is needlessly US-centric.

.We don't need their endorsement. We have done nothing wrong, if they have a problem it si their problem, not ours..

It becomes our problem because we are the ones who directly feel it's effects. It would take very little on our part to reconcile the situation and the benefits are clear and substantial for us. I agree Australia has done nothing wrong (towards SE Asia, Indonesia specifically), therefore all we need to do is enlighten the populations of said nations to do so.

Never said it was not Habibie that created the lies. I couldn't care less if there was anything in it for them. As I said, we have done no wrong and have no reason to go grovelling to Indonesia to get their endorsement. .

This is not grovelling at all, this is merely asking for an endorsement, the attainment of which, will result in useful benefits for Australia (i.e. getting more of the region's population to view us as allies, not "pragmatic partners"- therefore more likely to elect governments more sympathetic to our cause)


Ok, let me try again. Iraq was reported to have WMD in the lead up to the invasion. This was after the Taliban was brought down in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda's camps were destroyed. The reason for the invasion of Iraq was to 1) remove the threat of WMD in Iraq, 2) remove a regime sympathetic to terrorists and as a result 3) Remove the likelihood that a terroist sympathising regime could supply WMD to terrorist networks. That is the basis for my opinion that the involvement of Australia in the war on terror is warranted and is for the betterment of the world, western society and by association, Australia..

Unfortunately, reality has proven you wrong. There were no WMDs, and the evidence even before the war was clearly questionable (the reliance of the US on individuals such as...Ahmed Challabi?!?!). Our own intelligence personell were resigning over the issue, and when we are going to commit millions of dollars and hundreds of personell, surely you would want to make sure that your basis of doing so was as solid as possible.

As for evidence of Saddam co-operating with terrorists-> what evidence pray tell? Thus far you have brought up his alleged asylum of Al-Zaqawi- which unfortunately, not even the Americans are/were sure about. Palestinian suicide bombers families are about the last priority on Australia's priority list. What else? There may well have been operatives for Al Queada etc in Iraq at the time, but undoubtably, there were almost certainy Al Queada agents in the US, the UK, Europe, Asia, probably even Australia too- that is the fundamental difficultly in facing terrorists- you don't know who they are., at least, until after they have struck. Invading countries other than those with clear links to terrorists, as with Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, is not an effective way to deal with terrorism- as unless you conduct door-to-door raids on each and every residence or possibly place for terrorists (the majority of whom you don't know).

Iraq had no relation to the war on terror. Now, most importantly of all- did you go to that 'www.newamericancentury.org' website? Did you note any of the policies, and most importantly the signatories to said policies and the dates they were presented? If so, then surely you can see that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Pearle have wanted this little war since '91 in the case of Wolf, and the mid nineties in the case of the others. Forget oil, they themselves clearly state that they've wanted it for a while, for the purposes that they outlined on their site "global american leadership". Ifyou haven't do so- you say you read both sides of politics, read theirs.


As I said, that is a naive approach. Al Qaeda is at war with western civilisation. Not just the "main players". Al Qaeda seeks to convert the world to Islam and bring everyone under Islamic Law. That means us too. Or do you prefer we sit back and wait for that threat to come to us or do we do as we are doing now and confront it before it arrives?.

And do you honestly think they will ever be able to do so? A terrorist organisation has the ability to kill people and affect minor changes in policy at the very worst of times, but they haven't even got the support of the overwhelming majority of muslims, let alone the billions of Christians/Hindu's etc in the world. You seem to violently overestimate the threat posed by Al Queada but more importantly, Australia's ability to deal with it.

The US has more firepower than we can imagine, NATO nearly as much. Our entire ADF isn't even a fraction of the resources the US and NATO has pumped into Afghanistan and Iraq. THey have more than enough firepower to deal with legitimate targets, and the US seems to have enough to topple governments that it want's removed. Afghanistan, as you said, was a legitimate target for us, as it was clearly a regime sympathetic to terrorist groups, thus clearly a target in the War on Terror. Iraq had no such links- the information was faulty from the start and we knew it. We committed a relatively large portion of our small military to deal with a ghost of a threat created by people in the US who have wanted Iraq for years. Howard and co went along without question. As a result, our neighbours.

I am under no illusions of Australia's military might or more importantly lackthereof. However, that does not mean we do not do whatever we can to fight this threat to our way of life..

I'm all for fighting terrorists. Iraq had no such links. It was simply ridiculous for us to give such a large commitment to the US.

Yes. As is your argument..

As is yours- but what are you basing it on?

See above, the threat is to western civilisation. That means us too..

Which you drastically overestimate and more importantly, you assume Iraq was part of this threat. What other evidence to you have to show that Iraq actually did support terrorists? More importantly, Terrorists which would a) have the ability b) have the interest to strike at a minor target such as Australia


Yes, read the website. Again, as the threat is to western civilisation it does concern us and as such we should assist where we can in the fight against the threat of terrorism..

See my response above- you've missed the point- they were not doing it to fight terrorism, they have wanted this for ages.



Hmmm...your continual theme is that we are too insignificant to matter. I disagree. We should do all possible to fight this threat to our way of life..

Opinion. The question I pose is: what can we actually do that will, at the end of the day, actually matter that much. More to the point, what our you basing your assumption that Iraq was a threat to our life on?

Well, those citizens are in our military. That means they fight from time to time. Currently there is a threat to our way of life and our government is right in committing those troops to contribute to that fight..

I agree, but the threat is from far more legitimate targets than Iraq? Does it not make sense to only expose our troops to actual danger ONLY when necessary, and not during wars completely superfluous to our aims.

Someone is behind them. Whether it is Al Zarqawi or another leader it makes no difference. Foreign terrorists are in Iraq, Al Zarqawi was in Iraq and more than likely still is. It has been reported he was killed in an air strike, who knows? Regardless of who is orchestrating the attacks, they still need to be stopped..

They are certainly in Iraq now. The question is, were they before- the US, Howard and Blair certainly claim so, but where did they get their evidence. More importantly- how do you know that Al Zarqawi was there- when even the huge resources of Newscorp weren't even enough to assertain this

Yes it is our problem, we are part of the western world. Whether we are first or last on the hitlist is irrelevant. We are a target, we were before Iraq and we are after the invasion. Therefore we must invest resources to fight this threat..

We are a tiny part of the western world without the military resources nor the regional interests required to commit to any part of the War on Terror not clearly and universally supported by our allies (including: European nations)

It is needed to show we are serious in our attempts to fight terrorism. You play the "little Australia" card too much. We have to make a statement against terrorists. Providing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan shows we do take the fight seriously. Whether we sent 1000 troops or 10, it makes no difference..

Afghanistan happily showed this- we went in as part of a coalition of nations with the intent to remove a regime clearly supporting terrorism.


Your opinion and I disagree. The removal of terrorism networks does help Australia along with the rest of the world..

Of course it does- Iraq was not included in this list (however, it may be now considering the massive instablity there)


. Our government made a decision in the interests of national security...to try and rid the threat of terrorism..

On what solid evidence?

I wasn't talking about Australia. A nuclear strike anywhere would have repercussions for everyone. It is this exact sentiment "we are to insignificant" that is naive. We are a western nation with western values, therefore we are a target, now and in the future while terrorist networks are still functioning..

So, once agian, how does Iraq play into this. What 'Nuclear Strike', what terrorists would be given such mythical weapons. Please, feel free to cite solid evidence.

[QUOE]Show me government policy stating we are committed to go to war over Taiwan..[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.
"Well I understand, and I'm sure China and the world understands, the United States' position in relation to Taiwan." - Australian prime minister John Howard 2001.

It's actually been complicated recently, Howard claims that ANZUS would lock us into it assisting the US in defending Taiwan, and rebuked Downer for saying so-

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1181582.htm

This is the best link I've found to explain the situation

Which proves my point that China dictates our Taiwan policy, not the US. Thank you for confirming that..

Both do. China should, as it is in our interests to support their position, not the US. Involvment in Taiwan would be ridiculously stupid for Australia-

As I said, there will be no war over Taiwan because no-one is going to stand up for Taiwan against China because of politics. I have also pointed out why Iraq is a concern of Australia. You don't put Australia first, you put SE Asia first..

Not true, the US have clearly stated that they will defend Taiwan if attacked, but also only formally recognize the PRC, and insist that the two be united (peacefully). Remember, the US sent a carrier battle group into the Formosa straits in 1996 when China made noise about missile strikes against China.

Back to the issue- should Australia help the US defend Taiwan if China attacks. Simple answer no. Yet, we (through Howard) indicate that we support the US position on the matter, and would join them in a war. Taiwan is of no direct value to Australia. China, on the other hand, is of incredible economic and even strategic value to Aus.


Again, Australia's policy mirrors the US with regards to Taiwan because both nations are tiptoeing around China. China is calling th shots, not the US. Are we the puppets of the Chinese according to SE Asia or is that puppetry acceptable because China is Asian?
We owe no explanation to SE Asia over Iraq. I have shown why I believe the efforts in Iraq do benefit Australia..

Unfortunately, all you have done is repeat clearly flawed rhetoric that Saddams regime was supporting terrorists and potentially supplying them with WMDs, yet you have not presented a shred of evidence supporting this. Your argument for our intervention in Iraq is based *solely* around the contention that 1) Saddam had direct links to terrorists which had a direct threat to Australia and 2) that WMDs were going to be supplied. As i have said, i am willing to concede defeat to this arguement if you can prove this. Naturally, not even the Americans could prove the WMDs and again, nothing conclusive on links to terrorists. Thus my argument stands that we acted contrary to our interests- we involved ourselves in a war that had no direct or proven links to the War on Terror. This lends significant credance to the view taken by many of our regional neighbours that we act to help the US, rather than our own interests.

Here we go again with the "little Australia" thing. Did you think we were insignificant in WWI, WWII?.

Irrelevant, we lost more soliders in WW1 than we have in our total army now (60,000 compared to 25,000).

I could not care less what our GDP is compared to the US or Canada. We are committing troops to protect our way of life. We hav offered what we can and that should be commended, not belittled. .

In actions against terrorism you are correct. Again, prove how Iraq was against terrorism.

We did not do it to appease the Americans. We did it to protect what we have in our country..

Again, what did we protect our country from- no proven links between Iraq/terrorist groups.

So, we follow our own policies based on information concerning our nation. This is the real problem I have with people with your views. Screw everyone, forget Taiwan, forget people dying in terror attacks. This is ll well and good until we are in jeopardy, then what? Australia has made no rhetoric about defending Taiwan. .

As I have maintained throughout this whole debate- much as I would love Australia to go on this great crusade around the world protecting the innocent, killing evil terrorists blah blah blah, the fact is, we can't. You seem to happily disregard facts, such as our relatively tiny military/budgets etc in order to persue your altruistic and honorable, but completely impractical dream of Australia being able to assist the US (a completely benign influence in the world at all times). We simply cannot afford to commit to anything that is not directly related to the War on Terror- and until you can do what Howard, Blair and the US has failed to do, that is, show Iraq actually had links to terrorists so significant that it represented an imminent threat to the western world- your argument that Iraq actually is part of the War on Terror, is erroneous.

As I said, our government is kowtowing to the Chinese which you seem to think is a good thing..

Given the benefits, absolutely.


So you finally admit it, you do think we should run our policies by SE Asian countries. It took a while but you finally said it..

By that logic you therefore advocate letting the US run ours. I don't think either of us actually beleives that anyone should 'run' our policies. We have taken a clearly US-centric approach to foreign policy in Iraq, and it is contrary to our interests. This is not beneficial to Australia, as it makes our neighbours view us as pawns, and does not assist our relationships with them.

Australia has made a habit of standing by its allies to fight evil. Look through our history and you will see that too.

Vietnam?

It should be irrelevant. A nation should do all in its power to root out terrorist networks in their country. If they choose to turn a blind eye then they leave themselves open to pre-emptive strikes to remove that terror threat.
They should not need a reason, they should be doing it of their own volition. Afterall, their citizens were killed in Bali and Jakarta. Are they not compelled to protect their citizens? .

It's not so much a 'blind eye', but again, when they (specifically Indonesia) work against terrorist groups (as they have done), we threaten them with pre-emptive strikes? Can you see the failure of logic in this stratergy.


Stop supporting the US or we won't seek out and disable terror cells in our country..sounds like blackmail to me. You forget that the terrorists in their country also kill their citizens when targeting others. That should be all they need to seriously combat terror cells in their countries..

Not 'stop supporting', more 'why should we trust you if all your going to do is support the US?'- which is a reasonable question to be asking. Our irrationally close relationship (proven through Iraq) wiht the US makes them question whether if the roles were reversed and Indonesia/etc was under imminent threat, but the US did not recognise this therat, Australia would rush to do the same for them?

So, if they combat JI or other terror groups as you say then the pre-emptive strike option will not be called upon. Therefore, no problem. If these countries do the right thing and combat terror in their countries then they have nothing to worry about.

That's just it- they are. Howards entire policy implies that we don't trust them to do a job. Yes, we have lost citizens in their country due to bombings- we lost citizens in 9/11 too- should we therefore threaten the US with such a stratergy. I mean, in a country with 250,000,000 people, surely there will be some who are secretly supporting Al Queada, damn those Americans, lets go attack them! The entire policy itself is simply impossible- we don't have the military might, and it only inflames the relationship, not to mention makes Australia look completely supercilious.

I'm going to save myself some time and not post the same answers over and over again as its gets us nowhere. We have differing views on these situations and our own reasons for holding them. Thats my conclusion.

You think we should be "more answerable" to SE Asia than we are and I disagree with that. I think improving relations means trusting other nations and working together on issues of mutual interest. I don't think it should go as far as to having our national policies requiring an OK from a foreign country before they are adopted.

On the Iraq war, you believe it is a waste of time and holds no interest to our nation. I disagree because I think international terrorism, or more precisely, fighting it, is of interest to all nations, especially those in the west considering the current situation. I believe that every nation, regardless of size or military might, should contribute what they can to fight this blight on our society.

As far as the pre-emptive strike statement by Howard. I think you have taken it to the extreme. Last resort means last resort. It is the responsibility of all nations to rid themselves of terrorist networks and fight them as they appear. If all nations did that then pre-emptive strikes will never be necessary. Simply saying, why should Indonesia fight JI or why should Iraq fight Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks in their country boggles the mind. Here's the answer in a nutshell. To stop these groups killing their citizens! Even if they don't care about the foreigners being killed they should be motivated to stop these groups killing their own citizens.

Repeating our opinions over and over again is getting a bit boring to be honest. They are my views, they are my reasons for those views. You will of course disagree with them and thats your prerogative but I cannot see either of us converting the other.

Fair enough

I'll let you in on a little secret- the reason I have been arguing this, aside from the fact that it is my firm belief and opinion on the matter, is that I have to write an essay on this very matter on my final International Studies exam- and arguing with others is, I have found, the most efficient and simplest way of finding the other side's arguements (which I will have to address in said exam).

That aside, our opinions differ, as I think you pointed out in 3 clear areas: 1) I contend that Australia should take more of an initiative in repairing problems with relationships with SE Asian nations, however, you appear to consider it more their problem. 2) I think that our extremely close relationship with the US (outlined through our support of the US action in Iraq- see point 3) has damaged, or at least hampered our efforts to appear a viable ally to said SE Asian nations, whereas you contend that it has not. 3) Perhaps the issue I hold to be the critical element to all of this is the legitimacy of Australia's involvement in Iraq: specifically, I contend that there is no evidence to suggest it had anything to do with the War on Terror (Australian involvement in which I am happy to support), and did nothing but waste our relatively limited resources and lower our standing amongst regional neighbours who do not maintain such close links to America. On the other hand, you contend that it was a central action in the War on Terror and thus Australian involvement in Iraq is legitimate.

I also assert that pre-emptive strikes, as Howard himself suggested, were an extremely dangerous and foolhardy doctrine for any country to adopt, especially a nation such as ours which lacks the intelligence-gathering capabilities and the outright military firepower capable of successfully carrying out such a strike against any SE Asian nation AND withstand the inevitable retaliatory strike. Conversely you hold that the threat of terrorism outweighs these drawbacks and therefore consider that pre-emptive strikes to be necessary to deal with said threats should Australia come across information indicating a potential terrorist attack.

Furthermore, I hold that even threatening such pre-emptive strikes isolates the countries named, by making us appear arrogant and foolhardy, and thus certainly does not create new incentive for said nearby nations to take a harder line against anti-Australian terrorist groups. On the other hand, you consider (and this is where I am a little unsure of your arguement) that the threat of pre-emptive strikes motivates a nation in which terrorists may potentially be lurking to take a more active approach.

Other than that, I think I've at times used examples of other pro-US Australian foreign policy (which is, in my opinion, counter to our interests) such as Taiwan and our involvement in the "missile defence sheild" (I can't remember if I mentioned this one) to show a US-centric foreign policy of the world. Whereas you contend that each of these examples (and Iraq for that matter) actually are in our interests.

I've tried to be balanced in my summation of each others arguements (though naturally I will be more aware of my own than yours, of course the same can be said of your own summation in your post), but yeah, thanx for not resorting to the "f*CKing commie pinko scum, terrorists will blow us all up you f*ckhead" approach that many pro-conservative posters on the US-centric threads seem to constantly use.

Fair enough

I'll let you in on a little secret- the reason I have been arguing this, aside from the fact that it is my firm belief and opinion on the matter, is that I have to write an essay on this very matter on my final International Studies exam- and arguing with others is, I have found, the most efficient and simplest way of finding the other side's arguements (which I will have to address in said exam).

Ah, I hope I have assisted in some small way to your essay. Good luck with it!

That aside, our opinions differ, as I think you pointed out in 3 clear areas: 1) I contend that Australia should take more of an initiative in repairing problems with relationships with SE Asian nations, however, you appear to consider it more their problem. 2) I think that our extremely close relationship with the US (outlined through our support of the US action in Iraq- see point 3) has damaged, or at least hampered our efforts to appear a viable ally to said SE Asian nations, whereas you contend that it has not. 3) Perhaps the issue I hold to be the critical element to all of this is the legitimacy of Australia's involvement in Iraq: specifically, I contend that there is no evidence to suggest it had anything to do with the War on Terror (Australian involvement in which I am happy to support), and did nothing but waste our relatively limited resources and lower our standing amongst regional neighbours who do not maintain such close links to America. On the other hand, you contend that it was a central action in the War on Terror and thus Australian involvement in Iraq is legitimate.

I also assert that pre-emptive strikes, as Howard himself suggested, were an extremely dangerous and foolhardy doctrine for any country to adopt, especially a nation such as ours which lacks the intelligence-gathering capabilities and the outright military firepower capable of successfully carrying out such a strike against any SE Asian nation AND withstand the inevitable retaliatory strike. Conversely you hold that the threat of terrorism outweighs these drawbacks and therefore consider that pre-emptive strikes to be necessary to deal with said threats should Australia come across information indicating a potential terrorist attack.

Furthermore, I hold that even threatening such pre-emptive strikes isolates the countries named, by making us appear arrogant and foolhardy, and thus certainly does not create new incentive for said nearby nations to take a harder line against anti-Australian terrorist groups. On the other hand, you consider (and this is where I am a little unsure of your arguement) that the threat of pre-emptive strikes motivates a nation in which terrorists may potentially be lurking to take a more active approach.

Other than that, I think I've at times used examples of other pro-US Australian foreign policy (which is, in my opinion, counter to our interests) such as Taiwan and our involvement in the "missile defence sheild" (I can't remember if I mentioned this one) to show a US-centric foreign policy of the world. Whereas you contend that each of these examples (and Iraq for that matter) actually are in our interests.

I've tried to be balanced in my summation of each others arguements (though naturally I will be more aware of my own than yours, of course the same can be said of your own summation in your post), but yeah, thanx for not resorting to the "f*CKing commie pinko scum, terrorists will blow us all up you f*ckhead" approach that many pro-conservative posters on the US-centric threads seem to constantly use.

You have been balanced and I also appreciate an insult free discussion. I also appreciate a discussion where people can "agree to disagree" on the subject. I have no problem with people of opposing points of view as long as they have a thought process behind it. You have though about what you believe and I respect that point of view. I don't agree, but I respect it. ;)

Interesting to see someone make the link with East Timor.

Particularly in light of Australian PM John Howard's recent statement that he would support a unilateral strike on terrorists planning an attack on Australia.

Of course, some years ago, there was a large population of East Timorese who had fled their strife torn nation living in Darwin, and planning to restore freedom to their country.

Indonesia, of course, saw them as rebels and terrorists.

Using Howard's logic, they would have been within their rights to launch a pre-emptive air strike on Darwin, to destroy a "terrorist training camp".

Before you reply, please consider that Nelson Mandela was jailed as a convicted terrorist.

Of course, that was then....

Interesting to see someone make the link with East Timor.

Particularly in light of Australian PM John Howard's recent statement that he would support a unilateral strike on terrorists planning an attack on Australia.

Of course, some years ago, there was a large population of East Timorese who had fled their strife torn nation living in Darwin, and planning to restore freedom to their country.

Indonesia, of course, saw them as rebels and terrorists.

Using Howard's logic, they would have been within their rights to launch a pre-emptive air strike on Darwin, to destroy a "terrorist training camp".

Before you reply, please consider that Nelson Mandela was jailed as a convicted terrorist.

Of course, that was then....


Last I heard the East Timorese were not blowing up nightclubs or embassies killing hundreds of civilians, nor were they planning to.

And the "I don't have a clue" award goes to Sanctaphrax...

You do know that a Semite is a descendant of Shem - one of Noah's sons, the modern Jews are for the most part (roughly 90%) are descendants of Ham, a brother of Shem. The Arabs are more descendants of Shem than the Jews. All the Kings of England are descendants of King David, fulfilling the prophacy that there would always be a Davidic King to rule over Israel...

Source?