The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Now to say, never again > Comments

Now to say, never again : Comments

By George Williams, published 18/6/2008

Who should get to say whether Australia goes to war or not?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Kasperle, do you know anything about history at all in the Middle East? If you don't, you better read up on it before opening your mouth about the 9/11 attacks again.
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 19 June 2008 2:10:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul L,
Just a few points.
- Your assertion I was hiding in a cave is both insulting/unnecessary. Simply because you don’t agree with me.
- The implication of your response illustrates a need for controlling the call to arms.
- 4000 deaths on 9/11 give or take, a tragedy to be sure but consider 40000 people die in road accidents (and related) in the US YEARLY. Do we declare war on GM, Ford etc?
- We weren’t Attacked the US was. Not by an army, or a country, or by a majority of that country but by terrorists. Are you suggesting we should have declared ware on the Palestinians because PLO extremists of the Munich massacre? Has Israel’s (including the Mossad murdering the wrong Palestinian in Norway) actions achieved anything? Has our involvement in the political (ideological) War (sic) on Terror achieved anything except wanton 100000’s of deaths many (innocents), the reintroduction of opium and the entrenching of emotional hatreds etc?
- Until we bought into the fight we weren’t on the terrorist radar.
- Calling Al K an army fails to comprehend its real structure and motivation, one that can be fought by traditional means (proof in the pudding).
- Jihad is an idea and can never beaten by force e.g. a reaction, a PERVERSION of Religion.
- There is a ‘Just War’ doctrine by the UN which neither war fulfils its requirements.
- What I called for proportional response to OUR territorial property as being in the PM’s ambit and war is that of the Parliament.
- I DID NOT advocate appeasement or passivism only a measured and a response that had a chance of success.
I suggest you read my post in context instead of pointless nit picking.
regards examinator
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 19 June 2008 9:11:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In theory, Parliament should be involved.

In practice, when you look around the chamber and take a close look at the calibre, intellect, morals, ethics and behavioural standards of the politicians who hang around in it, we should perhaps consider leaving the choice to people better qualified to come to such momentous decisions.

Like talk-back radio hosts, perhaps.

Or the bloke who calls the 2.30 at Doomben. He sounds pretty smart.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 19 June 2008 10:00:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn,

>>” Bill Clinton and Benazir Bhutto funded and supported the Taliban in an effort to get rid of the mujihadeen that had been funded and supported by Jimmy Carter to suck in Russia.

Where did you get that from? The same place that you found out that the holocaust was a hoax I presume. I have ABSOLUTELY no intention of getting with any program you are on, as I suspect that there is a bizarre cult somewhere at its end.

>>” It was a pre-emptive strike because it was all planned in the US and agreed with Mushareff by July 2001 to help get rid of the Taliban to get an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea out across Afghanistan because they could not go through Iran.

What?? You read far too much conspiracy nut stuff. I suppose after sorting all this out before 9/11, the US had to manufacture some sort of crisis? Right? Blow up a couple of buildings??

All for a single oil pipeline?? That wouldn’t pay for the war from 100 years of operation??

>>”As for Bin Laden - the Taliban offered him to the UN on 14 October 2001 provided the US could supply actual proof that he had committed the crime in the US.

Marilyn This was seven days after the war had already started. It literally costs a fortune to emplace an army and begin operations, you don’t just call a holt to the whole thing on the say-so of your enemy. Who knows whether they would have considered any evidence enough, anyway. It was a ruse. The Taliban were merely playing politics to try and stave off the inevitable. They would have handed him and his captains over when they had the chance if they ever had any intention of doing so.

There were hundreds of AlQaeda camps all over Afghanistan, and Bin Laden used his money and his influence to assist the Taliban. AlQaeda and the Taliban were allies.
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 19 June 2008 12:19:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Heh heh. Knew I'd get a rise out of you, Mr Right.
Posted by NorthWestShelf, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 3:19:54 PM

...proving what an immature prat you are!
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 19 June 2008 2:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# Steel
Your point about the so called "LIE" is actually close to the truth but in what context is needed to be asked.
I will try to make a very simple analogy between the board game RISK and the real world situation.
In a previous post I mentioned that most of the posters here have very little knowledge of "Situational Strategic Planning" and to add to this I might mention that the "game" being played by the west especially the US and England and also some other countries who are actually supporting the US but behind the scenes because their electorate is so socialistic in thought that it would be political suicide to tell them the truth.
It is this aspect that makes my following comment the answer to your statement.
In playing RISK there is an ultimate desire to win the game which is the defining difference between reality and the game.
The US and its allies are playing to monopolize and suppress not to win (they just say that for the public) so that they can continue to be the dominant REICH of the times. The question every person must ask themselves is 'on whose side they are on' and then be man enough to accept the truth which I seriously doubt most of you are. If you disagree with this then fight against this but you are seriously outnumbered by the majority if thinking realists.
Having endured the socialist tyrrany of Stalin I can assure you where my allegiance lies. In the free world of the west and I accept and can live with the casualties that are inflicted on the enemy. That is the true nature of war and WE ARE AT WAR!
Telling the public a few lies is Ok by me if this ensures our future security because I have absolutely no trust in the intelligence of the voters of Australia who are more interested in beer and cricket than their own security.
Posted by Kasperle, Thursday, 19 June 2008 6:33:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy