Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

One thump...? Or Thump-thump thump-thump?

just one lol

and a pile of shite in between

Glad you took the time Tim C.... but one question...



If it's not our leader we should blame then who?

It was Bonsai who committed us to this course of action, even in the face of large protests and petitions. There is no one else to blame for our involvement in Iraq other than Mr. Howard....

Would the US have gone in alone without us.... undoubtably..... then we would have been able to firmly apportion the blame.

It's not really a matter of what sort, size or type of weapons we might or might not carry in Iraq.... it's purely the fact that we went there based on a lie..... and without any legal ligitimacy

We have invaded and occupied by force another sovereign nation and overthrown the government in the process.... whether or not this needed to occur is another arguement.... not an excuse for our actions.

In doing so we have retrospectively altered and re-interpreted International Laws and Treaties in an attempt to both "legitmise" our actions and to excuse and exonerate ourselves from prosecution for any fundamental abuses of human rights and war crimes that we may have (and have been) committed.

That is the reality of the situation.

For all our posturing, if we had seriously intended to prosecute and remove the terrorist organizations and those that fund, train, harbour and support them.... and if we had serious concerns over the abuse of human rights within a country and/or the stability of any nation with nuclear weaponary....

Then we would have and should have bombed the snot out of both Saudia Arabia, and Pakistan..... and I mean we should have bombed and removed the military and political figureheads of both governments... not the civilians

Rupy

Me's thinks you give the little hobbit howard to much credit!

What you have said is fundamentally true but his direction is that of his party faithfull and their direction is given to them from big business. I am sure voters fit in their some where but possibly another food chain?

Things such as us following that silly American to war, I suspect our involvement was more out of securing our share of global fuel and having influence over reestablishing economies. Little johnny being the economist and all would clearly see the economic benifits of such plunder and that in itself may have been enough justification

Just my thoughts

..... you are a wise old Ent

I am not saying that I condone the war or saying that it was necessary.

We went in for the same reasons as Korea, Vietnam, WW1 and WW2. We were asked to by our allies. The US and UK were committed to the war. We had already taken part in Afghanistan, to maintain and improve diplomacy and foreign trade we also committed to the war in Iraq. Frankly we didn't have a choice. How would it look if Australia which already had SASR and RAR units in Afghanistan as well as navy support in the Persian Gulf, suddenly decided not to back the war in Iraq.

We had 2000 troops committed in Iraq compared to the 400,000 that US and the 45,000 the UK committed to the war in iraq. Our role was a walk in the park. It has turned into another Vietnam, I agree. We should pull out. But at the same time don't forget that we have made a mess and we can't leave it the same way as the US did in the gulf war.

Our soldiers, sailors and airmen are there to help, no matter what the alternate agendas are.

Couple o points on this one. With the current terror laws a mechanic that helps out a bomber would be supporting a terrorist oraginsation, so sorry the "nor supplying missiles" doesn't cut the shit with me. If you're in you're in if you're out your out, but don't give me the "i didn't pull the trigger" line.

Supporting the US because we don't have any better company to keep also doesn't go very far with me.............If we were a much more powerful world power we wouldn't support them? if so then we shouldn't now..........right and wrong aren't subject to if you're going to get in trouble for it.............

Kyoto, once again its about doing the right thing.....................will kyoto cost us? YEP. will we be at an economic disadvantage against those that pillage and plunder? Bloody oath! How this reflects on the morality of signing up is beyond me.

The right thing to do is the right thing to do, not only when its cheap and popular.

No malice bud, just my 20 cents

I don't have an issue with you there Tim C.....

But as far as the alternate agendas.... the buck stops with Johnny.



I think Bonsai volunteered without being asked...

And why because we have an old "allegience" must we automatically follow blindly in the footsteps of another countries agenda, particularly when the actions proposed are both "illegal" and premised on false information and questionable ideologies.

We are a sovereign nation.... the US assistance given to Australia during the Second World War was done so by the US more for their own strategic reasons and purposes than out of any benevolent concern for Australia as such....

And that debt has been paid and repaid, many times over.... literally, not only financially but through the blood and anguish of our grandparents, parents and more recently by perhaps our own children.

Our initial involvement and presence in the Gulf was by UN sanction. The invasion of Iraq by the "coalition of the willing" was not.

Indeed in order to circumvent many of the legalities and treaties in place, we did not and never have "declared" war on either Iraq or Afghanistan

As to the fact that we had SASR and RAR units already operating in Afghanistan illegally, and it was a breach of every known International Law and Convention just goes to show the illegitimacy of Bonsais actions and the complete and utter distain and disrespect he shows towards the Australian public... remember these units were put in place before any decision was made to formally commence military action and while we still postulated within the UN demanding that Saddam adhere to UN and International laws.

The buck rests solely with Bonsai, and he squarely lied to us to our faces.

geez how did this turn back into an america thing?

but since we're on the topic...............wasnt the US involvement in WW2 rather late and more so precipitated by pearl harbour? 2 years after australias involvement.

Don't forget about the UK Steve, they are also our allies.

2000 soldiers is a police force, not a declare war situation....

Correct... in fact the US had a stated policy of "isolationism" and non-intervention..... until Pearl Harbour.

The references to US foreign policy and involvement in Iraq are valid in terms of this election because Bonsai has adopted without (much thought) referendum of the people or the will of a vast number of the people of Australia an aligned position and involvement... often based on premses and information dictated to, by and from the US.....

The question of blind allegience and automatic involvement even in sanctioned and "legal" operations is one that should validly concern any Australian.... especially those who may be called to put their lives on the line.

There is no greater ask.... and as a leader of this nation bonsai should never have committed us to any action requiring our military without grave independant thought, advise, information and consent of the people of this country.

Instead he did it based on a lie.... and told us a lie to defend his decision.

some allies they were when we needed them tim c

sorry, who's 2000 soldiers where, its getting confusing....................

Lets be real... During World War II we were allies of Britain as were (loosely), the rest of the Commonwealth, the US and Russia.

We became Allies (in that sense) when we signed the ANZUS Treaty (along with NZ) with the US.... the ANZUS treaty essentially no longer exists in anything but name (NZ was suspended in 1985) and was always non-binding only committing the parties to "enter into discussions"



Indeed it was Australia and NZ that initiated and "demanded" the treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS

In that sense it could be said the the US was in fact an "ally" of Australia.

The US has a strategic alliance with European nations (NATO) that does not include Australia. There is no binding "strategic" or "military" alliance between Australia and England.

It has always been somewhat dubious as to whether or not the US would or was even bound to act if Australia was attacked.

Similarly, much discussion has taken place regarding whether or not the treaty binds Australia to act if China were to invade Taiwan.

Australia and NZ both participated in the Korean War under the auspices of the UN.

The treaty was only envisoned at the time to relate to matters in the Pacific region..... it has become extrapolated and re-interpreted to embrace conflicts outside the region at the behest of the US