It's Happening - Aussie Troops to fight Terrorism

[429 CJ]

Please note I have removed the original contents of this post.

I have done this as I have taken a good, hard and long look at the very words that I have used to describe what it is I was trying to say. They, in all honesty, did not look good to me really (especially as they can mean different things to different people, that being a problem with something such as this BB. ie; it is not a substitute for face to face interaction), so I have made the changes you see here.

It does not change the fact that I believe in what I was saying, and I do support conscription. I feel that any person, rightly or wrongly, if they feel trully a part of this country and it's future, wouldn't really be deadset against conscription.

It is wrong to deride ANY PERSON for saying what they trully believe to be right for them, and I dispare of anyone who brandishes someone else who may have different (but equally relevant) views to another with a very broad brush. Just because someone believes in something like this, does not make them automatically "at war" with someone else. That was the comment that pushed my button. I apologise to those I may have offended.

[ 19 October 2001: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]

[Wiley]

(Mounts soapbox, adjusts braces, looks out at heckling crowd, ever ready to duck incoming missiles…)

To quote from the first post of this thread: “Dr John Bruni, from the University of Adelaide, says Australia's relatively small armed forces are already fulfilling ongoing security commitments to East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Bougainville.”

I have to agree with Dr Bruni. Our military personnel, highly trained and capable as they might be, stand a very good chance of seeing out this war as did those Australians who “went” to the Gulf War. Our RAAF 707 crews picked up a campaign medal for getting a suntan around the pool at the 5 star hotel in Cyprus, while our SAS, although they did get to Saudi Arabia, never even looked like seeing action, because the Americans will only use token allied forces in one of two circumstances:

(1) when it’s politically expedient to have the world media see that they have allies fighting alongside them. In that case, said commitment of allied forces will be in an unimportant area where the campaign will not be seriously affected should the token allied force fudge their assignment, or
(2) when they have to. ie, when the situation’s gone completely tits up and… well, you know the rest. So let’s pray to God it doesn’t come to that over there.

Further to Dr Bruni’s comments, it’s curious to see history possibly repeating itself. In 1942, when Australia was quite literally threatened with imminent invasion, - (had the Japanese chosen to, they could have walked in virtually unopposed in the three month period of Feb-Apr 1942) – Australia’s army, navy and the majority of its air force were all heavily committed fighting someone else’s war (I accept, this is a debatable point) in the…? Where were they? Why, it was the Middle East. Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself.

I’m afraid I see this as a largely wasted effort, (and I’d be willing to lay money on the line that the vast majority of the troops who go there, with the possible exception of the P3 crews, will come to agree with me by the time they come home). However, the PM has an election to win, and history has proven that there’s nothing quite like a parade or two of soldiers going off to war to get the general populace on side and voting the right way.

On to another matter altogether, I believe that after the events of Sept 11th, universal conscription should be introduced in Australia as soon as possible, whatever it (supposedly) costs. However, it should have nothing at all to do with providing troops for overseas military commitments, which should be wholly voluntary. (And the military hierarchy would agree with me. Today’s military, particularly when on active service, wants and needs highly trained and highly skilled specialists, and not the massed armies of the two world wars.)

Its emphasis need not even be universally military. I’d suggest two streams, one military and another of civil service for those who object to carrying arms (or who couldn’t be accommodated by the military). The purpose of this universal conscription would be national service, which everyone would do, so no one would be disadvantaged as losing twelve months of ‘life’ (or whatever the period was) while others didn’t.

And although it would give the country future generations of at least (very) basically trained soldiers, its real purpose would be to meld those future generations into becoming Australians, wherever they’re from. Young people of all social strata and ethnic backgrounds would meet and mix while doing worthwhile work for the nation, possibly in the remote outback. And the cost, which would be substantial, would be repaid tenfold in the human product that would come from it. Forget the Vietnam war side of the equation if you can and ask any Nasho of the 60’s era and he’ll tell you, almost without exception, that it was the making of him. (And despite what the bleeding hearts will insist on telling you, any Nasho who didn’t want to go to Vietnam had plenty of opportunities to duck the assignment. Most came to the conclusion that going to war beat the hell out of whitewashing rocks and square bashing at Pukka for two years.)

Best of luck to everyone who goes. I sincerely hope it’s all over before you get there, or that I’m right and you’re not put in harm’s way, as I don’t want to see any more names of this generation on Australian cenotaphs. However, I fear I’m going to, and not just in the current mess in Afghanistan. But if push comes to shove, I have no doubt you’ll be the equal of those who wore the same uniform in the past.

(Climbs down from soapbox and checks to see if any of the rotten fruit thrown at me is halfway edible.)

[gaunty]

I'd definitely vote for that.

[429 CJ]

Nothing thrown from this corner.

[Buster Hyman]

bulldog.

You have all gone mad....this is not Jihad,The Crusades or WW3.Some of the previous comments are concerning.

Any, ANY time MY defence force goes into action, I will support them. As for conscription, the jury is out for me at the present time but I would not be against it anyway. Unfortunately, it needs to be called a war. If you recall, Vietnam was a Police Action and as such, US defence companies were allowed to sell weapons to the North Vietnamese because of this technicality. Whatever happens, I'd still rather see them marching on ANZAC day than think of them!

[Binoculars]

Another good thread is forming here. Bulldog69, don't give up. Your points are well made, and I for one can't see where 429CJ can deduce any threat or personal attack from your post. A good argument requires reasoned debate on both sides or it risks (especially on this topic) turning into a gung-ho Ballad of the Green Berets talkfest. From such things are lynch mobs formed.

I seriously doubt whether anybody reading this thread is likely to change their vote because of anything they read here, so personal attacks on politicians a la Whiskery's seem a little out of place to me. Senator NSD represents a not insignificant proportion of the populace, whether you agree with her views or not. Likewise the "bleeding-heart" epithet gets its inevitable pejorative airing yet again.

I'm learning all sorts of things here, even if it's listening to the other side of the story rather than outright fact, and I think that's what we should be aiming for, because we might find over the next couple of months that outright facts and definitive truth are rather elusive.

[Alotta Fagina]

You people are all such suckers,

Why dont you stop and think a bit about what the US is doing. When in the past 50 years has the US been even slightly honest with what its up to in the middle east. Why would now be any different.

Why does a criminal act result in a "war on terrorism".

Who honestly beleives that bombing the crap out of a third world country will actually flush out Bin Laden.

Howard has put Oz in the precarious position of being one of only 2 countries on the planet sending offensive weapons to the conflict (along with the UK)

And finally, does anyone actually think for a second that this will result in fewer acts of terrorism - this is just the beginning.

[gaunty]

Binos.

That's the problem isn't it

outright facts and definitive truth are rather elusive

When reason (Diplomacy) fails, you have to project your argument (Armed Force) a little more vigorously.

Then we have to get down to something that's much more your basic black and white and which no longer has anything whatsoever to do with "outright facts and definitive truth" it's called survival.

[Doctor Hibbert]

Try this letter on for size,

An open letter to the people of the United States, by Larry Mosqueda, Ph.D.

The Evergreen State College, September 15, 2001


Like all Americans, on Tuesday, 9-11, I was shocked and horrified to watch the WTC Twin Towers attacked by hijacked planes and collapse, resulting in the deaths of perhaps up to 10,000 innocent people.

I had not been that shocked and horrified since January 16, 1991, when then President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing
200,000 people during that "war" (slaughter). This includes the infamous "highway of death" in the last days of the slaughter when U.S. pilots literally shot in the back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers. I continue to be horrified by the sanctions on Iraq, which have resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children, about whom former Secretary of State Madeline Allbright has stated that their deaths "are worth the cost".

Over the course of my life I have been shocked and horrified by a variety of U.S. governmental actions, such as the U.S. sponsored coup against democracy in Guatemala in 1954 which resulted in the deaths of over 120,000 Guatemalan peasants by U.S. installed dictatorships over the course of four decades.

Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the horror I felt when the U.S. overthrew the governments of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and helped to murder 3,000 people. And it reminded me of the shock I felt in 1973, when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Chile against the democratic government of Salvador Allende and helped to murder another 30,000 people, including U.S. citizens.

Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the shock and horror I felt in 1965 when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Indonesia that resulted in the murder of over 800,000 people, and the subsequent slaughter in 1975 of over 250,000 innocent people in East Timor by the Indonesian regime with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored terrorist contra war (the World Court declared the U.S. government a war criminal in 1984 for the mining of the harbors) against Nicaragua in the 1980s which resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent people (or as the U.S. government used to call them before the term "collateral damage" was invented--"soft targets").

I was reminded of being horrified by the U. S. war against the people of El Salvador in the 1980s, which resulted in the brutal deaths of over 80,000 people, or "soft targets".

I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored terror war against the peoples of southern Africa (especially Angola) that began in the 1970's and continues to this day and has resulted in the deaths and mutilations of over 1,000,000. I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt as the U.S. invaded Panama over the Christmas season of 1989 and killed over 8,000 in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner, now turned enemy, Manual Noriega.

I was reminded of the horror I felt when I learned about how the Shah of Iran was installed in a U.S. sponsored brutal coup that resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 Iranians from 1952-1979. And the continuing shock as I learned that the Ayatollah Khomani, who overthrew the Shah in 1979, and who was the U.S. public enemy for decade of the 1980s, was also on the CIA payroll, while he was in exile in Paris in the 1970s.

I was reminded of the shock and horror that I felt as I learned about the how the U.S. has "manufactured consent" since 1948 for its support of Israel, to the exclusion of virtually any rights for the Palestinians in their native lands resulting in ever worsening day-to-day conditions for the people of Palestine. I was shocked as I learned about the hundreds of towns and villages that were literally wiped off the face of the earth in the early days of Israeli colonization. I was horrified in 1982 as the villagers of Sabra and Shatila were massacred by Israeli allies with direct Israeli complicity and direction. The untold thousands who died on that day match the scene of horror that we saw last Tuesday. But those scenes were not repeated over and over again on the national media to inflame the American public.

The events and images of last Tuesday have been appropriately compared to the horrific events and images of Lebanon in the 1980s with resulted in the deaths of tens of thousand of people, with no reference to the fact that the country that inflicted the terror on Lebanon was Israel, with U.S. backing. I still continue to be shocked at how mainstream commentators refer to "Israeli settlers" in the "occupied territories" with no sense of irony as they report on who are the aggressors in the region.

Of course, the largest and most shocking war crime of the second half of the
20th century was the U.S. assault on Indochina from 1954-1975, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually "hands on" murdered in the "Phoenix Program" (this is where Oliver North got his start). Many U.S. Vietnam veterans were also victimized by this war and had the best of intentions, but the policy makers themselves knew the criminality of their actions and policies as revealed in their own words in "The Pentagon Papers," released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND Corporation. In 1974 Ellsberg noted that our Presidents from Truman to Nixon continually lied to the U.S. public about the purpose and conduct of the war. He has stated that, "It is a tribute to the American people that our leaders perceived that they had to lie to us, it is not a tribute to us that we were so easily misled."

I was continually shocked and horrified as the U.S. attacked and bombed with impunity the nation of Libya in the 1980s, including killing the infant daughter of Khadafi. I was shocked as the U.S. bombed and invaded Grenada in 1983. I was horrified by U.S. military and CIA actions in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina, and Yugoslavia. The deaths in these actions ran into the hundreds of thousands.

The above list is by no means complete or comprehensive. It is merely a list that is easily accessible and not unknown, especially to the economic and intellectual elites. It has just been conveniently eliminated from the public discourse and public consciousness. And for the most part, the analysis that the U.S. actions have resulted in the deaths of primarily civilians (over
90%) is not unknown to these elites and policy makers. A conservative number for those who have been killed by U.S. terror and military action since World War II is 8,000,000 people. Repeat--8,000,000 people. This does not include the wounded, the imprisoned, the displaced, the refugees, etc. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in 1967, during the Vietnam War, "My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence." Shocking and horrifying.

Nothing that I have written is meant to disparage or disrespect those who were victims and those who suffered death or the loss of a loved one during this week's events. It is not meant to "justify" any action by those who bombed the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. It is meant to put it in a context. If we believe that the actions were those of "madmen", they are "madmen" who are able to keep a secret for 2 years or more among over 100 people, as they trained to execute a complex plan. While not the acts of madmen, they are apparently the acts of "fanatics" who, depending on who they really are, can find real grievances, but whose actions are illegitimate.

Osama Bin Laden at this point has been accused by the media and the government of being the mastermind of Tuesday's bombings. Given the government's track record on lying to the America people, that should not be accepted as fact at this time. If indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of this action, he is responsible for the deaths of perhaps 10,000 people-a shocking and horrible crime. Ed Herman in his book The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda does not justify any terrorism but points out that states often engage in "wholesale" terror, while those whom governments define as "terrorist" engage is "retail" terrorism. While qualitatively the results are the same for the individual victims of terrorism, there is a clear quantitative difference. And as Herman and others point out, the seeds, the roots, of much of the "retail" terror are in fact found in the "wholesale" terror of states. Again this is not to justify, in any way, the actions of last Tuesday, but to put them in a context and suggest an explanation.

Perhaps most shocking and horrific, if indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of Tuesday's actions; he has clearly had significant training in logistics, armaments, and military training, etc. by competent and expert military personnel. And indeed he has. During the 1980s, he was recruited, trained and funded by the CIA in Afghanistan to fight against the Russians. As long as he visited his terror on Russians and his enemies in Afghanistan, he was "our man" in that country.

The same is true of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who was a CIA asset in Iraq during the 1980s. Hussein could gas his own people, repress the population, and invade his neighbor (Iran) as long as he did it with U.S. approval.

The same was true of Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was a contemporary and CIA partner of George H. Bush in the 1980s. Noriega's main crime for Bush, the father, was not that he dealt drugs (he did, but the U.S. and Bush knew this before 1989), but that Noriega was no longer going to cooperate in the ongoing U.S. terrorist contra war against Nicaragua. This information is not unknown or really controversial among elite policy makers. To repeat, this not to justify any of the actions of last Tuesday, but to put it in its horrifying context.

As shocking as the events of last Tuesday were, they are likely to generate even more horrific actions by the U.S. government that will add significantly to the 8,000,000 figure stated above. This response may well be qualitatively and quantitatively worst than the events of Tuesday. The New York Times headline of 9/14/01 states that, "Bush And Top Aides Proclaim Policy Of Ending States That Back Terror" as if that was a rational, measured, or even sane option. States that have been identified for possible elimination are "a number of Asian and African countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and even Pakistan." This is beyond shocking and horrific- it is just as potentially suicidal, homicidal, and more insane than the hijackers themselves.

Also, qualitatively, these actions will be even worse than the original bombers if one accepts the mainstream premise that those involved are "madmen", "religious fanatics", or a "terrorist group." If so, they are acting as either individuals or as a small group. The U.S. actions may continue the homicidal policies of a few thousand elites for the past 50 years, involving both political parties.

The retail terror is that of desperate and sometime fanatical small groups and individuals who often have legitimate grievances, but engage in individual criminal and illegitimate activities; the wholesale terror is that of "rational" educated men where the pain, suffering, and deaths of millions of people are contemplated, planned, and too often, executed, for the purpose of furthering a nebulous concept called the "national interest". Space does not allow a full explanation of the elites Orwellian concept of the "national interest", but it can be summarized as the protection and expansion of hegemony and an imperial empire.

The American public is being prepared for war while being fed a continuous stream of shocking and horrific repeated images of Tuesday's events and heartfelt stories from the survivors and the loved ones of those who lost family members. These stories are real and should not be diminished. In fact, those who lost family members can be considered a representative sample of humanity of the 8,000,000 who have been lost previously. If we multiply by
800-1000 times the amount of pain, angst, and anger being currently felt by the American public, we might begin to understand how much of the rest of the world feels as they are continually victimized.

Some particularly poignant images are the heart wrenching public stories that we are seeing and hearing of family members with pictures and flyers searching for their loved ones. These images are virtually the same as those of the "Mothers of the Disappeared" who searched for their (primarily) adult children in places such as Argentina, where over 11,000 were "disappeared" in
1976-1982, again with U.S. approval. Just as the mothers of Argentina deserved our respect and compassion, so do the relatives of those who are searching for their relatives now. However we should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the media and U.S. government into turning real grief and anger into a national policy of wholesale terror and genocide against innocent civilians in Asia and Africa. What we are seeing in military terms is called "softening the target." The target here is the American public and we are being ideologically and emotionally prepared for the slaughter that may commence soon.

None of the previously identified Asian and African countries are democracies, which means that the people of these countries have virtually no impact on developing the policies of their governments, even if we assume that these governments are complicit in Tuesday's actions. When one examines the recent history of these countries, one will find that the American government had direct and indirect influences on creating the conditions for the existence of some of these governments. This is especially true of the Taliban government of Afghanistan itself.

The New York Metropolitan Area has about 21,000,000 people or about 8 % of the U.S. population. Almost everyone in America knows someone who has been killed, injured or traumatized by the events of Tuesday. I know that I do. Many people are calling for "revenge" or "vengeance" and comments such as "kill them all" have been circulated on the TV, radio, and email. A few more potentially benign comments have called for "justice." This is only potentially benign since that term may be defined by people such as Bush and Colin Powell. Powell is an unrepentant participant in the Vietnam War, the terrorist contra war against Nicaragua, and the Gulf war, at each level becoming more responsible for the planning and execution of the policies.

Those affected, all of us, must do everything in our power to prevent a wider war and even greater atrocity, do everything possible to stop the genocide if it starts, and hold those responsible for their potential war crimes during and after the war. If there is a great war in 2001 and it is not catastrophic (a real possibility), the crimes of that war will be revisited upon the U.S. over the next generation. That is not some kind of religious prophecy or threat, it is merely a straightforward political analysis. If indeed it is Bin Laden, the world must not deal only with him as an individual criminal, but eliminate the conditions that create the injustices and war crimes that w ill inevitably lead to more of these types of attacks in the future. The phrase "No Justice, No Peace" is more than a slogan used in a march, it is an observable historical fact. It is time to end the horror.

In a few short pages it is impossible to delineate all of the events described over the past week or to give a comprehensive accounting of U.S. foreign policy. Below are a few resources for up to date news and some background reading, by Noam Chomsky, the noted analyst. The titles of the books explain their relevance for this topic.

[Quentin Wellinup]

Gaunty wrote:

Maintaining a state of denial in this or any other scenario is foolish

Well spoken Gaunty - Summarises the current dire situation perfectly. The ideologists in this country really do need to take stock.

Australia cannot enjoy the benefits of being a free western society without participating in the defence of those freedoms when they are seriously threatened.

Whenever I find myself questioning the need for such action, and I frequently do, I am instantly put back onto the affirmative by recalling the horrific images visited upon the world on September 11, and the absolute knowledge that the WTC atrocity was a tea party compared to what these people will eventually do if not stopped.

Bulldog - the only people I've seen or heard seriously insinuating that this is a war on Islam are the extremists themselves, in sickening attempts to shore up support from the Muslim world. The phrase itself is becoming somewhat hackneyed.

Best wishes to all ADF and other international forces taking part, and may you all have a safe return home.

[429 CJ]

Please re-read my post Binoculars, I haven't actually said that it was a personal attack on anyone, just a misplaced accusation that someone has made that someone else here was "at war with Islam". The "threat" as such would appear to be levelled somewhat at us as a people, judging by the language string, for that I make no apology, however I can see where you are coming from.

[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]

[Whiskery]

I make no apology Binoculars for comments regarding the leader of the democrats desire for a debate on sending troops into Afganistan. She is,IMHO,testing the waters for some cheap political mileage in the upcoming election.

In 1938 when Adolf Hitler occupied Austria and then a year later invaded Czechoslovakia, there was much debate in Europe and Great Britain. Winston Churchill was concerned about the military build up by Germany and was branded an alarmist. Neville Chamberlain preferred the policy of "appeasement". It is now history what transpired.

Osama bin Laden and his thugs must be stopped now. He has sent the world a message by his actions in Nairobi,Dharan,Somalia and now at the heart of a country that stands for freedom and world peace.

Bush said it all - "You are either with us or against us in the fight against world terrorism".

As I said before - No debate necessary or required.

[Turbofan]

NSD does have some good thoughts and ideas from time to time, as do many politicians. But I don't want to wait around for her to get her sh!t together while events unfold.

I'm with Whiskery all the way - No debate necessary or required.

Action is required now. The debates will come eventually, but they are not the priority.

[Achilles]

So many of you led by the nose - without so much as an independent thought.

Count me OUT.

[429 CJ]

Please note changes I have made to previous post dated: 18 October 2001 12:09.

[MT Edelstone56]

Wiley,
National Service will never be reintroduced because of Vietnam.Forget the war,a generation of government and society dropped them like hot potatoes.Can the aforementioned be trusted again?

Why is conscription needed?Money better spent on an all volunteer,well equiped and well trained force.I feel those in favour are fighting wars long gone.

The disintegration of Indonesia may very well be our next woe,however it will not be conventional,it will be a myriad of vicious scenarios.Certainly not valiant air battles over the Timor sea.Expats cetainly involved.

I am not an idealist,not a god fearing patriot;just the humble Australian nationalist.Knowledgeble and proud of our past military exploits,possessing that founded Australian suspicion of blindly following authority.My forums weren`t meant to attack others,just cautious comments.

[Binoculars]

Whiskery:

Natasha is seeking cheap political mileage? Seems to me she's not on her own there. This whole episode has been manna from political heaven for our beloved leader and he is making whoopee with it, as would any politician worth his salt. Let’s be realistic here.

Gaunty:

Then we have to get down to something that's much more your basic black and white and which no longer has anything whatsoever to do with "outright facts and definitive truth" it's called survival

.

Or, put another way, truth is the first casualty of war? I agree, and that is what concerns me. There probably are times when debate is not required, and this may or may not be one of those times, but gung-ho patriotism scares me. Not as much as fundamentalist terrorism scares me, but enough so that my ears prick up with concern when I hear it said that all debate should be scrapped as unnecessary, especially when it's our kids we are sending off to war.

I suppose I'm basically playing devil's advocate here, but let me see if I can articulate my position. I used to think pacifism was pretty cool in my youth, but commonsense overtakes most of us at some stage, and I recognize war is sometimes an unavoidable fact of life. I also accept that having used Uncle Sam as our tough big brother for so long we now have an obligation to show them support, so in that respect I can’t quibble with the decision to commit our troops.

But any suggestion that the US may not be cleaner than clean themselves has been howled down and dismissed as unpatriotic and in some way an attempt to excuse the WTC attack. That concerns me because it effectively muzzles one side of the debate. Those who don’t see the need for debate have no problem with this of course, but I found it difficult not to squirm uncomfortably when reading the letter posted by Doc Hibbert above. Didn’t you? That is one of those nagging irritations in the mind that some find it difficult to dismiss.

Others seem to argue that while this may be painful in the short term, let’s get it done so that we guys in the white hats can get back to living our lives as before. Hey, I could even rationalise accepting that argument too except for one glaring shortcoming; it won’t work! The bombing will soon cease because there is nothing left to bomb, then the ground war starts and ask the Russians what happens then. This in reality is what we are sending our troops into. And I think people are conveniently overlooking that because they don’t want to face it; it’s just too scary. Bin Liner may or may not be killed but the hydra will simply grow another head. One of the most chilling quotes I have ever read came last week from his offsider who said (roughly) “There are tens of thousands of young Muslims who want to die as much as Americans want to live”. I won’t even start on the implications of biological warfare.

After the WTC, nobody could have expected the US to do anything except come out swinging, but it feels to me as though frustration is the major motivation….. we have to do SOMETHING, godammit!!

Is that really enough? How many of you, people, deep in your souls, believe the west can win this war? We couldn't win in Vietnam, and the enemy then, unlike now, didn't consider it an honour to die.

Please, somebody, convince me, because this is a debate I definitely want to lose.

[daytrader]

BTW,
why should we help America to get rid of bin liner when Americans trained him, Americans funded him, and Americans armed him.... they should clean up their own mess.

[Whiskery]

This is not a war.

It is a military exercise to flush out a megalomaniac and his "corporals" and bring them to justice for the atrocities committed on the 11th September 2001. Four of this scum were sentenced to life today for their part in the Nairobi massacre and bin Laden et al can expect the same when they too are tried and found guilty for their heinous crime against innocent, law abiding people.

Puerile rhetoric quotes as:-
"There are tens of thousands of young Muslims who want to die as much as Americans want to live" is Al Jizzarah propoganda and should be dismissed as nothing more than desperate men seeking desperate recognition.
Remember Saddam Hussein's classic:-

"The Mother of all Wars!"

Yes it was - over swiftly and with minimum loss of life.

I worked for many years in the Middle East and took time to read the Koran. Nothing that bin Laden has done thus far, on the world stage at least, resembles the teachings and readings of Islam in that holy book. I doubt many young Muslims would die for bin Laden's sick ideals. I doubt the animal is even a Muslim - has anyone considered this ?

The decision to commit our young men and women to a military campaign such as this would have been a difficult one for John Howard. He has shown great leadership and his country has supported him. This is not "gung-ho patriotism" it is a clear choice of doing what is right.

This is NOT Vietnam. We are not fighting a WAR. We are helping our allies,not just America,but Great Britain,France, Germany and Russia, to hunt down and capture one of the most evil beings since Adolf Hitler and bring him to justice.

Binoculars - relax,my friend. Take five deep breaths and consider this -

Do you really think a true Muslim considers it an honour to die for Osama bin Laden ? I can assure you that the 15 muslim friends of mine DO NOT and neither did the Taliban army lads who defected today and surrendered to the Northern Alliance.

Keep the Faith:]

daytrader - Did you get that information from Al Jizzarah or were you having a bad dream?

[ 19 October 2001: Message edited by: Whiskery ]

[Captain Muff Diver]

Please dont make this any worse for those who are gonna go.Dont argue.Give them confidence that what they will do is for greater world.

If any hairy legged,tree hugging,university art student type activists ever hang sh!t on the men and woman of the ADF they are raising a Jihad with Captain Muff Diver!

God Speed,We are proud.