PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

criticalmass 18th Oct 2014 12:58

As far as I am concerned, the media should be ejected from war-zones posthaste. They're the equivalent of Police at a domestic...no-one wants them there in the first place, and they just get in the way. Let them make up whatever story they like...they've got sod-all credibility as it is, a few more porkies won't make much difference. The media don't drive events...they report on them, and if they can't get to the event then whatever they choose to say can be ignored or treated with the contempt so much of it richly deserves.

This is a war - a real one, not a Gulf War One or Gulf War Two - and it's going to be a very, very dirty one. Let the troops get on with the business of doing what they have been trained and tasked to do, by whatever means they feel is appropriate.

Any journalist who tries to get in the way of a soldier, sailor or airman doing his or her duty should get a one-way ticket back home and a cancelled passport for five years so they can reflect on the error of their ways.

This is a political, religious and cultural war; it will be murderous, ugly, brutal and scarifying. It is kill or be killed. No mercy, no prisoners and definitely no rules. The media have no part to play in this.

No man ever won a war by dying for his country. Wars are won by making vast numbers of your enemy die for their country, until there are none left to fight or they simply cannot sustain the struggle. That is the task. Out of fairness to our troops we must not allow them to be hindered or impeded in any way by journalists, camera-crews etc. To do so would be subversive and not in the best interests of our military personnel.

bugged on the right 18th Oct 2014 16:47

Criticalmass, I couldn't agree more about the press, I would take it further and prohibit cameras, mobile phones and video cameras. Let the troops get on with their jobs without having to look over their shoulders for their own people.

Saltie 18th Oct 2014 20:13

criticalmass, while you're absolutely correct in what you say, our chattering class is nowhere near reaching that conclusion and is never likely to be. Worse, we have senior leaders now running the ADF who have got there by being as much politically correct as by being military leaders.

I believe we'll have to have a totally 'backs to the wall' moment - by which time it will probably be too late - before the ADF is ever allowed to fight the way it did in New Ginnea in 1942-45

parabellum 19th Oct 2014 07:23

Having seen what IS do to journalists and aid workers we can but hope there won't be too many volunteers to go into the front line anyway!

Takan Inchovit 19th Oct 2014 09:58

Its official, the leader of the opposition is an economic 'girlie man'. I see the ABC has brought out the big guns in the form of Wong, to comment on the tragic comment. :hmm:

dat581 19th Oct 2014 10:34

The ironic thing is Wong could also be thought of as a girlie man. :E

rh200 19th Oct 2014 11:12


Its official, the leader of the opposition is an economic 'girlie man'. I see the ABC has brought out the big guns in the form of Wong, to comment on the tragic comment
F$%me, have we not got better things to do in this country, like actually running it than spending time on a harmless taking the p!ss comment. Hell the bloke even sounds like Arnie.

Andu 19th Oct 2014 11:26

You have missed the the first rule of Leftism: never miss a chance to be outraged.

I've just listened to two female lefties have a major case of the vapours over the girlie man comment on the Paul Murray show. Pathetic is too strong a word for their mock outrage - for 'mock' is definitely is.

Saltie 19th Oct 2014 20:11

So. A brief few hours after announcing that Australian SF would not be going into Iraq, Julie Bishop announces that they will. Which translates that she - a mere woman - called the Iraqis' bluff and made them stand down over the main sticking point that saw the Americans pull out of Iraq, the Iraqi refusal to agree that foreign troops would not be subject to prosecution by Iraqi courts of some incident occurs.

I'd better be bloody right in this assumption, for if Bishop is the one whose bluff has been called and our soldiers have gone in without those legal protections, this government has screwed up hugely.

TWT 20th Oct 2014 01:40

Oz troops not wanted in Iraq...

Aussies go home, Iraqi militias say

parabellum 20th Oct 2014 02:26

Interesting that the Iraqis should be so upbeat about the capability of their armed forces, the last time they were confronted by the IS the Iraqi army dropped all it's weapons, including tanks, artillery and anti-aircraft weapons and ran away! :confused:

MTOW 20th Oct 2014 02:42

I must say I think we'd be far better off out of it completely.

'Trust' and 'allies' are two words that simply aren't in the Arab lexicon.

rh200 20th Oct 2014 03:01

You need to differentiate between the Iraqi armed forces and the militia. The militia have been holding there own and in some cases making gains.

The fact is the armed forces in Iraqi are c team, or f team. The question is do we want the militia running things? The main militia of the Sistani and co are fine, but all the smaller ones not so.

The fact is the Shia could wipe the floor with the Sunni's in Iraqi, but the question is, can we stomach the means? After all that is the methodology that ISIS use.

The ones that don't want us there are the ones that don't want democracy etc, they just want a Shia version of ISIS.

MTOW 20th Oct 2014 03:09


The ones that don't want us there are the ones that don't want democracy etc, they just want a Shia version of ISIS.
Yup. From Westerner's perspective, it is definitely a case of bad guys versus really bad guys. Whichever side wins, the West will
(a) receive no thanks (quite the opposite, in fact), and
(b) be hated with equal fervour by both sides.

Captain Sand Dune 20th Oct 2014 06:48

Which is why we shouldn't be there. As much as I find the antics of ISIS abhorrent, we all know that once they are ousted another mob whom are as equally vicious will replace them. Arabs cannot cope with democracy, and only respect violence.
Better to concentrate on the enemies within our own borders.

rh200 20th Oct 2014 07:18


Which is why we shouldn't be there
Thats one school of thought. The fact is the world in practice is border-less. The old rules still apply, if you don't pick a side then your enemy's will. The west shouldn't be to smug in its technological and social superiority, lest it learns a lesson several decades or century from now.

What you see on the media is not necessarily what the majority want, only the ones who are prepared to stand up. As I have said before, the vast majority of the Shia follow what Sistani wants, and so far he has been behind the democratic process.

Though the way things are going and looking at western society I wouldn't blame him if he gave it the flick as a bad joke.

porch monkey 20th Oct 2014 10:43

If they don't want us there, fine, lets all go home. On the condition that WE declare a security zone around the whole feckin lot of them, with strict engagement with extreme prejudice with any of them who so much as set foot outside that perimeter. No one sells ANY weapons, ammunition, or anything else to any side. Let them kill each other, I don't give a flying **** any more.

Worrals in the wilds 20th Oct 2014 11:02


No one sells ANY weapons, ammunition, or anything else to any side.
If you could get the French and the Russians (and the Yanks :suspect:) to agree then it just might work. Not going to happen though. Business is business, and all those Western land mine/rocket manufacturing companies have to answer to their shareholders. :sad:

Andu 20th Oct 2014 11:12

On the other hand, enact all of the above except that the French, the Russians and The Yanks could all supply them with as many weapons as they can pay for.

Worrals in the wilds 20th Oct 2014 11:24

The problem is that the aforementioned companies will supply on demand to the highest bidder, and that includes bidders on the wrong side. I know there are all sorts of laws and international treaties against that sort of thing, but they don't have much impact against commerce.
Governments don't control private companies, much as they'd like to think otherwise. While there's a fight to be had there will be (largely Western) companies ready to supply the tools to whichever (or both) side if they'll pay.


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:59.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.