Australian troops home by Christmas if Government changes

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Hopefully, with a change in US governments the American troups will be home for Chanukka.

... and I seem to remember a year ago Rumsfeld saying the troups would be home by Christmas last year !

Nope. Kerry won't get elected. If he does people like you who wish misery on the Iraqi people will get your way. There will be tens of thousands of deaths. If by any chance that Kerry gets elected (which is very slim since he is a pretty lousy campaigner) I will blame every death of an Iraqi on you idiots.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by GePap
Those states are democracies- if 70% of people do not want to be there, well, maybe their DMEOCRATIC governments should pay heed? Of course, but how dare the government of Spain take into account the feelings of the people of Spain-we all know that government is responsible to the Iraqi people....

I find it laughable that the chickenhawks in the US and her allies are so quick to 'democratise' (read 'civilise', or 'convert') the Middle East - but are happy to run roughshod over the democratic process in their own countries to do so...

But then again irony is such a difficult concept for these people to understand...

[DanS]

We've found our "only" ally hasn't been there for us lately - Timor being the latest example - we had to do it ourselves.

We leave the Pacific small-scale missionary work to you guys. You guys are better at it anyway.

[Alexander's Horse]

Well quite apart from anything else noone could accuse of not playing our part in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Getting ripped off on those wheat contracts was a real poke in the eye - the sort of thing that the public pays little attention to but in government circles is noticed and duly noted for the next time we're asked to help.

Wheat was our major export to Iraq. To add insult to injury we're now being asked to forgive debt for past wheat sales. And it isn't like Iraq can't pay - just ask Halliburton.

[DanS]

Oh, so you were actually serious about that wheat stuff? What are the details?

You guys sound like a rather oversensitive lot. Australia's getting many of hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts in Iraq, most of which are paid through US taxpayer money. Did you government workers take note of that as well?

[rev]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
If by any chance that Kerry gets elected (which is very slim since he is a pretty lousy campaigner) I will blame every death of an Iraqi on you idiots.

heh.

Way to "profit" off of the deaths of Iraqis.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Labor is left wing. Of course they'd withdraw.

Really? Blair head the British Labour Party and he is staying. Very little difference between the 2 parties.

Labor led Australia through World War II.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
If by any chance that Kerry gets elected (which is very slim since he is a pretty lousy campaigner) I will blame every death of an Iraqi on you idiots.

Face it, you caused all of those deaths. Boris has proof.

[Alexander's Horse]

This Iraq thing is really such a debacle any way you look at it - but the right keeps defending it.

It's not another Vietnam, it's worse than Vietnam and we're only just into year 2.

[Patroklos]

Well bieng that Iraq has one overwhelming industry, oil, wouldn't be prudent to get that one running as quickly as possible. Because guess what it takes to run oil refineries, pipelines, storage centers, docking and loading facilities, security, and other oil related industries? People!

And guess what a very large portion of the Iraqi working populous were employed doing before Iraq went to hell? They worked in oil refineries, pipelines, storage centers, docking and loading facilities, security, and other oil related industries. Shock!

So you want us to reduce unemployment but not supply jobs? You want us increace the standard of living but not allow anyone to draw sallary? You want the enconomy of Iraq to rebound but not through the growth of industry? Awesome line of thought there. you get a cookie

Your right that any growth in Iraq would be good because the started and the level of nothing. The same level they were at under Saddam genius (and he put them there).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
We've found our "only" ally hasn't been there for us lately - Timor being the latest example - we had to do it ourselves.

Same goes for Bougainville and the Solomons - most of you would have never heard of those ops. We have troops there now.

It think there is a misunderstanding of policy occuring here. It is true that the bulk of the forces for these relatively small regional conflicts is provided by regional governments but the US remains very much involved. For instance Australia doesn't have the heavy left capability nor as large a naval transport capability so the US Air Force and the US Navy transport men and supplies for the Australians. The US also contributes reconstruction money and sometimes even assists in paying the salaries of deployed soldiers.

Starting back in the Bosnian war the policy became that local situations are best handled by local forces. The US would assist but would save the bulk of its forces for larger conflicts. This was tried in Bosnia but the Europeans proved to not be up to the job so a larger force with a great many Americans became involved. Though the strategy failed in Bosnia it seems to be working well in Africa and the missions you mentioned.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
This Iraq thing is really such a debacle any way you look at it - but the right keeps defending it.

It's not another Vietnam, it's worse than Vietnam and we're only just into year 2.

Can you please explain why you feel Iraq is a debacle? I'm not getting that feeling at all.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Oerdin


It think there is a misunderstanding of policy occuring here. It is true that the bulk of the forces for these relatively small regional conflicts is provided by regional governments but the US remains very much involved. For instance Australia doesn't have the heavy left capability nor as large a naval transport capability so the US Air Force and the US Navy transport men and supplies for the Australians. The US also contributes reconstruction money and sometimes even assists in paying the salaries of deployed soldiers.

Starting back in the Bosnian war the policy became that local situations are best handled by local forces. The US would assist but would save the bulk of its forces for larger conflicts. This was tried in Bosnia but the Europeans proved to not be up to the job so a larger force with a great many Americans became involved. Though the strategy failed in Bosnia it seems to be working well in Africa and the missions you mentioned.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Oerdin

For instance Australia doesn't have the heavy left capability nor as large a naval transport capability so the US Air Force and the US Navy transport men and supplies for the Australians.

Untrue - we have that capability - we can put a brigade strength taskforce anywhere in our region by land or sea on 72 hours notice to move, including by hot insertion.

The US also contributes reconstruction money and sometimes even assists in paying the salaries of deployed soldiers.

Untrue - Australia is paying it's own way in Iraq - including the very expensive US ordinance our Hornets dropped on Iraq during the air campaign.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Untrue - we have that capability - we can put a brigade strength taskforce anywhere in our region by land or sea on 72 hours notice to move, including by hot insertion.

But in 3 places at once?