Australian troops home by Christmas if Government changes

[DanS]

Something that wasn't there before is off course a highlighter if enough money is pumped in it.

Well, I can assure you that enough money is going to be pumpted into it: Over ten billion dollars between now and the election. So I'm questioning whether Labor put itself in a box on this issue. Howard can now point to any progress in Iraq and say that Labor wants to go back to the days of Saddam, that they're weak-willed, that they want to sell their ally down the river just when there is some positive impact, etc.

And for those rebels, there ain't no support for them already in Iraq, but they still manage to wreck things up.

While they don't have much support, they still have some support. Enough to carry out their terrorism.

[DanS]

Australia is the 'worldpower' in that area, they're doing very well without US support.

Let's ask Alexander Horse if this is perceived to be the case in Australia.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by DanS
Well, I can assure you that enough money is going to be pumpted into it: Over ten billion dollars between now and the election.

Yes, and where is the money pumped in? Not for the common Iraqi I think. Simply to man, rebuild and maintain the oil sector there, not to mention protect it. I hope you don't think that the US administration does so from the good of their hearths.

Originally posted by DanS While they don't have much support, they still have some support. Enough to carry out their terrorism.

Well, as the US administration has proven herself, if you got the weapons, you don't need the support.

It is still to be seen how long the US administration wants to stay in Iraq.

Originally posted by DanS
Let's ask Alexander Horse if this is perceived to be the case in Australia.

A few years back I was in New Zealand when the newspapers there were full of stories on how the aussies tried to force the NZ government to buy a squadron of fighters for 'mutual defense'. Maybe the common Australian citizen does not perceive Australia to be a local Power, but the Australian government (at that time) surely did.

[GePap]

Australia currently can fight of the single real threat to itself, Indonesia, which as a country needs to spend all its energy in simply not imploding.

As for the notion that backing Iraq is backin the US-bull. This invasion was administration specific. The fact the US abandoned France and the UK when they went after Egypt in 1956 and undermined those admins. did not remove the underlying interests of the US and the UK and France, nor did it invalidate their alliences. If the soviets had struck the US in 1957, no one would have been dumb enough to think that the UK and France would have spurned the uS due to US action in '56. Same is true about Iraq.

Just think of it this way-either the Bush amdin. loses and then close ties to Bush are meaningless, or even if it wins, they will be forced to listen to the complaints of allies that have gotten shafted.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by MikeH
I didn't agree with the war but now we're there we have to finish the job. Quitting now makes things worse and is totally the wrong thing to do.

Ah yes, but America can't afford to quit so when countries like Australia and Spain go (they are not quitting, just finally listening to the original public opinion on the war), the US will have to fill the gaps...

It's their mess from start to finish after all and they should be stuck with it, especially when their policy of support and appeasement to Israel is a major reason why the ME is so f*cked up - let their troops get firebombed instead of British ones!

[DanS]

Yes, and where is the money pumped in? Not for the common Iraqi I think. Simply to man, rebuild and maintain the oil sector there, not to mention protect it. I hope you don't think that the US administration does so from the good of their hearths.

Only about $1 billion is going to the oil industry between now and the elections. The remaining $9 billion is going to other things, such as electricity generation, water, etc. An additional $8 billion will be spent after that. This is just the US spending. There are others putting up money, such as Japan.

This is all real money.

[DanS]

As for the notion that backing Iraq is backin the US-bull. This invasion was administration specific.

Yes, the invasion was administration specific. But the occupation isn't. John Kerry doesn't say that he will pull the troops out of Iraq. He knows better.

You might have an odd situation where Australia is pulling out troops when a Kerry administration is taking office and has to continue the occupation policy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
I wonder whether stating this policy so early in the campaign has some downsides for Labor. The situation in Iraq is fluid, and may continue to get better.

It doesn't matter. It's massively unpopular because people believe it was wrong, not because "our" guys are getting hurt. It was a slap in the face of the world. Even if things worked perfectly, people would still be oppsed, unlease they're American moderates, who sway with the breeze.

[DinoDoc]

How is this more of a slap in the face of the world than Kosovo?

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by DanS
Only about $1 billion is going to the oil industry between now and the elections. The remaining $9 billion is going to other things, such as electricity generation, water, etc.

Electricity and water, basic infrastructure for people, but as well for the industry. Guess who's gonna have it first...

The US administration, and their backing oil companies, simply want a monopoly voice in when and how the most important commodity of Iraq is released, the rest is not important to them.

Nice side effect: all those billions pumped in the Iraqi 'economy' is simply money in the pocket of american companies who have the lucrative rebuild contracts for Iraq, IOW, if those had cash flow problems, as some american megacooperations seems to have nowadays, they're good for another year or two.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How is this more of a slap in the face of the world than Kosovo?

The only reasn it was not brought up were China and Russia. More importantly, all our allies approved.

This time we could not even get our allies, afr less China, on board.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How is this more of a slap in the face of the world than Kosovo?

The perception of active genocide. Plus, the agreement of most of Europe.

For full disclosures sake, I must point out I opposed that war as well.

[DinoDoc]

Let's see. The US leads an invasion force supported by other countries based on specious legal grounds, without UN sanction, and in the face of world opposition. What war am I talking about Iraq or Kosovo?

[DanS]

GeoModder: Even if all of your criticisms are true about the oil, this money will eventually hit the pocketbooks and the standard of living of the average Iraqi in a very big way.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Let's see. The US leads an invasion force supported by other countries based on specious legal grounds, without UN sanction, and in the face of world opposition. What war am I talking about Iraq or Kosovo?

Iraq , becuase THERE WAS NO INVASION FORCE OF KOSOVO. The Serbia government put together a deal to end the bombing campaign.

Another difference, the correct thing to say would be NATO (which includes the US and a bunch of other coutnries) had an air campaign aaginst the Serbian government that forced that government to relinquish control over Kosovo for the interim.

Also, "world opposition" was far far smaller, with Russia really being the only state to scream it shead about it, prior to us hitting the Chinese embassy.