The War Is In Iraq.

In light of the beating given the Royal Marines by Iraq, has the Australian perspective changed at all? I mean really, 7-3 is a bit lopsided a score. See artical at http://tinyurl.com/8sd6
Of course, the Royal Marines were not expecting a local club in full kit to meet them on the pitch.

Perhaps the Australians could send them some Fosters to fortify them for a rematch.

In other news, the Royal Marines appear to be doing an excellent job againt Saddam's forces, and a commendable performance on winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis they have liberated. My sincere sympathy for those lost to friendly fire, and deepest gratitude for Great Britain's participation.

Prime Minister John Howard is a cagey devil. Right up until the day that the attack commenced, even though ships and troops had already arrived in the Gulf, he refused to make a definite statement as to whether Australia would actually participate in the war. He is being equally non-committal as to the situation when the war ends.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has had talks with George Bush I believe, both in regard to a UN based interim administration, and allowing Australian companies to tender for work in the rebuilding.

The Federal Labor Opposition has spoken against Australian involvement in the war right from the beginning, and still expresses that view. The Senate, which has a non-Government majority, has also spoken out firmly against Australian involvement and continues to do so.

In the lead-up to our last Federal Election on November 10, 2001, Mr Howard indicated the possibility that he might surrender the leadership at his 64th birthday which I think is in June this year. However he will definitely not consider stepping down until the war has ended.

There are two issues pending which he could use to call a double dissolution of both houses at any time. If he does not take this course of action it seems certain that he will contest the next election which can be called any time in 2004.

The Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, has a poor rating as regards public appeal. However there are at least two Federal Labor MPs ready to fill the breach if his leadership is contested prior to any election. These are Kim Beazley, who remains in his chosen position on the back bench after the ALP failed to win the 2001 election under his leadership, and Mark Latham, who it seems is destined to become a Labor Prime Minister at some time in the future. As he is only 44 years of age, he is in no hurry to upset the apple-cart at this time.

Hey Jules, not to be incensitive to your fellow Aussies but has there been any Aussie casulties? Every night when I watch the news (CNN, MSNBC) they post only American and British casulties. The only one I'm aware of was the unfortunate camera man that got killed by a suicide bomb. I read on CNN all about all coalition special forces including Aussies like the S.A.S., and wow are they all bad mofos.
As for everyone else my roomate told me that the graves of our American heros buried in Normandy was desecrated by unknown individuals. I havent heard anything on the news, however he claimed that its being kept quiet and can be found only on the internet. I believe that it has to be an internet hoax, and a poor one at that. I sincerly hope its a hoax and not for real, for I would do unspeakable things to those who would do such a thing to any grave, whether soldier or regular citizen. Could anyone enlighten me on this? I also heard that the firing upon the car that ran through the check point that killed everyone inside including a child was forced to run it or the other children of that family would be killed. It was claimed that the death squad took half the children as hostage leaving them no choice to but to run it to create a horrific propaganda report. I dont know of the validity on this either. Lastly, if the turncoat of the 101 airbourne is found guilty does he get the discraceful firing squad, hanging, or traditional execution? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

What should be done with him?

I've got 3 scenarios:

1 - UN War Crimes Trial
I'm against this one because Saddam's fate would be decided in a forum where his trial would become a propaganda farce that Arab extremists would use as fodder for terrorism.

2 - Trial under Iraqi Law
I think that Saddam's crimes are against the Iraqi people but trial under the new interim government would be too inciteful of extremist groups and sorely test the fledgeling new government. There is also the possibility that such an action would be illegal, as laws against Saddam's actions would be enacted after the actual rimes.

3 - Islamic Trial
This is my personal favorite. I think that Saddam should be tried in a Shiite Islamic venue. This will almost certainly result in a horrific execution that Islamic Extremists would have little justifiable argument. Additionally, It would provide some cathartic justice for the Shiite clergy that has already issued a fatwa sanctioning the invasion if Iraq.

Let's hear your opinions!

As an American, I sometimes assume that 'the Civil War' refers to what is also known as 'the War Between the States'.

As someone with a casual interest in history, I know that there are several civil wars that have had an important part in various country's histories.

for the creation of Australia's current Constitution and Government available on the web?

120 years for yours? Wow, our government actually produced something on time and under budget!

Sorry for "bucketing" your friend, I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. I hope that my point came across in an informative and reasoned way.

I'm frustrated by many "expert" evaluations of the war's progress in the media as of late. I think it's important and relevant to assess today's events in direct historical context.

I agree with CENTCOM's assertions that the war will take as long as it takes and the Bush Administrations statements that the war will cost as much as it costs.

I find it offensive that many politicians are bashing the war on cost, when one considers that 9-1-1 cost us approximately a trillion with all direct and indirect costs involved.

Prevention of further attacks and the a more peaceful Middle East will be seen as "cheap at twice the price" in the hindsight of our descendants.

during theis 12 years? Was there a "defacto" government made "dejure" with the ratification? Were there significant milestones and events that occurred that tested this fledgeling government?

How were conflicts resolved? While our Continental congress was hammering out the details of our Constitution and creating the first 10 amendments that constitute the Bill Of Rights, there were several small uprisings that were "put down" forcibly. I find this interesting in light of the defacto status of the US government at the time.

This same situation may well arise during the transition to a democratic Iraq, and will be debated in this forum should such circumstances come to pass. I suspect that such uprisings may well be forcibly supressed under "might makes right" justification to allow a coalition government time to be formalized.

Any other opinions on this? Many other countries must have encountered similar circumstances while transitioning to their current styles of governments in "recent" history.

Has anyone else noticed the irony in the advancement of "smart" weapons?

100,000 BC - humans advance warfare from threatening displays and sounds to hitting each other with rocks

80,000 BC - warfare advances to the use of clubs

60,000 BC - warfare advances again as spears allow stand off attacks

40,000 BC - spears are reduced in size but increased in velocity with early bows.

5,000 BC - cutting instruments, swords, are introduced

1200 AD - gunpowder allows early guns to be developed

1945 AD - Nuclear power results in incredible explosive capability

1980 AD - USAF advances to precision guided high velocity spears as a tank killer

2003 AD - British develop precision guided smart bomb made of concrete

2005 AD - Loud grunts and threatening gestures?

Well of course there is no real comparison between the way in which a Federal Government evolved in Australia to the way in which it evolved in America. I was just making a light-hearted comment that these things don't happen overnight.

For a start, we didn't have a War of Independence because we are still not a self-governing republic. The Queen of England is still our head of state, a fact dramatically demonstrated when her representative the Governor General sacked Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975, or thereabouts.
Labor is pushing to make Australia a republic, but Mr Howard apparently is happy the way things are. A referendum was held in 1999 regarding Australia becoming a republic, but it was pretty obvious that the Coalition Government deliberately worded the referendum document to make sure it would not be accepted.

And we have not fought a war to liberate our slaves as we have never had any.

Obviously if you use the Internet you can find out anything you want to know about Australian history and the drawing up of the Consitution.

view of the history. The history presented in the books is source finite and subjective as the views and agendas of the writer influence the text.....

OK, I got lazy, so sue me!

Call it cultureal myopia, but I was unaware that Australia is still somewhat colonial in it's relationship with GB. I've never considered Australia as anything other than an independent nation with historic ties to GB, cool accents, and BIG cans of beer.

Sorry, but had to back-up as maximum message level was reached.

While we cannot of course undo the past, or accept the blame for the actions of our ancestors, Australia is currently going through a lengthy and complex process of giving official recognition to our indigenous people as the true owners of the land which our early settlers conquered by force, and murdered as many as possible of the true native population.

In fact it is generally believed that total genocide of the Aboriginal people was achieved in our island State of Tasmania.

Does anyone know of a historical precedent in which a conquering nation actually acknowledged the true ownership of the country which they had invaded?

And please let's not get sidetracked ona discussion about the State of Israel, which was set up by the United Nations.

As of 100PM EST on Sunday 6/4/03 it has just been reported of 2 alledged cases of friendly fire the first one being in Northern Iraq where a convoy of Kurds and US Special Forces came under arial attack and where heavly bomb.

The other one which has worse conquences was the Russian Delegation on leaving Bagdad after notifing the US Comand and getting aproval for their exit came under attack from the air it is understood at this point that the Russian Ambisator is uninjured but some of the consulate officials have been killed at present it is understood that the convoy is continuning with whats left of it. There will have to be some major arse kissing to kmake up for this mistake if it is actually what happened as at present it is too early to tell exactly who attacked the Russian Convoy.

Cans of Beer then you really need to try a Darwin Stubby. It's only about 80 Fluid Onces I think as not being a beer drinker I didn't really take that much notice but they are very big about the size of 1.5 bottles of wine and they actually call it a Stubby {here in Australia that means a small bottle}

I finally figured it out.

It's not that Tariq Azziz is living in a fantasy world or trying to mislead the Iraqi people with lies.

He is acutually auditioning for the various networks.

A little know fact about Tariq, he has always wanted to be a stand-up comic. He joined the Iraqi regime in hopes of fufilling that dream.

Now that that the regime is poised to fall. Tariq will be needing a new job.

His publicist, speaking on anomynity, said that "Several Major networks have shown positive interest on having Tariq host his own late night show. There is also negotiations for a 1-hour standup on comedy central."

And as the troops keep getting closer, his jokes keep getting better.

When asked sunday why he was not insidethe Information Ministry giving a conference he said, "It is so stuffy inside and such a beautiful day. I love the smell of napalm in the morning".

Pure comedic genius.

but conventional wisdom is that the devil is in the details. On the surface, the study shows a solid effort to identify and isolate GWS as a discrete set of symptoms that can be directly attributed to service, using a similar contrast group with similar backgrounds without Gulf War service.

The test methodology appears sound.

So, how does this back up your assertions that these vets are being treated as expendable? I reiterate my previous point that such studies indicate a pattern of acknowledgement of GWS, although absent of conclusive cause and effect data.

Your original posting on this was sharply critical of the various governments involved. You must admit that such studies require time and testing to reach usable (valid) conclusions.

Lack of results does not equal lack of effort.

Actually for Lincoln the war was more about the right of states to secede than slavery. There is sufficient legal evidence to make the case either direction, for or against succession. While personally Lincoln felt that slavery was wrong, for most of his political career he conformed to the public notion that slavery was a necessary evil, i.e. the economy and therefore the country could not survive without it. Lincoln recognized that public opinion was shifting away from that concept to one that was closer to his personal beliefs. Did he time the Emancipation Proclamation to influence foreign opinion and unite the North, yes. How is that different that some of the speeches President Bush has made to justify this war? Lincoln's verbiage inthe EP demonstrates his conflicting desires to allow a man his freedom, and the need for laws that benefit the many over the individual.

wow, something I think nearly everyone from every POV on this issue can probably agree with :)

But I'd have to also point out that it has been persuavily argued that the South would have had to drop slavery anyway and was definately at least going this direction by the Civil War. Sharecroppers essentially became the new word and this too eventually died out.

At any rate, a lot of historians are in agreement that the Cvil War being about the slavery was primarily a rallying point for the populace and was probably not the driving force behind the war.

Pick your pets with care -

I believe it was the emminent PM of England who once noted something to the effect that dogs look up to you, cats look down at you, but a pig will treat you as an equal.

Well Jul, I am hesitant to attribute great intelligence to most species of animal, and I even disagree about the discriminant killing. Many species eat there young or fight to the death for dominance. I will affirm you genetic theory. I had, at one tim, a pair of border collies. They are one of the most highly regarded sheep dog varieties in England and Scotland. I must say that the male was absolutely amazing. With no training at all, he was able to manage evry type of live stock, save one that I'll get to in a minute, as well as any trained dog. He actually competed at a local sheep farm, and though slightly unorthodox, performed his tasks more rapidly and precisely than the trained dogs. I was particularly impressed with his ability to cut or cull, which is to seperate animals of similar type into groups. We had cattle, chickens, horses, sheep, goats and one duck. Jude (the collie) would seperate the animals each night including forcing the duck into the pond. His one failure was at a place where I was the night watchmen. My parents came to visit one night and thought Jude may enjoy it. He lept out of the truck quite excited by the smells and proceded throough the gates. Several seconds later he bolted back to the truck where he coward untill he was safely home again. You see the place was a zoo, and I suppose he did not know what to do with the Siberian Tiger we had rescued earlier from a horse trailer.

Just curious :) Nice story, thanks!

He's tedious as all get out. What really gets to me is his snide and condescending attitiude that he projects.

Miller would be funnier and more profound after a 3 day bender and 2 hours sleep with a 102 degree fever and 2 rounds with Mike Tyson than Maher is on his best day.

I agree with your assessment of strange animal genetic behavior that makes us scratch our heads in amazement. The only tale of direct genetic intelligence I've heard of was a study conducted on an elephant. The baby elephant was never at the particular watering hole frequented by both momma and poppa. The momma was flown to a distant pet hospital to birth the baby elephant. Due to complications the momma died giving birth, after the baby was old enough to strike out on it's own it went exactly to the same watering hole never seing it in the first place including the removal of any teaching or communication from the mother. It was so far as I've been told that it was the only proof of genetic intelligence in any animal, wierd.

I found his commentary timely and accurate.

The exposes are always informative and on the point.

"Let the Healing Begin"

http://tinyurl.com/93oi

One of Saddam's fedayeen "troops" gets a well deserved ass beating at the hands (fists) of the citizens of Basra, Iraq.

Hi Colin. I think Blakes 7 was one of the best SiFi series that was ever produced, and I could never understand why they discontinued it after a fairly short run and have never, to my knowledge, run repeats on Sydney TV.

Perhaps you can also remind of the name of the series (it may have even been Blakes 7) in which the spaceship's computer was called "Zen," and when in the final episode the ship ran into some matter which started to dissolve it, and the computer could not resolve the problem, it said: "I am sorry."

Can't you refrain from always being so cynical? Do you actually believe that the soldiers want to be "killing off" (your words) the reporters in Iraq? Even to joke about it, or to present it as tongue-in-cheek is, in my opinion, very poor taste. Cynicism usually drips off your messages, and this is no exception. The sad thing is this: you come across to many people as though you really believe the dribble you dish out. (Do you really believe the reporters were targeted?)

And besides, any red-blooded American knows that if an American soldier wanted reporters dead, Geraldo would have been the first to wander into someone's sights. (Now that's a joke in good taste.)

The military doesn't want them killed - or even stifled. The reportersare there because the military WANTS them there.

Actually, the challenge (as far as media bias) is (for a change) on the other side of the spectrum. Reporters are living, eating and sleeping with the very soldiers they are covering. They are digging in and trying to stay alive right next to the very same soldiers who are going to keep them alive. How can they ask the tough questions, how can they report negatively about the soldiers who've undoubtedly, in some cases, become brothers-in-arms.

Here's an interesting story on that subject:

http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/04/04/3e8daa4712e6b

(No spaces in the URL)

Moreover, the reporters are there by choice. And if he or she "puts his life on the line" by doing so, it's his/her own doing. Be assured of one thing, however, the reporters are doing it, not for love of country, not for principle, not for the liberation of an oppressed people, not in a quest for the truth, not for you, and not for me. They are doing it all for reasons of their own - to advance their own careers, for the excitement, to flee an ex-wife, and so on.

Because if not, that would be one of the basest accusations I've seen in this forum to date.

If you WERE joking, then if you're going to 'bash' the media, what's better to use than a 120mm smoothbore and a HEAT round....

At the most recent count which I have read, 11 journalists have lost their lives in Iraq.

And as for the term "friendly fire," well I was under the impression that everyone understood that this term refers to accidents and not deliberate actions.

straight out of the AR.

Since it's MEPS, it should all be the same.

I only did my once (8 May 88), so I can't remeber verbatim the exact words. But I do rememeber support and defend the constitution.

I did not loook at a revision date of the AR.

Before continuing this topic, read:
http://tinyurl.com/95vw

Now there is a question as to who fragged the journalists.

Also, one might consider that a journalist with a shoulder camera looks like somebody with an RPG from the front. When oneconsiders the distance, this could be adequately explain an accident, if an American tank did fire the fatal shot.

I saw that, Lordinfidel, and did reference the link. I last took it in 1980, and it was in 1976 that I remember the "lawful" part since the captain administering the oath made me redo that line. My "uh" made it sound like "unlawful orders". :)

I believe the discussion regarding why it specifically included lawful orders came about at the NCO Academy in 1977.

Of course, my memory could be shot. A lot of alcohol was consumed during those days, a lot of good cells died young.