General discussion


The War Is In Iraq.

By jardinier ·
When a discussion has passed the 150 postings mark, I think it might be a good idea to start a fresh one to get back to the original topic.

The way things are going, we might end up discussing the Civil War or the War of Independence.

Mallard's discussion: "Time To Pay The Piper" has certainly proved to be an excellent vehicle for the exchange of views, experiences and general information.

Good one, Duck!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

87 total posts (Page 2 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Historical Perspective

by road-dog In reply to interim administration

There is historical precedent as to how long it takes to make a transition between authoritan rule to democracy. To expect the Iraqis to complete this transition in 6 weeks is an invitation for disaster. The forces that would tear Iraq apart are exponentially greater than what our Continental Congress faced in our long road to becoming a functioning Republic.

To place an arbitrary timeline for this transition for the sake of self determination is nonsense in light of how long it took us to frame our government and select our first leader. Bear in mind that there are different groups within Iraq who would begin genocide against eachother at the first major disagreement on the framework.

1774 - first meeting of the first Continental Congress
1776 - Issuance of the Declaration of Independence
1783 - Great Britain and The United States reach a formal agreement ending hostilities and defining the borders of the new country
1787 - The first draft of the US constitution is published and ratification proceedings begin
1788 - The continental Congress ratifies the US Constitution
1789 - George Washington is sworn in as the first President of the United States
1789 - The Bill of Rights is ratified

Let's not rush Iraq. Let's give them the best chance at success that we can.

Collapse -

We call our "natives" Aboriginals ...

by jardinier In reply to Historical Perspective

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.

Collapse -

Nice to have you back, John.

by jardinier In reply to interim administration

It's a pity that you got bucketed with your first posting to the the ongoing war discussions. Actually, of course, the real war is the one that is being fiercely contested in Techrepublic discussions. Those flashes and bangs which you see on the major television networks are actually just a cynical plot by the networks to increase their ratings.

But to be serious I would have to agree with road-dog as regards the time it might take to establish a stable regime.

After all, it took 120 years to establish the first Australian Federal Government and Constitution.

Collapse -

Is there a timeline

by road-dog In reply to Nice to have you back, Jo ...

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.

Collapse -

How did Australia function

by road-dog In reply to Nice to have you back, Jo ...

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.

Collapse -

Not a real comparison.

by jardinier In reply to Nice to have you back, Jo ...

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.

Collapse -

I was hoping for a native's

by road-dog In reply to Nice to have you back, Jo ...

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.

Collapse -

Road Dog if you like our big

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Nice to have you back, Jo ...

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}

Collapse -

Australian Politics Part 2.

by jardinier In reply to Thanks for the links

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.

Collapse -

Kidding Around

by Oldefar In reply to Strangely enough.

I was in desperate need of a break from the serious issues of the world. Reading that story really lifted my spirits, and I simply wanted to share with others whose opinions I respect.

The additional comments were in case anyone felt offended. Intent and emotional context do not always come through as intended.

I did appreciate you insight and update on Australian politics.

To Road Dog, I think you nailed why I felt so good reading the article. Thanks.

Back to Community Forum
87 total posts (Page 2 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums