Possible nuclear strike on Iran?

[BWare 0]

Again, I'm asking you for any reason besides Iraq for believing this. If you have no other reason, it IS blind prejudice! I'm legitimately curious because I don't know much about Australian politics.

[General Leang 0]

The short answer is by following along with everything America does. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the persecution of Muslims, if it is American then Howard follows. Meanwhile many Australian products (Vegimite, Dick Smith, ect) are bought out and in return America intend to give their Wal-Mart superstores which will cripple business here with cheap products, labour and profits going back to America. Now to be fair Australia needs America as an ally, it does not want to do anything to upset them. However America devouring the country whole is where many Australians draw the line. They do not agree with America buying out or just taking their products. They do not want Wal-Mart here and wipe out Australian business. But if Australia were to say no then that could damage relations between the two countries. An example of the complications that could arise can be seen with Australia's involvement in the Schapelle Corby trial. Indonesia took this as an affront with the big bad Oceana superpower bullying their country, and tensions are high and relations are seriously strained between the two countries. The same for Paupa New Guinea who do not want Australia to take into custody a child predetor. John Howard is not willing to do the same with America, and more so he is a great ally with George Bush, I believe it to be something more than world leadership and goes onto being a friendship, or at the very least they hold a great amount of respect for each other.

[Guest Rabbit]

@ BWare

Dude, calling it blind prejudice just isn't right.

 

Just because he says bush is doing what the US wants, doesn't make it blind prejudice, so personally, I find that insulting for you to say such a thing.

[Cygnus X-1 14]

You do realise that Wal-Mart has absolutley no ties to the US government, right? After all, we are capitalist, ergo the government has no dirrect control over private enterprises, wich is what Wal-Mart is. So If you dont like Wal-Mart, thats fine, but that gives you no ground against the United States.

 

What I keep hearing is that the Australian PM just follows the US's lead in everything. And what if our goals happen to coincide with his? After all, does not the West want a peaceful world, rid of the likes of Fanaticals who will blow up a busload of children just to get a "message" across? Does the fact that Australia's goals are the same or similar to the US's automatically make Australia a puppet? I do not think so.

 

This is why terrorism is so successfull. Too many people are worried about thier country's image, they dont want to look like they're playing "follow the leader". They go on about polotics and puppet leaders etc, when the real enemy is out there, unplaqued by these same idocrisies, and they are beeing very effective against US, whereas we sit here infighting. One day, its gona come back to haunt us. I say we cut hte crap right now. Who cares who took the first step, so long as we all went in together, and are united against a common enemy. Will party polotics matter in the end when the bombs are going off in your city? Will it matter that your prime minister has similar goals to the US president? Or that he was a puppet man of Bush? Will it matter who said what? NO. What will matter is that we are all here and in support of each other, working together to bring down groups like AL Queda and nations like Iran and N. Korea.

 

"A House divided against itself cannot fall" - Jesus

 

Whether you believe he is the son of man or not, he was one brilliant guy. Listen to him. We all could learn a thing or three.

[General Leang 0]

In regards to Wal-Mart, thank you for clearing that up, but the issue remains of what it will do to Australia were it to open stores around the country. It being American is irrevelent.

 

In regards to following America, very few people do not want the same things America is fighting the war on terrorism for: to put an end to the threat of terrorism. However, Iraq would be the best example of this, following America can and has made Australia a target, because it is an ally of America. There have beem specific threats of attacks made against Australia because of their involvement in Iraq, which thankfully have not been successful. However, to not fight is to let the terrorists win. To fight however and they are given grounds for attacks, as they cite Iraq as a reason for mass murder.

[Cygnus X-1 14]

However, to not fight is to let the terrorists win.

 

Truly stated, and realised by those who risk their lives day in and out for the free world.

 

 

To fight however and they are given grounds for attacks, as they cite Iraq as a reason for mass murder.

 

This is very true, and one reason why I believe it takes great courage for a leader to agree to go in on something like this, for that leader bust realise that at the chance of helping rid the world of the likes of terrorists and of freeing others from tyrannical oppressors, he makes his own country a target in the eyes of the terrorists. Which is why if every Western nation (and nations friendly to the West) would see this, we could all go in. Not only overwhelming terrorists with a multitude of target nations, but combining hte resources of many many countries, rather than the few who have so far contributed, meaning that we could be more effective in our counter-intelligence opperations, more effective in policing trouble spots, and overall, more effective in achieving our goals.

[General Leang 0]

You know how this thread came about, with hearing about a nuclear strike on Iran? I talked to these people about the world unifying against terrorism, like Rainbow Six. They believe that is tyranny, your thoughts on 'Not only overwhelming terrorists with a multitude of target nations, but combining hte resources of many many countries, rather than the few who have so far contributed, meaning that we could be more effective in our counter-intelligence opperations, more effective in policing trouble spots, and overall, more effective in achieving our goals.' They think it's tyranny for the world to be against terrorism and disagree with it. Crazy world we live in, yes? I happen to think these people are out and out whackos to think that.

[BWare 0]

In regards to following America, very few people do not want the same things America is fighting the war on terrorism for: to put an end to the threat of terrorism. However, Iraq would be the best example of this, following America can and has made Australia a target, because it is an ally of America. There have beem specific threats of attacks made against Australia because of their involvement in Iraq, which thankfully have not been successful. However, to not fight is to let the terrorists win. To fight however and they are given grounds for attacks, as they cite Iraq as a reason for mass murder.

Your thinking here is all wrong dude. Allying with America has NOT made you any more of a target than you would have been otherwise. We're dealing with an enemy who wants to subvert and conquer the west. Showing strenght by allying with us will get a lot of words thrown at you, sure... but remember that these animals attack WEAKNESS when they see it. You'd be MUCH worse off if you caved. You've heard the saying, "give a mouse a cookie...", right?

 

Oh, and you mentioned something about Australia following America in "persecuting Muslims"? This is very offensive. There has not been ONE instance in which a person in America has been persecuted by the government based on religion in America, even after 9/11. If you believe this to be false, then you are WAY off the mark.

 

@ BWare

Dude, calling it blind prejudice just isn't right.

 

Just because he says bush is doing what the US wants, doesn't make it blind prejudice, so personally, I find that insulting for you to say such a thing.

Please fully read and understand the conversation before disagreeing, k? This is about Australian politics, not Bush. :wink:

[General Leang 0]

By that I meant this.

 

 

I am not sure where I stand on the issue of racial profiling, and to be honest it is not as bad in Australia as it is in America, and even then targeting foreigners has been something Eurpope had been doing for years and years (especially in totalarian countries such as the former Soviet Union). I do however some people need a quick maths lesson.

 

[Guest Rabbit]

My statement stands. Whether it is bush or anyone else, calling that prejudiced is just uncalled for.

[General Leang 0]

And just to add, my recent statements are a reflection of how Australia thinks. So how about me? The Rock contained an exchange between Connery and Harris that goes like this.

 

Hummel: The tree of liberty should be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots.

Mason: Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious, according to Oscar Wild.

 

Personally I am on both side of this arguement. Should Iraq have been invaded. Should those fighting stay. In a way Iraq is about terrorism as it is deliberately baiting them into action. The more who fall on the reasoning of revenge against the invasion of Iraq, the better.

[Alphabear 13]

Your right racial profiling does exist, especially in airport security. As to wether it good or bad, im not sure. I supose when resources are stretched it makes sence. I have a contact who works in airport security that has told me that there are certain physical characteristcs that are singled out on passenges as an increased risk. My mother has flown 11 times in the last 3 years and has been selected for a "random bomb search" every time she has gone through security. I have flown 20 times in the same time period and havent had it once.

[Cygnus X-1 14]

I'd rather have airport security slightly paranoid than slightly lax

 

Im not sure I understand Leang's comment about 'Iraq' and 'Revenge'

 

Keep in mind that the invasion of Iraq had very little to do with 9/11. All of the anti-government people in STL seem to like saying that Bush is dumb because he invaded Iraq to get back at Osama. They seem to be forgetting the 2 years previous opperations in Afghanistan before Iraq. That opperation was targeted at Osama and his cronies, as well as the government that harbored them.

 

Another 'argument' I've heard against the US invasions of late is "They are a legitamate government, so we have no right to go in and invade them and depose that government". Here's what I have to say in response. That government is harboring criminals that are wanted around the world, criminals that just openly declared Jihad against the West, (which includes the US) and now that government is hiding and protecting them. Thats plenty of reason for us to be in Afganistan. So to all of those who jumped on the "war ez evil!!!1!!11 Bush hates people!!11!AALALALALA!!11!" bandwagon, thats my reasoning.

 

Leang - the first comic you posted, I think actually stands in favor of airport security racial profiling. Would you rather be searched everytime you flew? Or live life knowing that anyone could get on a plane and blow it up or fly it into a building because airport security is extremely lax? I'll take the 'get searched every time' option.

[General Leang 0]

Im not sure I understand Leang's comment about 'Iraq' and 'Revenge'

 

On October 12 2002 car bombs were detonated outside night clubs in Bali killing 202 innocent people, 88 of them Australian. Although it occured in another country the terrorist attack hit home and for Australia it was 9/11. Regardless of whether or not Iraq had anything to do with September 11 is not the point I made, the point is had the Bali bombings not occured John Howard would in all liklihood not be as committed to Bush and Iraq. There were talks of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq during the early stages and it was even used as justification to go to war.

 

Leang - the first comic you posted, I think actually stands in favor of airport security racial profiling. Would you rather be searched everytime you flew? Or live life knowing that anyone could get on a plane and blow it up or fly it into a building because airport security is extremely lax? I'll take the 'get searched every time' option.

 

No question, I am all for airport security. One thing about it is targeting Muslims because Muslims have committed terrorist acts. I had been searched, scanned, and greatly understand and appreciate the increase in security from the way it was immediately after September 11. I will say however that it is wrong that Muslims are a target for racial profiling and that is because of the acts of Muslim terrorists who, for all their posturing about the great Jihad, do not care about the Muslim people. All they care about is forcing the world to submit to militant Islam.

[BWare 0]

My statement stands. Whether it is bush or anyone else, calling that prejudiced is just uncalled for.

If he has absolutely no reason for believing it, then what else would you call it? That's the definition of blind prejudice. How is that simple conclusion of mine wrong?

 

Your right racial profiling does exist, especially in airport security. As to wether it good or bad, im not sure.

In the US it doesn't happen. As to whether or not it's a good thing, the answer is YES. It's good because it works. Just take a look at the pictures of everyone involved in any air-based terrorist attack or hijacking in the last couple decades.

Notice anything similar?

As politically incorrect as it is, there's no denying the fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of modern day terrorists have some very key things in common. They lie in a certain age group, are ALL male, and are all Arab Muslims. Call me crazy, but fair, random checks that end up frisking grandma as the shifty-eyed guy clutching a briefcase to his chest walks right through just seem like an idiotic waste of resources to me.

Think about El Al airlines. They are one of the world's largest terrorist targets. Know how many terrorism related airline disasters they've had? ZERO. Want to know why? They profile the HELL out of their customers and are armed to the teeth. If you want an example of airline security that really works, just look to Israel's airline.

[Cygnus X-1 14]

No question, I am all for airport security. One thing about it is targeting Muslims because Muslims have committed terrorist acts. I had been searched, scanned, and greatly understand and appreciate the increase in security from the way it was immediately after September 11. I will say however that it is wrong that Muslims are a target for racial profiling and that is because of the acts of Muslim terrorists who, for all their posturing about the great Jihad, do not care about the Muslim people. All they care about is forcing the world to submit to militant Islam.

 

I agree with you there. If security is being stepped up, especially when an ethnic minority is around, then it should be paranoid for everybody. Especially with the Texan (a US CITIZEN) joining Al Queda in recent months, ANYONE can commit a terrorist act or otherwise. In fact, by overtly being paranoid about anyone dressed like a Muslim, we basically tell terrorists what NOT to wear, thus making it easier for them.

 

The Irony is not lost on me here. And knowing fate (or at least being on somewhat familar grounds) thats exactly whats gona happen. A random white guy in blue jeans, a T-shirt, and some pro-team logo knockoff jacket is gona walk in, and BOOM!! Our own security blows up (litterally) in our faces.