http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-09/howard-defends-decision-to-invade-iraq/4619500

John Howard ‘vents his spleen’, expressing his anger at the suggestion that he sent Australia to war in Iraq with anything other than the purest of intentions at heart.

Although he gives it away later on in the article by reminding us all that Australia is a “100 per cent ally, not a 70 or 80 per cent one". Read “Australia is a vassal state of the US”.

‘Obviously’ our overlords did not make Howard privy to facts on the ground, such as US frustration at Iraqi oil remaining nationalised (ultimately requiring the ‘sexing up’ of WMD ‘intelligence’ to act as a pretext for war) – A scenario that (evidently) most of the world (with the notable exceptions of Australia and Britain) was entertaining as more likely.

But, John, you needn’t worry (as I’m sure you’re not). As you say of the Chinese who “ 'get' our alliance with America”… Australia – your people – ‘get’ our relationship with the US too – Australia is a vassal state and we are a vassal people – ‘Ours is not to question why… Ours is just to do or die’.

And for that we will be rewarded and indulged.

http://images.theage.com.au/2009/01/14/348257/45235_widenative-408x264.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bush-honours-man-of-steel-howard-with-medal-of-freedom-20090114-7gc3.html

And John, if you think we're believers in your 'outrage'... Just one question...

Why, in 2009, long after the WMD scam was exposed for what it was, did you accept the US Medal of Freedom for your services as a vassal Head of Government in the 'Coalition of the Willing'?

Sure, by 2009 you had nothing politically to lose, you'd already been dumped, but really the bit about your seeing the medal as "very much as a compliment to Australia"???

Vassal nations aren't usually all that hyped about being exposed for what they are... They usually like to quietly get on with the job of serving and hope they won't be outed as the town bike.

In other words it was a compliment to you alone, John... A gross act of flattery on Bush's part for awarding it and a gross act of cynicism on yours for accepting it.

John Howard sent our young men and woman off to war without the support of Parliament or the people.....We now know the justification was fabricated and the result was a disaster.....Most of the world did not believe the bullshit despite Howards claim to the contrary.....That is why there was only a handful of nations who defied the UN and invaded a sovereign country for there resources......John Howard f@cked up and now he is to shallow and arrogant to admit he was completely wrong and people like Andrew Wilkie where 100% correct.....History will show that Australia invaded Iraq without a UN mandate and without justification.....Howard cannot accept when you defy the people and the Parliament you must be 100% correct or expect to be condemned.....Iraq is a complete basket case thanks to John Howard and his mates Bush and Blair!!!

>:( >:( >:(

It would have definitely been better to have left a murderous dictator in power than to get rid of him and his regime.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 7:49am:

It would have definitely been better to have left a murderous dictator in power than to get rid of him and his regime.

The US has nothing against murderous dictators per se (think Pinochet, Mubarak, the Shah and Saddam himself as examples)... And, by that, neither does Australia.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 7:49am:

It would have definitely been better to have left a murderous dictator in power than to get rid of him and his regime.

And kill 100,000 plus people in an illegal war justified by lies.

Had Howard said that we didn't really know but we are allies to the US and are going to support them I could have accepted that, but not the dishonesty or the lies we were told.

We have been Happy to leave murderous dictators in place all around the world and each leader who invaded Iraq has clearly stated that they would not invade to achieve regime change though I will not rule out the possibility that that was another lie.

At the end of the day John Howard made us the aggressor in an illegal war and got all the reasons for doing it wrong, to put it kindly

The most disgraceful despicable thing an Australian leader has ever done by a country mile.

People claim that he is a war criminal and the justification is clearly evident.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 7:49am:

It would have definitely been better to have left a murderous dictator in power than to get rid of him and his regime.

Did he have boats full of explosives Puddle?


Quote:

but what if it had been a boat full of dynamite with a person onboard hellbent on destruction?

Ya Knob ;D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 8:34am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 7:49am: It would have definitely been better to have left a murderous dictator in power than to get rid of him and his regime. Did he have boats full of explosives Puddle? Quote: but what if it had been a boat full of dynamite with a person onboard hellbent on destruction? Ya Knob ;D

Just out of curiosity, why does that make me "a knob"???

Did Howard explain anywhere why he continually avoided a stream of ONA advice (you know the one agency that should be listened to on matters of intelligence) - advising that the Iraq WMD intelligence was bogus?


Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 7:49am:

It would have definitely been better to have left a murderous dictator in power than to get rid of him and his regime

How much worth? At what point do you say it wasn't worth it? Over 100 000 dead civilians? Millions displaced? Decimated economy and infrastructure? The installation of just another murderous dictator (which is what Al Maliki is shaping up to be)?

"I think the question, if you don't mind me saying, is flawed in itself.
Now would I do the same thing again? Make the same decisions? If its based on the same evidence I had at the time then yes absolutely.

Look we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein because it was the right thing to do. I didn't do it for popularity, when you have significant members of your own party against you and you're relying on the Conservative opposition to support you against your own members, then obviously its not a popularity thing.

Would I make the same decision again? Yes.
Do I have any regrets? Well obviously any death, particularly those of British servicemen who have gone in under my instruction weighs heavily with me, but regrets? No I don't.

We made the choice to remove this tyrant and I regret nothing on that.
It was, quite simply the right thing to do."

Tony Blair
Parliamentary Inquiry, 2012.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:59am:

And John, if you think we're believers in your 'outrage'... Just one question... Why, in 2009, long after the WMD scam was exposed for what it was, did you accept the US Medal of Freedom for your services as a vassal Head of Government in the 'Coalition of the Willing'? Sure, by 2009 you had nothing politically to lose, you'd already been dumped, but really the bit about your seeing the medal as "very much as a compliment to Australia"??? Vassal nations aren't usually all that hyped about being exposed for what they are... They usually like to quietly get on with the job of serving and hope they won't be outed as the town bike. In other words it was a compliment to you alone, John... A gross act of flattery on Bush's part for awarding it and a gross act of cynicism on yours for accepting it.

A bit better than getting a yellow stripe painted down your back and a white feather in the mail Comrade Northy....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

"I think the question, if you don't mind me saying, is flawed in itself. Now would I do the same thing again? Make the same decisions? If its based on the same evidence I had at the time then yes absolutely. Look we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein because it was the right thing to do. I didn't do it for popularity, when you have significant members of your own party against you and you're relying on the Conservative opposition to support you against your own members, then obviously its not a popularity thing. Would I make the same decision again? Yes. Do I have any regrets? Well obviously any death, particularly those of British servicemen who have gone in under my instruction weighs heavily with me, but regrets? No I don't. We made the choice to remove this tyrant and I regret nothing on that. It was, quite simply the right thing to do." Tony Blair Parliamentary Inquiry, 2012.

If its based on the same evidence I had at the time then yes absolutely.

There was a substantial amount of genuine evidence where the leaders had made sure that they were not exposed too.

The Iraq WMD scientist who had moved to Canada who wanted to address both Australia’s Parliament and the USA equivalent telling anyone who would listen that the WMD stockpile had been destroyed in the first war along with most of the scientists and technology chemicals and records along with the building containing them. Also that he had reviewed the work of the remaining scientists capable and found they were mostly doing credible work in agriculture.

This guy was refused - the relivant authorities didn't want to know the truth.

The decisions were made based on the evidence they wanted much of it manufactured or presented dishonestly.

Dna - Can I point you to the address of Hans Blix in Jan 2003 to the assembled Security Council.

"It is regrettable that Iraq still does not fully understand or appreciate the terms of the resolutions of this Council and continues to not comply fully with the full, unrestricted access of the UNSCOM Inspectors to any site. The Inspectors do continue to be denied access to several facilities"

2003.

13 years after the demands of the Council.

Did we not give them enough time??
How long did he want to comply?

I've heard all that bleating before it's a broken record.

You same idiots would have been bleating the same crap when the Japs were breathing down our necks.

Go and have a latte and count your dole cheque stubs you'll feel much better.... ;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 2:43pm:

Dna - Can I point you to the address of Hans Blix in Jan 2003 to the assembled Security Council. "It is regrettable that Iraq still does not fully understand or appreciate the terms of the resolutions of this Council and continues to not comply fully with the full, unrestricted access of the UNSCOM Inspectors to any site. The Inspectors do continue to be denied access to several facilities" 2003. 13 years after the demands of the Council. Did we not give them enough time?? How long did he want to comply?

You are aware that this group had been infultrated by inteligence opperatives who wanted access to certain areas for no legitimate reason.

How long did he want to comply?

Iraq's capacity to produce WMD's was gone before the war ended and the rest soon after. They had complied.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 2:43pm:

Dna - Can I point you to the address of Hans Blix in Jan 2003 to the assembled Security Council. "It is regrettable that Iraq still does not fully understand or appreciate the terms of the resolutions of this Council and continues to not comply fully with the full, unrestricted access of the UNSCOM Inspectors to any site. The Inspectors do continue to be denied access to several facilities" 2003. 13 years after the demands of the Council. Did we not give them enough time?? How long did he want to comply?

That decision was the province of the UN to decide and not a fun option of an illegal invasion by random warmongers.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

Iraq's capacity to produce WMD's was gone before the war ended and the rest soon after. They had complied.

Garbage there was numerous UNSC resolutions evidencing  non-compliance...any one of them was justification for a recommencement in hostilities.

Why don't you show us the UNSCR advising that Iraq was compliant?

And while your at it (Maybe the original poster can to) show us the UNSCR that the war was illegal?

Swagman wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

I've heard all that bleating before it's a broken record. You same idiots would have been bleating the same crap when the Japs were breathing down our necks. Go and have a latte and count your dole cheque stubs you'll feel much better....

Iraq never had the capacity or intention of comming to Australia, they were no threat to us, It was John Howard who made us a target and triggered events like we seen in Indonesia.

I would be willing to bet that I pay at least twice the amount of tax that you do, maybe you should audit your government benifits.

Swagman wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 2:57pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 2:51pm: Iraq's capacity to produce WMD's was gone before the war ended and the rest soon after. They had complied. Garbage there was numerous UNSC resolutions evidencing  non-compliance...any one of them was justification for a recommencement in hostilities. Why don't you show us the UNSCR advising that Iraq was compliant? And while your at it (Maybe the original poster can to) show us the UNSCR that the war was illegal?

Garbage there was numerous UNSC resolutions evidencing  non-compliance...any one of them was justification for a recommencement in hostilities.
Not without the support of a UN resolution.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 2:58pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 2:50pm: I've heard all that bleating before it's a broken record. You same idiots would have been bleating the same crap when the Japs were breathing down our necks. Go and have a latte and count your dole cheque stubs you'll feel much better.... Iraq never had the capacity or intention of comming to Australia, they were no threat to us, It was John Howard who made us a target and triggered events like we seen in Indonesia. I would be willing to bet that I pay at least twice the amount of tax that you do, maybe you should audit your government benifits.

And you should audit your brain.... ;D

Swagman wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

A bit better than getting a yellow stripe painted down your back and a white feather in the mail Comrade Northy....

Isn't courage more accurately defined as facing the fire alone?

Howard's subliminal point was - We're vassals first.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

"I think the question, if you don't mind me saying, is flawed in itself. Now would I do the same thing again? Make the same decisions? If its based on the same evidence I had at the time then yes absolutely. Look we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein because it was the right thing to do. I didn't do it for popularity, when you have significant members of your own party against you and you're relying on the Conservative opposition to support you against your own members, then obviously its not a popularity thing. Would I make the same decision again? Yes. Do I have any regrets? Well obviously any death, particularly those of British servicemen who have gone in under my instruction weighs heavily with me, but regrets? No I don't. We made the choice to remove this tyrant and I regret nothing on that. It was, quite simply the right thing to do." Tony Blair Parliamentary Inquiry, 2012.

Yairs...

And his silence and inaction with regards to, say, Mubarak is explained by?

Swagman wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 3:05pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 2:58pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 2:50pm: I've heard all that bleating before it's a broken record. You same idiots would have been bleating the same crap when the Japs were breathing down our necks. Go and have a latte and count your dole cheque stubs you'll feel much better.... Iraq never had the capacity or intention of comming to Australia, they were no threat to us, It was John Howard who made us a target and triggered events like we seen in Indonesia. I would be willing to bet that I pay at least twice the amount of tax that you do, maybe you should audit your government benifits. And you should audit your brain.... ..

So many conservative resort to insults in place of thought, one chance - agree or be abused.

Swagman wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:59am: And John, if you think we're believers in your 'outrage'... Just one question... Why, in 2009, long after the WMD scam was exposed for what it was, did you accept the US Medal of Freedom for your services as a vassal Head of Government in the 'Coalition of the Willing'? Sure, by 2009 you had nothing politically to lose, you'd already been dumped, but really the bit about your seeing the medal as "very much as a compliment to Australia"??? Vassal nations aren't usually all that hyped about being exposed for what they are... They usually like to quietly get on with the job of serving and hope they won't be outed as the town bike. In other words it was a compliment to you alone, John... A gross act of flattery on Bush's part for awarding it and a gross act of cynicism on yours for accepting it. A bit better than getting a yellow stripe painted down your back and a white feather in the mail Comrade Northy....

Howard was never be in the firing line??????

He was always very brave with other peoples lives. A valuable conservative trait.

Something else about Australia's relationship to the US...

How does being a “100 per cent ally, not a 70 or 80 per cent one" necessarily translate into providing military support for every war in which the US is involved?

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 2:58pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 2:50pm: I've heard all that bleating before it's a broken record. You same idiots would have been bleating the same crap when the Japs were breathing down our necks. Go and have a latte and count your dole cheque stubs you'll feel much better.... Iraq never had the capacity or intention of comming to Australia, they were no threat to us, It was John Howard who made us a target and triggered events like we seen in Indonesia. I would be willing to bet that I pay at least twice the amount of tax that you do, maybe you should audit your government benifits.

so if Nth Korea looks like turning its missiles towards Japan for instance.... we look the other way  is that right?

as long as we send money[aid] and accept boat people we are doing the right thing.. ::)

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 11:42am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:59am: And John, if you think we're believers in your 'outrage'... Just one question... Why, in 2009, long after the WMD scam was exposed for what it was, did you accept the US Medal of Freedom for your services as a vassal Head of Government in the 'Coalition of the Willing'? Sure, by 2009 you had nothing politically to lose, you'd already been dumped, but really the bit about your seeing the medal as "very much as a compliment to Australia"??? Vassal nations aren't usually all that hyped about being exposed for what they are... They usually like to quietly get on with the job of serving and hope they won't be outed as the town bike. In other words it was a compliment to you alone, John... A gross act of flattery on Bush's part for awarding it and a gross act of cynicism on yours for accepting it. A bit better than getting a yellow stripe painted down your back and a white feather in the mail Comrade Northy.... Howard was never be in the firing line?????? He was always very brave with other peoples lives. A valuable conservative trait.

perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us about leftie HEROS who have lead the charge in the past??????

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 7:29pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 11:42am: A bit better than getting a yellow stripe painted down your back and a white feather in the mail Comrade Northy.... Isn't courage more accurately defined as facing the fire alone?

That's could be courage but it could also be reckless or stupid.


Quote:

Howard's subliminal point was - We're vassals first.

So what's wrong with being a vassal?  Don't you have any mates as that's what it's about?


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:43am:

Something else about Australia's relationship to the US... How does being a “100 per cent ally, not a 70 or 80 per cent one" necessarily translate into providing military support for every war in which the US is involved?

The ANZUS treaty for one.

And would you only help your mate out in a blue 7 or 8 times in 10?  You'd let him get maybe punched out 20 to 30% of the time why?  :-?


Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 8:33pm:

So many conservative resort to insults in place of thought, one chance - agree or be abused.

I'm not a conservative and that was a pretty lame insult to take to heart as insults go DNA.  ;D

Anyway I think you resident Lefties have by far and away the lead in the insulting stakes.... :-?

Swagman wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:13am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:43am: Something else about Australia's relationship to the US... How does being a “100 per cent ally, not a 70 or 80 per cent one" necessarily translate into providing military support for every war in which the US is involved? The ANZUS treaty for one. And would you only help your mate out in a blue 7 or 8 times in 10?  You'd let him get maybe punched out 20 to 30% of the time why?  :-?

The ANZUS Treaty requires only that Australia/ US consults each other. It binds neither to automatic military support.

The "mate in a blue" 'argument' is the strawman often used by post-war Australian Heads of Government to justify unnecessary military commitment. There has not yet been a necessary Australian military commitment made in the spirit of ANZUS (which regards, from our side, the defence of Australian territory).

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:13am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:43am: Something else about Australia's relationship to the US... How does being a “100 per cent ally, not a 70 or 80 per cent one" necessarily translate into providing military support for every war in which the US is involved? The ANZUS treaty for one. And would you only help your mate out in a blue 7 or 8 times in 10?  You'd let him get maybe punched out 20 to 30% of the time why?  :-? The ANZUS Treaty requires only that Australia/ US consults each other. It binds neither to automatic military support. The "mate in a blue" 'argument' is the strawman often used by post-war Australian Heads of Government to justify unnecessary military commitment. There has not yet been a necessary Australian military commitment made in the spirit of ANZUS (which regards, from our side, the defence of Australian territory).

So what's your point?  They consulted each other and Australia provided military support in accord with the treaty?

WTF is wrong with that?

The US didn't order us to participate?

Swagman wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:13am:

I'm not a conservative and that was a pretty lame insult to take to heart as insults go DNA.  Anyway I think you resident Lefties have by far and away the lead in the insulting stakes....

It was just an observation, I actually like it when I am insulted - its game over.


I'm not a conservative

Difficult to tell by your posts, they do seem to quack.

cods wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 2:58pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 2:50pm: I've heard all that bleating before it's a broken record. You same idiots would have been bleating the same crap when the Japs were breathing down our necks. Go and have a latte and count your dole cheque stubs you'll feel much better.... Iraq never had the capacity or intention of comming to Australia, they were no threat to us, It was John Howard who made us a target and triggered events like we seen in Indonesia. I would be willing to bet that I pay at least twice the amount of tax that you do, maybe you should audit your government benifits. so if Nth Korea looks like turning its missiles towards Japan for instance.... we look the other way  is that right? as long as we send money[aid] and accept boat people we are doing the right thing..

I would expect that the UN would take action against the aggressor ask for support and we would be involved but see nothing in common with this and a case where we were the aggressor and we were wrong.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:40pm:

Difficult to tell by your posts, they do seem to quack

Quack?  WTF?

I'm just anti-socialist.  I hate bully boy collectivism tactics.

Swagman wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:13am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:43am: Something else about Australia's relationship to the US... How does being a “100 per cent ally, not a 70 or 80 per cent one" necessarily translate into providing military support for every war in which the US is involved? The ANZUS treaty for one. And would you only help your mate out in a blue 7 or 8 times in 10?  You'd let him get maybe punched out 20 to 30% of the time why?  :-? The ANZUS Treaty requires only that Australia/ US consults each other. It binds neither to automatic military support. The "mate in a blue" 'argument' is the strawman often used by post-war Australian Heads of Government to justify unnecessary military commitment. There has not yet been a necessary Australian military commitment made in the spirit of ANZUS (which regards, from our side, the defence of Australian territory). So what's your point?  They consulted each other and Australia provided military support in accord with the treaty? WTF is wrong with that? The US didn't order us to participate?

Yes it is highly unlikely that the US pressured Australia to participate. Vassal states, of course, are responsive to their overlords suggestions... Pressure is not necessary.

The Iraq war was clearly not in the interests of most nations and the UN... Why was Australia's security interests served by participation? It could also be argued participation posed a greater threat to national security.

Four Corners - The Iraq War...

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=2303988#/view/32690

George W Bush claims his biggest regret of his Presidency was the intelligence failure that led to the Iraq war...

Not so big a regret, however, that he would refrain from awarding the Medal of Freedom to Howard and Blair.

This should be a lesson to us all that our vassal status leads us to commit atrocities which, under any other circumstance, we would not.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 12:40pm:

The Iraq war was clearly not in the interests of most nations and the UN

Yes the political 'interests' of Russia & China were progressed in taking an anti-USA & anti-UK and thereby anti-war stance. It had effall to do with peace and these commie & quasi-commie nations were certainly not interested in upholding UNSC resolutions.

The UN also demonstrated its complete impotence.  It failed almost absolutely to uphold it's own resolutions.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 12:40pm:

Why was Australia's security interests served by participation?

When in an alliance you support your allies.  ANZUS is absolutely paramount to Australia's security interests.  Certainly more important than a bit of criticism from anti-USA socialists within the UN and elsewhere.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 12:40pm:

It could also be argued participation posed a greater threat to national security

Yes you could, but for someone worried about being a 'Vassal' isn't that far worse?

You would let stateless psychopathic criminals rule your foreign policy ahead of established alliances? :(

Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:40pm: The Iraq war was clearly not in the interests of most nations and the UN Yes the political 'interests' of Russia & China were progressed in taking an anti-USA & anti-UK and thereby anti-war stance. It had effall to do with peace and these commie & quasi-commie nations were certainly not interested in upholding UNSC resolutions. The UN also demonstrated its complete impotence.  It failed almost absolutely to uphold it's own resolutions.

Nearly every nation in the UN did not believe the 'intelligence' regarding Iraq... Neither did the Bush Administration.

As it turns out, the charge of gross incompetence (to put it kindly - near criminal obfuscation would be a better term) could be leveled at the British, US and Australian governments (see the Four Corners link).


Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:40pm: Why was Australia's security interests served by participation? When in an alliance you support your allies.  ANZUS is absolutely paramount to Australia's security interests.  Certainly more important than a bit of criticism from anti-USA socialists within the UN and elsewhere.

ANZUS exists to protect Australian territory and threats to the state. It does not require that Australia necessarily participate in any war that does not directly threaten Australian interests or territory.


Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 12:40pm: It could also be argued participation posed a greater threat to national security Yes you could, but for someone worried about being a 'Vassal' isn't that far worse? You would let stateless psychopathic criminals rule your foreign policy ahead of established alliances? :(

I believe that Australian Heads of Government since WW2 have routinely embroiled the nation in wars that are not in the national interest. Their objective has always been to maintain our vassal status with regard to the US.

In 2003, Iraq had still not complied with the Resolutions demanded of it by the Security Council of free, unhindered access to all of its facilities to Weapons Inspectors.

This is 13 years after being told they needed to do so - if you remember they had illegally invaded a sovereign nation.


13 years.

How much longer do you think they needed to understand the message?

Another 13?

"Iraq, unfortunately does still not comply fully or understand the necessity of allowing access to UNSCOM demanded of it by this Council."

Hans Blix,
Chief UNSCOM Inspector, Jan 2003

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 9:45am:

In 2003, Iraq had still not complied with the Resolutions demanded of it by the Security Council of free, unhindered access to all of its facilities to Weapons Inspectors. This is 13 years after being told they needed to do so - if you remember they had illegally invaded a sovereign nation. 13 years. How much longer do you think they needed to understand the message? Another 13? "Iraq, unfortunately does still not comply fully or understand the necessity of allowing access to UNSCOM demanded of it by this Council." Hans Blix, Chief UNSCOM Inspector, Jan 2003

However it's clear now that, prior to March 2003, both the British and US governments were aware Iraq did not have WMDs.

Bush, himself, regrets the war. A weak President driven by political ideologues than by intellect.

You do appreciate that Iraq was not complying with UN Resolutions demanded of it by the Security Council yes?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

You do appreciate that Iraq was not complying with UN Resolutions demanded of it by the Security Council yes?

You do realise that the 'intelligence' used to justify the invasion was exaggerated by the US and UK governments... Something the rest of the world appeared to be aware of... Particularly the Germans as it turns out.

I'm asking you the question though.

If Iraq had complied with the demands of it, by allowing weapons inspectors access at all times, at any time, then Blix would not have given the report they are not complying.

Why did Iraq not comply with the UN Security Council?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

I'm asking you the question though. If Iraq had complied with the demands of it, by allowing weapons inspectors access at all times, at any time, then Blix would not have given the report they are not complying. Why did Iraq not comply with the UN Security Council?

Non-compliance was not grounds, per se, for invasion.

The 'intelligence' was known by the US and UK governments to be false prior to March 2003. There was no need for an invasion of Iraq... Even the US and UK government members past and present can admit that (albeit in hindsight).

Yeah but you are still skirting around the question.

Why - after 13 years - was Iraq still not complying with the UN Security Council??

Even China and Russia's patience was being tried on this one.

Why didn't they?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 10:00am:

Yeah but you are still skirting around the question. Why - after 13 years - was Iraq still not complying with the UN Security Council?? Even China and Russia's patience was being tried on this one. Why didn't they?

I don't know... What we all know now, however, is that Iraq did not have WMDs and the US and UK governments were aware of it before March 2003. An invasion to rid Iraq of these weapons was redundant.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 9:38am:

Nearly every nation in the UN did not believe the 'intelligence' regarding Iraq.

So why didn't they act to stop the War?


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 9:38am:

ANZUS exists to protect Australian territory and threats to the state. It does not require that Australia necessarily participate in any war that does not directly threaten Australian interests or territory

So what's your point?  ANZUS doesn't forbid Australia from lending support to its principal ally when it sees fit either?


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 9:38am:

I believe that Australian Heads of Government since WW2 have routinely embroiled the nation in wars that are not in the national interest.

Well good for you.  You can believe and say pretty much what you like mainly because nations like the UK, the USA and Australia are vigilant in maintaining your right to do so.

Maintaining or bringing freedom anywhere is in the national interest.

What about East Timor?  Was getting involved there in the national interest.  Was that war mongering?
 
You guys are all the same.  You enjoy the freedoms but condemn the actions in maintaining it. :(


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 9:38am:

Their objective has always been to maintain our vassal status with regard to the US.

Oh rubbish.  Aust can terminate the alliance any time it wants.  It is not a god damn vassal to anybody.  The objectives of these politicians was maintaining Australia's national security.

It is in Australia's interest to have strong allies with the same values and convictions.

Being a fence sitter does not guarantee your national security.  Appeasing the sympathisers of stateless criminals does not guarantee your national security....

The involvement in the conflicts you speak of also have to be seen in the context of their times.

Korea, Vietnam were during the cold war.  Communism was deemed to be a massive threat to western civilisation.  There was a real threat of global nuclear war.  Australia logically allied itself to it's principal WW2 allies.

Your modern day politically correct views didn't exist.

Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 9:38am: Nearly every nation in the UN did not believe the 'intelligence' regarding Iraq. So why didn't they act to stop the War?

The UN voted not to invade. It's not likely the UN would act militarily against the UK and US (if that's what you mean by 'act').


Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 9:38am: ANZUS exists to protect Australian territory and threats to the state. It does not require that Australia necessarily participate in any war that does not directly threaten Australian interests or territory So what's your point?  ANZUS doesn't forbid Australia from lending support to its principal ally when it sees fit either?

My point is Australia was not threatened by Iraq... Invoking ANZUS was an act of hyperbole.


Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

Maintaining or bringing freedom anywhere is in the national interest.

In that were true, why didn't we invade Egypt under Mubarak?


Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

What about East Timor?  Was getting involved there in the national interest.  Was that war mongering?

Peacekeeping and assisting with the establishment in our region of a newly recognised nation... Something Australia has done well and has rightly earned the high praise and commendations we received from around the world.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

The UN voted not to invade.

There's no SCR to this effect.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

It's not likely the UN would act militarily against the UK and US (if that's what you mean by 'act').

Not likely indeed.  Any action would've been vetoed by the US & the UK which kind of makes the UNSC a farce does it not?

Hypothetically, had the UNSC existed at the outbreak of WW2 in all likelihood the USSR and Germany would have vetoed any action against Germany & the USSR for invading Poland.  Such an argument is farcical.  :-?


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

My point is Australia was not threatened by Iraq... Invoking ANZUS was an act of hyperbole.

Australia was a participant in the UN coalition to eject Iraq from Kuwait.  The subsequent invasion of Iraq 2003 was just a recommencement of the 1991 hostilities due to the breaking of the cease fire.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

In that were true, why didn't we invade Egypt under Mubarak?

Put that question to the UN


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

Peacekeeping and assisting with the establishment in our region of a newly recognised nation... Something Australia has done well and has rightly earned the high praise and commendations we received from around the world

That's basically what happend in Iraq.

Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 10:50am: The UN voted not to invade. There's no SCR to this effect.

To qualify... The UN did not vote to invade.


Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 10:50am: It's not likely the UN would act militarily against the UK and US (if that's what you mean by 'act'). Not likely indeed.  Any action would've been vetoed by the US & the UK

Exactly.


Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 10:50am: My point is Australia was not threatened by Iraq... Invoking ANZUS was an act of hyperbole. Australia was a participant in the UN coalition to eject Iraq from Kuwait.  The subsequent invasion of Iraq 2003 was just a recommencement of the 1991 hostilities due to the breaking of the cease fire.

The subsequent invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was under the pretext of removing WMDs from Iraq.


Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 10:50am: In that were true, why didn't we invade Egypt under Mubarak? Put that question to the UN

I put it to you. If (as you say) 'maintaining or bringing freedom anywhere is in the national interest', then it would have been in Australia's national interest to invade Egypt under Mubarak, Chile under Pinochet and Cuba under Castro.


Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 10:50am: Peacekeeping and assisting with the establishment in our region of a newly recognised nation... Something Australia has done well and has rightly earned the high praise and commendations we received from around the world That's basically what happend in Iraq.

Australia's participation in the invasion of Iraq was not under the auspices of a peace keeping mission.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

To qualify... The UN did not vote to invade

To qualify, it wasn't an invasion but a 'recommencement of hostilities'.  Iraq broke the cease fire resolution ( and numerous subsequent resolutions' and suffered serious consequences as a result.

There are numerous resolutions supporting the recommencement of hostilities but ZERO condemning the actions or seeking the withdrawal of Coalition forces.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

The subsequent invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was under the pretext of removing WMDs from Iraq

In the main yes but not the sole justification.

The existence or non-existence of WMD was to be determined by weapons inspectors who were being foiled by Iraq which was a breach in SCRs made for that express purpose.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

I put it to you. If (as you say) 'maintaining or bringing freedom anywhere is in the national interest', then it would have been in Australia's national interest to invade Egypt under Mubarak, Chile under Pinochet and Cuba under Castro.

Yes just as it was in East Timor.

Yes the UN should have / be acting but as usual due to its farcical governance is falling down on the job it was established to do.  The East Timor action was UN sanctioned because it was not in anyone's political interest to veto the action.

Other areas would be......Syria right now, Lybia, the Falkland Islands



NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Australia's participation in the invasion of Iraq was not under the auspices of a peace keeping mission

It was in part.

The cease fire resolution UNSCR 687 (1991) specifically stated


Quote:

Bearing in mind its objective of restoring international peace and security in the area as set out in recent resolutions of the Security Council

Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 10:50am: The UN voted not to invade. Quote: There's no SCR to this effect. It is implied as the UN refused to sanction a commencment of hostilities or to support any resolution to take action in Iraq at that time. Neither the US, BG or Australia have the right to take action on behalf of the UN when they are clearly against it. [quote]Australia was a participant in the UN coalition to eject Iraq from Kuwait.  The subsequent invasion of Iraq 2003 was just a recommencement of the 1991 hostilities due to the breaking of the cease fire.

BS - the Coalition had no right to take any action without a request from the UN.  Nobody with any brains is still trying to argue that the invasion was supportable.

They were wrong - live with it.


[/quote]

Dnarever wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

BS - the Coalition had no right to take any action without a request from the UN.  Nobody with any brains is still trying to argue that the invasion was supportable. They were wrong - live with it.

Wrong or right they did it anyway.....- live with that :P

Dnarever wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

BS - the Coalition had no right to take any action without a request from the UN.  Nobody with any brains is still trying to argue that the invasion was supportable.

True. Not even the hapless Bush (in hindsight) argues that the invasion of Iraq was justified or worth the cost. Nobody really does... Sure, they (Bush/ Blair/ Howard) attempt to deflect culpability by referring to the value in eliminating the Saddam dictatorship and its horrors - which hardly bothered the US and UK in Iraq prior to 1991 and both nations continued to support Mubarak in Egypt even as the "Arab Spring" was in full bloom (with Hillary Clinton referring to Mubarak as like family).

Dictatorships, per se, do not offend the US or the UK... Nor (by that) Australia.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 2:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 1:18pm: BS - the Coalition had no right to take any action without a request from the UN.  Nobody with any brains is still trying to argue that the invasion was supportable. True. Not even the hapless Bush (in hindsight) argues that the invasion of Iraq was justified or worth the cost. Nobody really does... Sure, they (Bush/ Blair/ Howard) attempt to deflect culpability by referring to the value in eliminating the Saddam dictatorship and its horrors - which hardly bothered the US and UK in Iraq prior to 1991 and both nations continued to support Mubarak in Egypt even as the "Arab Spring" was in full bloom (with Hillary Clinton referring to Mubarak as like family). Dictatorships, per se, do not offend the US or the UK... Nor (by that) Australia.

......or You or the UN evidently or any other nation on earth because you and they do naught about them.

Everyone has 20/20 hindsight. :(

Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 2:24pm: Dnarever wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 1:18pm: BS - the Coalition had no right to take any action without a request from the UN.  Nobody with any brains is still trying to argue that the invasion was supportable. True. Not even the hapless Bush (in hindsight) argues that the invasion of Iraq was justified or worth the cost. Nobody really does... Sure, they (Bush/ Blair/ Howard) attempt to deflect culpability by referring to the value in eliminating the Saddam dictatorship and its horrors - which hardly bothered the US and UK in Iraq prior to 1991 and both nations continued to support Mubarak in Egypt even as the "Arab Spring" was in full bloom (with Hillary Clinton referring to Mubarak as like family). Dictatorships, per se, do not offend the US or the UK... Nor (by that) Australia. ......or You or the UN evidently or any other nation on earth because you and they do naught about them. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight. :(

I said that Bush admitted in hindsight (now that the truth is out)... The Bush and Blair administrations knew that their 'intelligence' on Iraq, with regard to WMDs, was false prior to March 2013.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

said that Bush admitted in hindsight (now that the truth is out)... The Bush and Blair administrations knew that their 'intelligence' on Iraq, with regard to WMDs, was false prior to March 2013 :question

Got a link to this?  What were their actual words on the subject?  There's a big difference between flawed or inaccurate intell and deliberately false intell.

Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 3:45pm: said that Bush admitted in hindsight (now that the truth is out)... The Bush and Blair administrations knew that their 'intelligence' on Iraq, with regard to WMDs, was false prior to March 2013 :question Got a link to this?  What were their actual words on the subject?  There's a big difference between flawed or inaccurate intell and deliberately false intell.

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced.  Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said.  “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.  As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence.  But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

While no one should expect that Australian intelligence services could match in resources those of the US and the UK, a case can be made that Australian administrations accept too readily the word of US Presidents (and to a lesser degree British Prime Ministers) such that we are vulnerable to being easily duped.

This is a direct result of our status as a vassal state. Our nation would be better served adopting the more discerning mantra of 'Trust... But verify'.

I have to weigh in here. 

The thing is that there is a thing called national sovereignty, and it is protected by international law.  What it means is that no other nation may intervene in the internal workings etc of a nation unless and until there is either a state of war or a mandate from the United Nations.

That is why it took so long to topple Sad Sam's regime - which by any reports was nasty as.. the hanging of 16 year old Kurd girls was not uncommon as an example and the entire regime was epitomised by extreme cruelty... yet no nation had a mandate to intervene short of a declared crisis.

Same applies to every other nation on earth - which is why the West generally does not intervene openly to topple nasty dictators and such.

ONLY when it was 'clear' that Iraq posed a danger to other nations and had abrogated the sovereignty of an independent nation, was that mandate forthcoming.

Oh - and of course, there was oil there.....

The reality of this last was well-known to the troops who embarked on Desert Storm, and I recently signed a Cause thing that clearly stated that the troops needed to be supported in their pursuit of control of the world's petroleum resources or the benefit of the West - Realpolitik at its best and increasingly open about the truth.  ::)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 7:18pm:

"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence.  But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate." http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775 While no one should expect that Australian intelligence services could match in resources those of the US and the UK, a case can be made that Australian administrations accept too readily the word of US Presidents (and to a lesser degree British Prime Ministers) such that we are vulnerable to being easily duped. This is a direct result of our status as a vassal state. Our nation would be better served adopting the more discerning mantra of 'Trust... But verify'.

Perfectly true, and we, as a very minor player, are tied to the need for intelligence from the big players and can only hope that the truth is being told.

However, in this specific case, I tend to feel that the truth. the same as the 'children overboard' issue, was there in plain sight, and was simply overlooked in the interests of convenience.

As a small player with a very small military, Australia is forced to accept its place as a willing ally, or quite simply be left out of the banquet and prey to the wolves of the world.

** a similar incident occurred with the Gulf of Tonkin incident - which was used, along with sapper attacks on US Da Nang based aircraft, as the 'reason' for LBJ to send US Marines to defend Da Nang - which was the start of the troop commitment over and above the advisors already in place - who JFK had wanted to withdraw.

SSDD. ::)

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

As a small player with a very small military, Australia is forced to accept its place as a willing ally, or quite simply be left out of the banquet and prey to the wolves of the world.

What does it mean to say that Australia is 'forced to be a willing ally'?

To be willing is to freely choose.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 6:54am:

What does it mean to say that Australia is 'forced to be a willing ally'?

Australia's relatively small population and isolation 'forces' it to make alliances with other nation's to protect its national security otherwise the defense budget to GDP percentage would be one hell of a lot higher.

It does not mean Aust is any nation's beetch and to say so in my opinion is massively offensive to Diggers and all other Australians.... >:(

Swagman wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 6:54am: What does it mean to say that Australia is 'forced to be a willing ally'? Australia's relatively small population and isolation 'forces' it to make alliances with other nation's to protect its national security otherwise the defense budget to GDP percentage would be one hell of a lot higher. It does not mean Aust is any nation's beetch and to say so in my opinion is massively offensive to Diggers and all other Australians.... >:(

Australia's vassal status to the US is self-imposed, probably due to the national psychological shock caused by Britain's abandonment during WW2...

To deflect the fact of our vassal status by using an ad hominem strawman does not change the facts.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

Australia's vassal status to the US is self-imposed, probably due to the national psychological shock caused by Britain's abandonment during WW2...

WW2 was a close call and only serves to emphasise my previous post.


Swagman wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

Australia's relatively small population and isolation 'forces' it to make alliances with other nation's to protect its national security otherwise the defense budget to GDP percentage would be one hell of a lot higher.