IxianMace Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Awhile ago, the Prime Minister made this address to the nation on TV. I watched it myself, through its entirety. Here is the transcript if you are interested in what he had to say about the war and the committment of Australian troops.I'd like to know what people think of his speech, any good/bad points about it? Anything you agree/disagree with? One of my major quirks with his speech was his failure to mention the UN, and why he has made Australia go to war with Iraq against the decision of the UN. Post your thoughts on his speech.Please read it if you are interested and have the time, it's not that long, really. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I read it. No matter what the reason is for someone who's for or against the war, war in general isn't anything fun. Neither is it anything to be proud of. In every war innocent people will die, no matter how careful you are.After first read, I noticed him saying:There Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warlord Ripskar Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Australia did much the same thing for Britain in every war that Britain has fought since Australia was founded. In WW2 the Aussies were in combat before the Brits.He seemed to be concentrating on terrorism rather than the WMD which is slightly out of step with the British variation, though perhaps that reflects Australia's focus following Bali.At least we have another Commonwealth member in with us, the Aussies are more understandable than Yanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyPIG Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I liked it. I agree with the just of what he is saying. One might also interpret that comment, Nyar, as implying that the US helped them in the past, and now they're going to help the US help others as it did them.I wish my country's government would hold such a position, but unfortuneately the current Liberal government is anti-American and doesn't like to think for itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IxianMace Posted March 21, 2003 Author Share Posted March 21, 2003 Well from his speech, I got a slight feeling that maybe John Howard is afraid of not having the US there to lean on. I mean, I'm sure that the US needs Australia far less than Australia needs the US. He's just sucking up to the US, in order to gain favour with them, (he did mention something along the lines of gaining favour with the US in his speech). I just don't want the Australian government to start depending on the US and feeling that they are obliged to support them in whatever decision the US government makes about issues overseas, or what not. From what I hear, there are more people in Australia that are against a war, than there are for it. Yet this wouldn't do anything to sway the Prime Minister's decision to help America in the war with Iraq.I think what I'm trying to say is that I'm afraid that Australia is becoming too dependent on the US for security, and the US is gaining leverage on us. It's not a good position to be in, having to assist another country that you need far more than it needs you, and being punished for it if you don't. If the US only went into the war by itself with its' own forces, and were just given the bases in the middle east area in Kuwait to operate from, they would probably be able to wage the war succesfully themselves, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Allies normally help each other, thats why they are called allies. I think you are just reading into it too much. Australia's forces will gain experience by helping out, something they may need after the recent attacks in their local area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IxianMace Posted March 21, 2003 Author Share Posted March 21, 2003 France is supposed to be an ally of the US as well isn't it? So I take it they are no longer allies with the US anymore since they're not helping them out? :PAlso, Australia's forces would gain 'real' experience if they fought in territories similar to the Australian environment, not desert places like the middle east. If they need experience to counter attacks in local areas (which presumably would be in Australia), that would mean they should train in areas that aren't like Iraq, right? The only place that is anywhere close to Iraq in terms of climate, would be Alice Springs, out in the middle of nowhere in the centre of the desert, deep in the heart of Australia. The major urban areas are located on the coastline, since Australia is mainly desert (meaning the land is unusable for living/agriculture, etc), and only the coastal areas have optimal living conditions. If an enemy were to attack, they would probably try for one of the settlements on the coastline, not Alice Springs. Therefore, experience in the desert may be of some use, but not much, when it comes to defending Australia anyway. However I do believe that Australia's military will benefit from overseas military operations, since they may need to help in similar conditions overseas again.Maybe I am reading too much. :) :- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Well Canada is an ally too and they aren't going along with it. :)As for training any sort of combat experience is better then just practicing without an enemy. Training is different then combat, there is nothing like the real thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warlord Ripskar Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Well the US doesn't need us either but WTF!There's smeg loads of Yanks, about 40,000 Brits 2,000 Aussies 450 Czecks and 50 Slovaks.If you spot a Czeck on tv award yourself 100 points.If you spot a Slovak you win! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IxianMace Posted March 22, 2003 Author Share Posted March 22, 2003 If the US doesn't really need support in terms of military forces, then I'm lead to believe that George Bush only wanted to gain France's 'approval' in the UN in order to make the US aggression look better in the eyes of the world. Heck with it, Bush doesn't care whether the UN approves or not, but he still tried to win support from as many nations in the UN as possible! >:( It would be better to have the support of most of the nations in the UN, (even if there was a veto vote), than to have the entire UN against you in the war wouldn't it? Just for publicity's sake. ::) If the UN doesn't really matter in the case of the decision of whether to go to war or not, then I don't see why the US should even bother with it. What's the UN there for? As a pretty ornament!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 45 nations now publically support the war. What if it was Australia, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Poland, etc were among the non-permanent members of the Security Council? Would the war suddenly be "ok". It really doesn't matter what the security council had done because France was going to veto anything no matter what. The war is either right or wrong, what the UN said is just a side point because it is to screwed up to matter at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.