MRAA (ie MRAV) bashing

Ta.

JL

 

Starting to sound like a plan then !

JL
(would have worn a suit anyway)

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:06:44 +1100

Pity it is that it's hard for decent citizens to serve their country
isn't it....


Zebee
- who was willing to serve, full pay or no. Gotta have a different
kind of weirdo's input.

 

X-No-archive: yes

You mean "that's not the message revisionist right-wingers and now
promoting" don't you Doug?
You're not REALLY standing there with hand on heart and trying to pretend
you don't remember that was the line we were fed are you?!!?

OK then; what was the "reason" the Australian Government to it's people for
joining in the Attack on Iraq at the time according to Doug2005?

 

OK, read it. There's not much there that isn't about WMDs.

A few extra bits about how repressive the regime has been, but in the
context of "Sure the Iraqis are going to get hurt, but, shit! they're
being hurt anyway". Theres nothing in that speech that suggests that
the removal of a repressive regime is the reason for the invasion.

The primary cause is stated as:
"a)that Iraq’s continued possession and pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction, in defiance of its mandatory obligations under numerous
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, represents a real
and unacceptable threat to international peace and security; (b)that
Iraq’s behaviour weakens the global prohibitions on the spread of
weapons of mass-destruction, with the potential to damage Australia’s
security; and (c) that, as more rogue states acquire them, the risk of
weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists
multiplies, thereby presenting a real and direct threat to the security
of Australia and the entire international community"

The vast majority of the rest of the speech is predicated on the
assumption that Saddam had WMDs and was about to use them.

Read the speech again, and every time you see a reference to WMDs, say
to yourself "He didn't have any".

very glib.

Yep.


Moike

 

It is basically that Saddam threw those children overboard, the Bastard!

Boxer

 

"The government’s principal objective is the disarmament of Iraq;
however, should military action be required to achieve this, it is
axiomatic that such action will result in the removal of Saddam
Hussein’s regime." John Dubbya Howard

Moike

 

I wouldn't mind so much, but the timing is atrocious - I've got a
project going live about 4 weeks after I'm supposed to be on jury duty,
while I'm not indispensable it's not going to be a good thing for the
project for me to disappear for a month. Not to mention I really can't
afford to drop most of a months income right before Xmas (unless someone
buys some of these cars).

Sounds like they consider blokes in suits a bad bet, so yo umay well be
the right sort of weirdo

JL

 

I was also willing to serve. At the time, I wore a suit every day so wasn't
intending to cop out. No-one else turned up in a suit, I thought that
everybody wore a suit to work then. Most people I associated with did. But
was glad to get out of the murder trial anyway.

Theo

 

Only us whiteys are allowed to have them because we're peace-loving people?
And you know we can't have peace without really expensive weapons.

Theo

 

Only took 'em four and eight years, respectively, to do that.

At the time NATO started its air campaign against Serbian military
assets in Bosnia in 1996, the Serb forces were already in full retreat
before a combined Croatian-Bosnian ground offensive. By the time that
took place, the events in Srebrenica were a year old, and the lopsided
arms embargo (Russia and Greece openly violated it and supplied weapons
to the Serbs) imposed on the region was five years old.

Like Iraq and Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo were inept, misguided
attempts by the West to clean up messes it had itself created.

I'm from those parts, Doug. Don't tell me that what NATO did over there
amounted to "help".

Yes, such fantastic allies that it took us two years to reinstate the
expeditionary troops they pleaded with us not to remove...

Repeat after me; "Our intelligence at the time was..."

 

People die from other actions besides war. Killers kill people, and
that is a terrible crime... but that doesn't make it war.

I'm like Pat... I'm less funny in person...

That is the logical way to look at it. If the particular accountant you
are talking about is logical then he may well look at it that way, other
accountants may not.

The point is that it is not only the most logical way, it is also the
best way to help the most people.

Sorry... I should have realised by the use of capital letters.

None, but how much of your budget should be concentrated on remote
possibilities.

There are charts that OH&S officers use which graph the damage and
incident can cause against the likelyhood of that incident occuring.

These charts (or formulae) can be used to maximise safety around a given
situation... the government do not seem to be using something similar
(which is a mistake on their part).

Join up... Get promoted to the top... get told what to do by the gumbiment.

The only real way to do this is to influence the gumbiment.

Your sexual preferences aren't really relevant to this thread!

It isn't _ever_ about guarantees, it's about preparing sensibly for a
range of dangers by using stratagies that help prepare for them.

The recently introduced terrorist laws not only do little or nothing to
incrase the safety of Australian citizens but they take away rights and
privledges in such a way as to expose some Australian citizens to human
rights abuses (which runs in direct contridiction to the stated
intention of those laws!).

G-S

 

"Security Council resolution 678, adopted in 1990, authorised the use of
all necessary means not only to implement resolution 660, which demanded
Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, but also to implement all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.
Resolution 687, which provided the cease-fire terms for Iraq in April
1991, affirmed resolution 678. Security Council resolution 1441 confirms
that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, a
point on which there is unanimous agreement, including by even the
Leader of the Opposition.

Iraq’s past and continuing breaches of the cease-fire obligations negate
the basis for the formal cease-fire. Iraq has by its conduct
demonstrated that it did not and does not accept the terms of the
cease-fire. Consequently, we have received legal advice that ‘the
cease-fire is not effective and the authorisation for the use of force
in Security Council resolution 678 is reactivated’. It follows, so I am
advised, that referring to the use of such force against Iraq as
‘unilateral’ is wrong. Any informed analysis of the Security Council
resolutions leads to this conclusion."


UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering
harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and
biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems
and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing
facilities."

Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear
weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development
or manufacturing facilities.

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering
harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles
with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and
production facilities."

Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass
destruction.

Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.

Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the
elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and
mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify
elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist
organizations to operate in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and
others.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

 

G-S wrote:

Frankly, I'd prefer a nice roast meal.

Exactly. Now you've got it.

Luv to chat but I've got night shift tonight.

 

No... it's actually Tim's turn


G-S

 

"principal objective". Not exclusive.

It should also be noted that until Saddam had proven himself in
compliance, he had to be regarded as if he was armed.

It would have been irresponsible to assume otherwise.

Anyway, gotta go to work, be back tomorrow morning.

 

You spin me round, round, baby, right round, like a record, baby, round,
round, round, round...

 

X-No-archive: yes

~
Yep; thought so!
There was no way you could answer that one honestly (and retain any shred of
credibility).

Does all that clever revise-history-then-post-links-as-proof stuff normally
work on the people up there does it?

 

which they did.

of course, as it turns out, they weren't.

So the UN made a threat, and somehow, the US and its lickspittle lapdogs
were authorised to carry out the UN's threats, even against the express
wishes of the UN.

How selective is that?

Which they did

so where are the WMDs?

so where are the WMDs?

so where are the WMDs?

so where are the WMDs?

so where are the WMDs?

so where are the WMDs?

oh.. yeah.... right...

so once again Doug, tell us about how it wasn't just about WMDs.

Moike

 

Oh, so when you say "it's not the only reason", you choose to ignore the
fact that it'was the principal reason.
Getting desperate, Doug?

How do you prove you don't have something?

But not irresponsible to act on a lack of evidence?

Have a nice time.

Moike