Bring our troops home


PDA






JoeSF
March 31, 2003, 07:55 PM
There is no shortage of invidious rhetoric published about the US and our decision to go to war in Iraq from people in countries that have leaned all over us for their defense. Maybe it's time to stop "propping up" democracys like France, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea and let them make it on their own. Maybe we should take Margo Kingstons advice and bring our sons and daughters home. All the way.

Here is a sample from the Sydney Morning Herald.
Bring our troops home
bt Margo Kingston

http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/31/1048962702907.html


here are some excerpts...
"OK, I'm convinced. Despite the fact that our troops are fighting
this mad, bad war, Australians must protest for all they're worth to bring our troops home and extricate Australia from this American imperial crusade before it's too late."......

"Australia is an innocent abroad in the Middle East. Unlike Britain, we have never been a colonial power. Unlike the US, we have never propped up evil regimes like Saddam's. We must get out, as soon as possible. "


"It's so obvious that what Bush is doing will case an arms race, not reduce it. No country can hope to beat the Yanks off with conventional weapons - they've got air, sea and land completely covered. The only recourse is chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (the Yanks used them in Vietnam, and have not ruled out using them in this war)."

"And as I've said before, if Australia is attacked, it's no longer terrorism. We have invaded Iraq. Iraq, or its new allies, have every right to attack back. "

Margo, you are not the first...

It's hopeless, let's surrender: plea to War Cabinet

By Tony Stephens

A member of the War Cabinet made an impassioned plea that Australia surrender to Japan during the nation's darkest hours of World War II, according to a secret letter that has just come to light.
....."former prime minister Robert Menzies had advocated appeasing Hitler even after war began, saying that "nobody cares a damn about Poland". "

from..
http://old.smh.com.au/news/0105/26/national/national15.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Bring our troops home" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MitchSchaft
March 31, 2003, 07:56 PM
:rolleyes:

muddyboots
March 31, 2003, 08:26 PM
Australia was attacked. Think Bali. Most of the dead were Aussies.

If we back out now we can expect unending terrorism right in the U.S. and the fall of the entire Muslim world to fundamentalism. It is not the first time that Judeo-Christians and Muslims have fought it out.

The Battle of Tours in 732. The Moors' advance into France was halted but they were not finally ejected from Spain until 1492.

The Crusades, almost two hundred years in the 12th and 13th centuries.

The Battle of Vienna in 1683. The Ottomans were repulsed and fled into the Balkans where warfare continues to this day.

I don't pretend to understand the reason for this enmity, but I suggest a division of labor. The lefties can understand and empathize with them. The rest of the country can kill them. And when the smoke clears the lefties can continue to understand while the rest of us drink beer.

Pendragon
March 31, 2003, 08:34 PM
The problem is - we do not have troops abroad for the benefit of the host country.

Sure - it does benefit them, but we do it to discourage another Hitler from taking over large sections of the world unopposed.

If we did pull back and go isolationist, I think it could be MORE likely that we would have to go to war - and the enemy would be that much stronger for having roped in a bunch of smaller countries and taken their resources.

It would also be more difficult to stage our units without bases every where.

It would be surrendering the defense of our nose to the peril of our body.

JoeSF
March 31, 2003, 09:13 PM
The problem is - we do not have troops abroad for the benefit of the host country.

Our military presece in Korea is being rethought right now. American military planners don't see any added benefit to having troops on the ground there other than to make the S. Koreans feel more secure.
Our troops in Germany are landlocked by being denied permission to cross through Austria for purposes of fighting in Iraq.
I do agree with the rest of what you said.

JoeSF
April 1, 2003, 12:04 AM
Some of these allies like France and Germany have great social programs. They can only afford them because we pay for their defense. It's not just our security its theirs. Host countries even have the nerve to charge us rent for the bases.
If we have come to the point where we don't agree on what is defense and what isn't it is time for us to end the contract with those countries and be where we are wanted. I think poland is one place . Forget NATO. Let France and Germany and Turkey go it alone or lobby to join the new association.
___________________________________________________
Anyone who thinks 911 has nothing to do with the war on Iraq is still counting chads.

Blackhawk
April 1, 2003, 12:46 AM
The only recourse is chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (the Yanks used them in Vietnam, and have not ruled out using them in this war). Is Margo Peter Arnett's alter ego down under?

When he made that allegation THREE times (last being CNN's infamous Tailwind broadcast) it was proven to be totally false, now she reaches down into the bowels of the reprobates to drag it up again. :banghead: :cuss:

Bruce in West Oz
April 1, 2003, 01:20 AM
Sorry, guys, should have warned you -- Kingston is an absolute, card-carrying, fully-certified Fruit Loop™ of the leftist variety.

She spews more cr ..... errrr, manure, in a single column than a herd of dairy cows do in a week!

If you want to read one journalist who loves to deal with Kingston. go here:

http://timblair.blogspot.com/

A couple of examples:

IRAQ IS SADDAM'S COUNTRY, writes Margo Kingston, and his murderous brutes are right to defend it:

I realised Bush was mad when his army chiefs starting calling suicide bombers and guerilla fighters "terrorists". For God sake, it's their country, and they're facing overwhelming force! The US is INVADING Iraq, to take it over - their bodies are in some cases the only effective weapon they've got.

Maybe they could form a protective barrier around Baghdad with all the bodies of the Iraqis Saddam has had killed. Just an idea.

No country can hope to beat the Yanks off with conventional weapons - they've got air, sea and land completely covered. The only recourse is chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (the Yanks used them in Vietnam, and have not ruled out using them in this war).

Anyone remember nukes being used in Vietnam?

And as I've said before, if Australia is attacked, it's no longer terrorism. We have invaded Iraq. Iraq, or its new allies, have every right to attack back.

So if the UN had approved the war - in which case, by the way, Margo says she would have supported an invasion - Iraq would have every right to attack the UN. Send the monster an e-mail, with my love. Send a letter to the editor as well, in memory of all those Vietnamese who died in the atomic holocaust.
posted by Tim Blair at 3:04 AM

He doesn't miss the "human shields" either:
WHEN THE going gets tough, the human shields get going. Useful idiot Donna Mulhearn has scuttled out of Baghdad, and seems to have had some kind of reality breakthrough moment along the way:

The 34-year-old said she and five other people arrived in Jordan on Sunday night, after paying a driver the equivalent of $A1,250 to drive them out of Iraq.

Ms Mulhearn said she met Australian SAS soldiers about 200km west of Baghdad at a roadblock, describing them as professional.

"I was actually quite relieved when I saw they were Australians," she told the Nine Network.

Those evil invaders can be extremely useful when you need them.
posted by Tim Blair at 10:02 AM


Enjoy

Bruce

Blackhawk
April 1, 2003, 01:43 AM
Thanks, Bruce! :D

'preciate it.

ahadams
April 1, 2003, 01:58 AM
the upside is: it's nice to know we aren't the only ones stuck with wacko leftist reporters.

the downside is: except for the gun laws, Australia has always sounded like a nice place - sorry to hear you have the same percentage of leftist idiots we do!

JoeSF
April 1, 2003, 07:37 PM
Thanks Bruce,
The SAS is doing a fine job. Is it true they eat reporters?

CZ-75
April 1, 2003, 07:50 PM
Australia must have MORE leftists than we do, since they managed to get those ridiculous gun laws rammed through.

Bruce in West Oz
April 1, 2003, 09:06 PM
JoeSF:
The SAS is doing a fine job. Is it true they eat reporters?

Lord, I hope so!! :evil:

CZ-75
Australia must have MORE leftists than we do, since they managed to get those ridiculous gun laws rammed through.

You are probably correct -- but the gun laws were proposed by the right (Liberal) party here, and supported (naturally) by the left (Labor) party.

We as a nation are not that far removed from being a socialist state. Good place to live if you like handouts and hanging off the government (read "taxpayer") teat. Not so good if you believe in small government and the rights of individuals. :fire:

Bruce

Feanaro
April 1, 2003, 09:42 PM
As Clint Eastwood said, some people just need killin'.

JoeSF
April 2, 2003, 11:54 PM
MArgo Kinston received quite a bit of comment for the misinformation she published. So much that it took up a whole page in the SMH. Here is the link and some excerpts from an exchange with her and a reader...good reading.
from

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/01/1048962753622.html
Gregory Taylor, Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, IL. USA

Somehow all of our papers here missed the story that the US used nuclear weapons in Vietnam. As for chemical weapons, once upon a time Peter Arnett came close to losing a different job by making that same unsubstantiated claim. You'd lose yours too if your outlet had any standards.

I replied: Hi. Have apologised for my loose use of language - to put it kindly - see Bring our troops home. I meant chemical weapons were used in Vietnam, not nuclear. Re Agent Orange, you're saying it doesn't fit within the definition?

From US Dept. of defence military terms dictionary: (dtic)

chemical weapon

(DOD) Together or separately, (a) a toxic chemical and its precursors, except when intended for a purpose not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; (b) a munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those chemicals specified in (a), above, which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device; (c) any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in (b above. See also chemical agent; chemical defense; chemical dose; chemical environment; chemical warfare; riot control agent.

Mr Taylor replied:

No I don't consider Agent Orange a chemical weapon. It's not a weapon. It's a defoliant, which was used to denude the jungle which in some circumstances gave the enemy a tactical advantage. By analogy, mosquito repellent was also a chemical that we used to deal with the jungle, but it was not a chemical weapon.

I'm not an expert on the law of war, but it seems that for something to fit the plain language definition of "chemical weapon" it would have to be in fact a weapon: something deployed to harm a person (not a plant). I don't think that defoliants qualify as weapons.

As to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which is where your DOD definition comes from, I don't think Agent Orange fits the definition. The Convention goes on to define "toxic chemical" as "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals." (emphasis mine) That seems to leave out plants. I reiterate that this is only my casual reading and not a professional legal research job.

The fact that Agent Orange is thought to be a carcinogen is beside the point if we're asking whether the US knowingly deployed chemical weapons in Vietnam. The US Army's strategy wasn't to give the Viet Cong cancer 15 years down the road (along with our own soldiers.) It was to strip the forest of vegetation so we could find and shoot them. So Agent Orange is only as much of a chemical weapon as is, say, cigarettes.

pax
April 3, 2003, 12:06 AM
Some of these allies like France and Germany have great social programs. They can only afford them because we pay for their defense. It's not just our security its theirs. Host countries even have the nerve to charge us rent for the bases.
Yeah, that's true.

If we pulled our forces out, those countries would suffer for it. Maybe they'd even have to get their own armies instead of using ours.

Of course, we haven't had bases there in the past out of the goodness of our hearts. We've protected them with our forces because it served our interests to do so. It was to our national interest to have bases in Europe, countering the "Red Threat."

Is it still?

pax

Every nation must have an army, either its own or somebody else's. -- Winston Churchill

JoeSF
April 3, 2003, 01:32 AM
Germany and S.Korea definately not. As far as protecting our interests we can do it with a moblile force of carriers and smaller bases in other strategic countries that are friendly. That's the way I understand we will be going. Who knows maybe Poland and Kurdish Iraq?

If you enjoyed reading about "Bring our troops home" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!