Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Nuclear weapons option for Australia




  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeradul
    .........if you seriously think we knew the long term effects of agent orage during Vietnam, then why would we let it come in contact with our own troops. It was a weapon of war, and as with any weapon, it came with risks.
    If you would please allow me to make one thing clear?

    As a member of the military you are "Government Property". The government has the right to do with their property as they see fit. If a program of defoliation should involve exposing troops to possible side-effects, so be it.
    Defoliation was the goal - and let the consequences be what they may, defoliation will proceed.
    Whether the government knew of any long range effects or not, defoliation will proceed as it was the course of action decided upon.
    If you should be exposed to a harmful environment in the course of your military duties - to bad, so sad. Apply for disability and hope for the best.
    If you should allow yourself to become snowblind on a skiing trip while you are on active duty and are unable to perform your duties - you just willfully destroyed government property, and there will be compensation made to the government, no if's, and's or but's about it.

    You see, the Geneva convention concerns how warfare is conducted and the treatment of opposing forces. Other than a few "moral" clauses concerning orders given to troops, there is little said as to how a government is required to treat their own "property".

    If you think the United States had any real concern as to how defoliation may affect their own troops, I think you are mistaken. Defoliation was the priority.

    Should it be deemed to have merit in future, bet the farm that defoliation will proceed again.

    asklepios
    An exchange of views is a fine thing.
    I'm not trying to change anyones views. Everyone is free to express their opinion.
    I am also open to having my opinion changed through an educated discourse of ideas.

    I don't claim to know everything. But I'm always willing to share an opinion - fact is, I have an opinion on many things.

    Those who have suffered my presence within this forum for a while are well aware that I'm always up for a good exchange :)
    The reason a diamond shines so brightly is because it has many facets which reflect light.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    I agree, you simply expanded on what I just said.

    Let me clarify one thing though. You are insinuating a de-humanized view of military service. Any armed forces definatly combine to form a military force in which a government uses to persue a goal. But with that said, a government isn't out to inflict casualties on itself. There will be made an extreme attempt to reduce any weapon's risks, and therefore, knowledge of the side effects of agent orange would have spurred use of more protective gear.

    asklepios, I'm glad you came away with something. :thumb: :thumb: I applaud your ability to reason with the facts on the table, despite previous biases.
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    It certainly seems that you have served in the military more recently than I have.
    During the time I was in, the mission was the priority.

    But, much has changed in the world since then.
    The reason a diamond shines so brightly is because it has many facets which reflect light.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Birdkiller
    thats right, i bagged canada eh, and i'd do it again if it wasnt for them kids, and their pesky dog too. eh.

    lighten up, thats the good thing about ours countries, we have freedom of speech, if youre country looks down on free speech then maybe its time you overthrew them and procliamed yerself king webby of canada eh.

    and the way i see it canadians still owe the world a huge apology for bryan adams, not to mention celine dion. them 2 class as weapons of mass destruction
    To tell ya the truth, Canada highly respects freedom of speech and I don't plan on causing any overthrows. Yes, I'm disappointed that Paul Martin is definitely Jean Chretien's successor, but that's who the people in the Liberal party believe will do the best. That's freedom of speech, right? Also, there are a few infamous Canadians in this world, but the world has their share of this crap. In the United States, I can identify Harry Truman and George W Bush as being infamous Americans. In Great Britain, how many times do magazines comment on bad things conerning Prince William? It's not up to any of us to change their destinies, but it's up to us to not do the same stupid things that they did!

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    During the time I was in, the mission was the priority.
    Of course it is, all I am saying is that every feasable precaution is being taken to protect our troops. And luckily today, military service is completely voluntary, and so the slight risk that does exist is given to those enlisting to decide.

    And no, this has not always been the case in the past.
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    674

    Default

    I'm going to try to keep my posts in this thread shorter and sweeter, as from the looks of it, both you (zeradul) and myself are pretty entrenched in our opinions :).

    When the US invaded Iraq, and our country went with them, I was pretty upset. It seemed to me that the US was jumping in with the flimsy justification of Al-Qaeda links, possible weapons of mass destruction and later, the humanitarian issue, and that we (Australia) were just coming along for the ride and so we'd get that Free Trade Agreement with the US we'd always wanted.

    I don't deny that Saddam Hussein was and is, for lack of a better word, 'evil' (though that's a term bandied about far too much). He definately was corrupt and persecuted his population and executed thousands of innocents. I think that Iraq is possibly better off today that it was under Saddam and I'm glad to see him go.

    But the way the US set about justifying the war makes me uneasy, because it sets a precedent. There has been no concrete evidence that links Iraq to Al-Qaeda in a major fashion, no concrete evidence that weapons of mass destruction exist inside Iraq or had been recently shipped out, and there are plenty of other countries that need humanitarian aid just as badly as Iraq that don't seem to garner nearly as much attention from the powers that be in Washington.

    I honestly believe that the reason the United States of American invaded Iraq was not because of weapons of mass destruction, or terrorist fears, or to save the people of Iraq. I believe it was because the Bush government had, as Mr. C puts it, a "hard-on" for the Iraqi regime. The fact that the US brought Saddam to power in the first place, and then let him stay in power after the Gulf War when Bush the First was in charge must have wounded the pride of Bush the Second.

    Of course, I don't believe that's the only reason; I think the US also sees it as a wise business investment. Consider Afghanistan; three months before the US invaded that country, the US government, along with several major oil companies, was planning on giving the Taliban approximately $200 billion dollars for permission to build an oil pipeline through the country. However, due to religious pressure, the Taliban eventually backed out of the deal about a month before the invasion.

    A short few months after the invasion of Afghanistan, the US-installed leader announced the oil pipeline deal was back on.

    Is it so ridiculous to suggest that this sort of thing may be repeated with Iraq, and that reasons like this were, in fact, important in the decision-making process that led to war?

    I don't want to deny the good things that US has done - saving a lot of people's asses in the World Wars, as previously mentioned. By the way, you seemed to think that when I said that the US intervened only when their own interests were threatened, I was contradicting myself. If you follow my line of reasoning, though, that's actually consistent with my argument - that the United States acts primarily in its own interests first, which is what all countries do I guess, it's just that with the US, everything they do has a massive impact on the world and a lot of the time, the ones doing the damage don't really seem to care.

    This post has gone on for longer than I intended, but a few last things;

    George W. Bush. Actually, if you check the numbers, Al Gore should be President of the United States at the moment. Read Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. Although I admit that Moore is biased (but then again, who isn't?), the numbers involved are accurate and give shine to the fact that thanks to a questionable Supreme Court hearing and some maneouvering by the governor of Florida (who just happens to be George Bush's brother), Bush managed to win an election where he got less votes than Gore.

    As to his ignorance, I'm not of the opinion that the inability to name the leaders of major foreign companies makes him retarded, and anyone can get tongue-tied and forget things in speeches and declare a war a 'crusade', but when you come down to it and look at the man, he just doesn't provide an aura of intelligence.

    Lastly, you have accused myself and a few others in this thread of being biased. Now, everyone has a natural bias towards their side of the argument, but I really want to try to be as open-minded about anything as I can. Your arguments have had an certain effect on me, and while I don't agree with them, I have a better understanding of where you're coming from. However, you seem to be guilty of bias yourself - in defending anything that may be construed as derogatory to the US.

    Lastly, one of your quotes;

    [b]Like it or not, when the little corrupt nations of the world are not willing to take action in a prompt fashion, simply because their illegal dealings would be exposed if such action happens, then we are left with no other choice but to go it alone.
    That's fine and good - but what happens when the big corrupt nations can do what they want?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    Well said Osiris :thumb:

    I think your concerns are the same as any reasoning individual would have.

    Length of post is inconsequential.
    What is said, being far more important than the number of keystrokes used to say it.
    (I've been known to ramble on a bit at times)

    If Australia chooses to possess nuclear weapons I would not find fault with that.
    Should they choose not to for reasons of morality, I would heartily applaud that decision.

    Know that either course of action carries its own huge responsibilities.
    The reason a diamond shines so brightly is because it has many facets which reflect light.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •