(Australian) Senate passes Iraq no confidence motion

Abc News ^ | 2/4/03

[bobi]

It is my personal opinion that it is for Oil. As the uninterupted supply of oil is required.

second it is a stepping stone to change all the regimes in the Middle East, starting with Iran and Syria, the easy way or the hard way.

The other major important reason would be water. As there is now and there will be a lot of shortage of water in the region and the world.

[aquawrench]

Communism is not dead.

[vbmoneyspender]

Saddam = dead man walking

Bush = great American leader

bobi = booby

Is that simple enough for you?

[DeuceTraveler]

This isn't about imperialism. This is about the promise the US made about taking out countries that support terrorism. Iraq has been on the states that sponsor terrorism list for over two decades, and yes that includes when Reagan supported them against Iran. Iraq is also the one country that is supporting terrorists that we have the best case against. Do you think we could invade Syria politically? What about North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Iraq has already built a case against itself. If Saddam was really smart he could just disarm and then the United States would really be up the political creek. He doesn't and so dooms himself. This isn't about imperialism. This is about terrorism. And terrorism cannot be fought by being defensive. Someone is going to eventually get through those defenses like they did at the World Trade Center and in Bali. The only way is to keep your enemies on the defensive and that means you must attack and keep the pressure on. Oh... and Bin Laden is dead.

[Snuffington]

However after Afganistan the US administration has turned the war against terrorism into imperialistic conquest for OIL.

If the Aussie's subscribe to this notion, they're utter fools.

If the U. S. administration has imperialistic ambitons about Iraq's oil, what on earth prevents them from dealing with a single tyrant in charge of the whole lot, rather than incurring the cost, risk, and competition of a military campaign opening Iraqui oil to the free market?

The simple facts indicate a naked interest in Iraqi oil would lead to some fairly automatic and favorable contracts with Saddam Hussein (modeled after a number of existing French and German contracts - not to point fingers at some "model" pacifist governments). Hussein has proven he is willing to deal with the West at bargain rates, provided we let him continue to run the show.

The idiotic sissy-West wants the U. S. to stand down, thinking we're looking to war to advance our own interests, rather than serve the common good. To be honest, this makes it more painful since we are in fact looking after the common good MORE than our own interests in moving against a nation like Iraq, which we could so easily buy off.

[bobi]

You did not go after Saddam's in Gulf War I because of the existence of the Soviet Union (lasted until August 1991) which objected to the United States long term occupation of Iraq. The war was limited to expelling Iraq from Kuwait and that was it.

The kurds and the shiite were abandoned and nothing was done for the rest of the year.

There are a lot of little things that happend due to the existence of the Soviet Union in 1991.

[Diddle E. Squat]

OK, I'll agree that oil is a factor in the way that you put it, but not the driving factor. IMHO, this war is about:

1) Ending rogue-state WMD manufacturing, and more importantly, proliferation to terrorist organizations(the means of projection previously unavailable to rogue states, dictators, and regimes).

2) Fighting terrorists by cutting off their support and safe havens.

3) Promoting regional stability through introduction of freedom, democracy, and basic economic development.

4) Assisting world economic growth and the resulting worldwide increase in standards of living(and reduction in poverty/starvation) by stabilizing oil supplies, as Rush says the fuel that runs the engine of democracy.

Egalitarian, not imperialistic.

[rwfromkansas]

When is Powell's speech tomorrow?

[areafiftyone]

I freeped it but it hasn't changed at all.

[bobi]

How about Libya. They have been listed as a terrorist state since the 80's.

Their links to terrorism have been proven in a court of law.

When is the invasion?

[areafiftyone]

The Security Council is to be called to order at 10:15 a.m., with Powell's presentation to begin around 10:30 a.m.

[Diddle E. Squat]

10:30 am eastern.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/835973/posts

[areafiftyone]

Its funny I work abut 5 blocks from the U.N. and I won't even be able to see it on TV cause I will be in a cubie at work. I hope they post a live thread tomorrow (HINT HINT!)

[Diddle E. Squat]

When Libya becomes the biggest threat. So far, they have back down some, while Hussein is on the doorstep of nukes(and in fact not only may already have them, but may have passed some forms of WMD over to terrorists.)

[TheDon]

Sounds like the statists in Aussieland are doing the same thing the statists are doing in the US, slitting their throats, politically speaking, of course.

[Timesink]

And this just Australia leads support for military action:

Needless to say, this is the exact opposite of what's spewing across CNN's news ticker this evening. They're reporting "Australians against war without UN approval."

[GirlShortstop]

Or, thee Aussies will be left behind. Hope that doesn't happen.

Betchya these blokes hope not too.. how much more left behind could they stand!

[Timesink]

In a 33-to-31 vote, the Senate criticised the Government for sending troops to a potential war without a proper explanation to the Australian people.

Here's the proper explanation the PM ought to give: "I was elected leader of this country. If you don't like it, vote for someone else next time. ya bunch of poofters."

[bybybill]

Are you saying that the war against Saddammnn is imperialistic, that the USA seeks to gain territory in Iraq?