Pre-emptive Strikes Against Neighbouring Countries

[Biggles of 266]

The Australian government has said that if we feel threatened by other countries around us, we won't hesitate to send in the army to kick some ass. Bush Jr. supports us... do you support Bush Jr. on this one? Can countries just attack each other if they feel threatened?

Biggles

 

[AffectionateDan]

Geez, talk about a loaded question!

Doesn't it kinda depend on whether or not your neighboring countries have shown themselves to be agressivly expansionistic, with a well-known desire to develop weapons of mass-destruction, doesn't it? Or has your neighbor taken a shine to attacking innocent civilians to prove how commited they are to their particular insane point of view? There's no black and white answer to this question, and I think you knew that as you were posting. But if were the leader of a country, and I had absolute proof that said neighbor had the capability and intention of attacking, you bet your bippy I'd launch a crippling pre-emptive strike and destroy their ability to do so. These people have been doing this crap for literally thousands of years now, and it's WAY past time for them to grow the hell up. We have the capability to destroy all life on this tiny little rock several times over (except the damned cockroaches, of course), and if a heavy hand isn't used to make them learn that the world isn't going to tolerate this idiocy, then we're all in for a rough time in the not-too-distant future. People are becoming more and more afraid these days, and it's because for too long we've turned a blind eye to what's going on around us. Nobody wants to do what needs to be done, nobody wants to be the responsible one. I for one am sick and F***ing tired of American troops being sent to these third-world dung holes and dying in them because no one else can be bothered. I say yeah, if they're posturing for a fight, spank the living $#@& out of them and make them think twice and twice more before they get all persnicketty. Hell, if I thought it'd work, I'd challenge their leader to one-on-one hand-to-hand combat myself. Screw that sending armies or airmen to fight each other... you want some of this? Bring it? I'll whoop your @$$ so bad, your ancestors will feel it and cry. 😡

NEXT!

 

[Biggles of 266]

just askin', coz as it was pointed out here this morning, using the same criteria for invasion, Indonesia is justified in parachuting troops into Australia.

Biggles

 

[qjakal]

Australia?

Australia has a history of non stop warfare and is aggresively developing weapons of mass destruction? Dammit...I need more newspapers sent to the house!

What exactly does one go about attacking in Australia, btw, in order to cripple the military industrial capability of the country? (This is a clever trick...learned it by reading CIA handbooks...sometimes you can get a lot of good info just by asking!)

😉 Q

 

[qjakal]

Okay...

Found a map of Australia.

http://www.villagephotos.com/viewimage.asp?id_=1116384&selected=26663

Looks like a fairly big amount of square miles to cover...hope those Indonesians have a good cavalry. 🙄 Q

 

[Biggles of 266]

alright Q... smartass... 😛 😀

I just meant that if Indonesia does what we do (navy destroyers floating around northern queensland to "check on illegal fishing"... yeah, sure 😉; exercising troops in mock battles against forces that strangely resemble indonesia; airforce jets testing how close they can get to no-fly zones etc.) then my entire country would be in uproar. It's a whole world of double standards. We think we can do what we want because we're a rich, white western christian nation that has the backing of other rich white western christian nations.

What does one go about attacking in Australia? The street where 'Neigbours' is filmed? The Carlton & United Breweries? The MCG, SCG, Gabba and WACA? Let me know, so I can move the hell away from them!

On an interesting side note, since you mentioned the size of the country... during the second world war, the official plan was to withdraw as far south as Brisbane and let the Japanese keep the rest. Just shows how close the country was to being invaded. On your map, you can see Papua New Guinea to the north of Darwin and Cairns. Pretty much the entire country was held by the Japanese army, who were only barely pushed back. Darwin was bombed a couple of times, and they still haven't found one of the midget submarines that entered Sydney Harbour and shelled the town. Just a short history lesson for ya, maybe you found it interesting.

Biggles

 

[Haltickling]

I think that this question misses the point. Nowadays' wars are different, rarely one country against another one. It's the war against some fanatical groups which represent only a tiny amount of the actual population, but they can cause enormous damage to 'soft targets' like civil airplanes, hotels, disco clubs, crowded shopping streets (especially now during X-mas time), financial centers, landmarks, etc.

This war can't be won by lange-scale military operations. Small, highly trained units for guerilla warfare, in concert with worldwide intelligence cooperation, are the only means. Invasion of other countries is only a minor threat today. Expansion is rarely the purpose or target for an enemy, only utterly hideous destruction with as many non-combattant casualties as possible.

I wouldn't trust any government to decide which country poses a threat. Politicians of any state and any ideology tend to further their own aims. Evidence can easily be doctored by the secret services, false accusations have about the same devastating effect on civilians as the worst terrorist attack. Pre-emptive strikes start wars, except if they are targeted as narrowly as possible to eliminating mass destruction weapons.

 

[qjakal]

Weird Wars....

Good point Hal. War has gotten very weird indeed, in terms of having to identify an enemy to enable you to neutralize them without too many innocent lives lost. Of course these organizations routinely endanger civilians and then hide among them for protection, knowing that some countries still respect the basic rules of engagement. Not sure how much longer we'll be able to afford that luxury.....

Biggles, my Australian history knowledge is woefully lacking in depth. The old penal colony that turned into a nation and then came Crocodile Dundee, and after that I'm out....sad, but perhaps you can gradually fill me and a few thousand other Americans in on it? OOOH...forgot...you have a form of football that seems wacky, hosted the Olympics, something about reconciling with the Aborigines......okay...I'm out again! Pathetic...I get a D- at most.

As for the question and concern of premptive strikes, it's a doozy. Even the most hawkish Americans are carefully monitoring the tension with Iraq. Last time the Iraqi government provided clear evidence of aggression by annexing Kuwait, but this is new ground for the USA....acting on intelligence as though its proven fact is a sign of how leery we've grown since 9/11. The ramifications of our nation taking an action of this nature are unsettling. If we start with a rogue nation with a horrible history of aggression and human rights violations, will we progress to other countries that aren't as obvious in their transgressions? And what of our supposed "allies", Saudi Arabia? Emotion is building quickly here for a close examination of their dealings with terrorist organizations and action towards those that are actively supporting them, regardless of it's effect on the regime and royalty in that country. Those that believe our efforts to be "oil driven" are sadly mistaken....the overall feeling here is that we haven't found those responsible for the attack on NY, and we won't rest until they are brought to light, justice or the Pearly Gates (fill in your own religous preference). Our oil dependence is vastly overrated in the world press as a motive for military actions. If you follow that line of reasoning, we would just annex an oil rich country militarily when we had an opportunity. Does anyone really believe we couldn't have stationed troops in Kuwait and done as we pleased after Iraq destroyed their infrastrucure and whatever passed for military strength? We will continue to import oil, develop alternative fuels and research the Alaskan oil fields. The new hybrid cars are being accepted very well in the states that are testing them, btw.....just FYI. Q

 

[Haltickling]

Re: Weird Wars....

Of course these organizations routinely endanger civilians and then hide among them for protection, knowing that some countries still respect the basic rules of engagement. Not sure how much longer we'll be able to afford that uxury.....

I despise the idea of violating human rights to protect human rights. That's illogical, immoral, and inhumane. Who decides the current rate of innocent lives, valued against the killing of a terrorist? A politician? A judge? You? Mr. Bush? Would ten civilians be acceptable, or a hundred, or a thousand? It would be a luxury to give up the value of a non-combattant's life, however poor and miserable it may be, because this would mean to negate civilzation itself!

I think the military leaders should finally pop their heads out of their rectal orifices and adapt to the new threat of terrorism, instead of playing war-games in a sandbox, like defending Australia against an Indonesian invasion. But I realize that the new challenge might threaten their very existence, as armies and bombers can't win wars against terrorists.

Sorry for the rant!

 

[Deleted member 2452]

i mention this to you before biggles

both indonisia, and india have coveted australia for some time.
if in defence you guys need to preform a pre-emtive strike, then so be it!
you're right about new guinea. and it was the american army who stopped them, from invading australia in ww2. your troops were off being mis-used by the brits in africa. if it wasn't for the anzacs, the british would have lost africa before america finaly got there.
good work.
steve

 

[qjakal]

Despised...

We all despise the idea, but at what point do you place the lives of OTHER (i.e. the ones being killed by the terrorists that are purposefuly hiding in a civilian area) people at a lesser value than those who most likely shelter these people knowingly? It's not an easy decision to make to either "let them go" or incur unwanted civilian causalties to eradicate them. You ask "who decides the current rate of innocent lives", and I put it to you that it is decided by those who put them at risk in both instances, which is the terrorists who perpetuaute the conflict. I admire Israels patience and restraint. I doubt that either of our governments would have tolerated these civilian attacks for this period of time without more massive reprisals. Wish there was a good, practical solution to many of these age old conflicts Hal, but I can't see any on the horizon.

This situation makes us all want to rant.... Q

 

[Biggles of 266]

To really simplify this argument down...

If (just to use the US as an example) there was unshakeable intelligence information that Mullah Omar (remember him? He's the one who used to be evil) was in a hotel with all his high-ranking Taliban mates, and a couple of terrorists in there too, would it be worth dropping a smart bomb and levelling the hotel, at the cost of a few hundred civillians? You'd be removing maybe a dozen of the world's most wanted men, but taking many innocents along with them. Is it worth it?

Biggles

 

[qjakal]

Intelligence...

Too many variables. If we have intelligence that is that solid, you're implying we have access and freedom of movement in the area, so there would be other viable options, such as surveillance and then targeting them in a safer environment. A hotel isn't a permanent residence, so you've posed a different scenario. When they make their base of operations among civilians for an extended period of time, it's unreasonable to assume that those who they live amongst are unaware of them and their activities, which most likely is the case in a hotel. A base that is knowingly placed among a civilian population that itself restricts movement and observation efforts, is an entirely different type of operation. They are surrounded by 'friendlies" at the very least in the latter case.... Q

 

[AffectionateDan]

See, now this is what I love about this forum!

I figured that this thread would bring the trolls out of the woodwork and it'd get all ugly in here, but here are all these well-thought out perspectives, rationally presented! I dig you guys! Hell, compared to the rest of yours, my little rant looks like a high school freshman's attempt to win a debate with a college graduate with a doctorate. Nothing even close to this mature an exchange could have taken place in the News Group.

Long Live The TMF!

 

[qjakal]

Affectionate Dan...lol

Hell, if I thought it'd work, I'd challenge their leader to one-on-one hand-to-hand combat myself. Screw that sending armies or airmen to fight each other... you want some of this? Bring it? I'll whoop your @$$ so bad, your ancestors will feel it and cry. 😡

NEXT! [/B]

Maybe so, but I liked the emotional context of yours...lol..a lot! I wish we could find some fairly rational way to end many of these regional conflicts, but the problem is that they've been brewing for thousands of years in some cases, and only the Russian influence in the region was intimidating enough to bottle it up for a few decades. Say whatever else you like about the Soviets, but one thing everyone knew was that if you crossed them, their tanks would roll. Q

 

[AffectionateDan]

Re: Affectionate Dan...lol

Maybe so, but I liked the emotional context of yours...lol..a lot! I wish we could find some fairly rational way to end many of these regional conflicts, but the problem is that they've been brewing for thousands of years in some cases, and only the Russian influence in the region was intimidating enough to bottle it up for a few decades. Say whatever else you like about the Soviets, but one thing everyone knew was that if you crossed them, their tanks would roll. Q

Hee! Thanks, it's good to know my zeal is appreciated. And yeah, Ivan wasn't very forgiving when it came to folks stepping on their toes.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

my answer is no biggles

given the parameters of your scenario.
but on the other hand who says we have to use a big missle?
how about a guy across the street in another hotel with a rocket launcher? just take out the one room, poof! no more problem!
steve