On 13/07/2007 anthonyk wrote:
>On 13/07/2007 gordoste wrote:
>>To everyone else, I acknowledge (unlike many) that a strategic alliance
>>with the US makes sense for Australia.
>
>we've had strong military ties with the US for a long time and choosing
>not to join them on their adventures in the middle east wouldn't change
>that, regardless what GWB might say at the time. iraq was not a defensive
>move, it was an attack to gain a firmer hold on resources, given they had
>the opportunity to use their military advantage and blame it on "terrorism",
>which was really just a distraction in terms of global power struggles.
> australia and britain signed on to share in the benefits of access to
>these resources, and possibly for benevolent goals of spreading democracy,
>even if it was done under dodgy pretenses.
>
>if you're talking about military ties in terms of defense, ie preventing
>people from attacking you, that would never have been affected by any of
>this. no matter what we do we are in the strategic interests of the US.
> if we all bared our asses at GWB and then china went to invade us (yeah
>right) the US would still defend australia, because having our resources
>in friendly hands is necessary for them.
I agree that if we hadnt joined the US in Iraq, we would still be tight with the US (joining them has made a tighter connection though fro sure). Ive wondered why we joined in, it always seemed like a bad idea. The Iraq / Al Quida link at the time was obviously a crap excuse (Bin Laden and Saddam would never get along, Saddam was far to moderate, after all he had a Christian second in command). Oil security seems the obvious reason for the US invasion, given the pessimistic projections for future no middle eastern oil supplies. I suspect we became involved because Howard was in the US when September 11 happened, and he went a little bit native.
Anyway, enough crapping on. Time to go home.
|