Skip to content Skip to main navigation


We'll switch your business
to Led lighting for Free*

Comrade not sure why we’re in Iraq

By johnboy - 20 March 2006 29

For reason’s passing understanding the Chief Minister wants to know why Australia continues to keep a low key security force in Iraq.

He’s not up to putting it online but it seems he’s always able to have a word to his friends at the ABC.

ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has used the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq to call on the Federal Government to explain its continued involvement in the war.

It seems Our Brave Leader is miraculously both so better informed than the government that he knows our presence there is making things worse, and yet still ignorant of the reasons troops remain.

How about this sir: Even if removing a horrible dictator wasn’t sufficient reason to get involved in the first place, we can’t go back and change that decision, so why not respond to the democratically elected government of Iraq’s calls for international forces to help them stabilise the situation?

Surely a spitefull desire to see the original justifications for war proved false isn’t enough to make sane humans yearn for an anarchic descent into chaos in Iraq?

Oh, and happy Canberra Day to you too Mr. Stanhope.

UPDATED: The Chief Minister’s ever efficient staff have finally put his media release online.

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
29 Responses to
Comrade not sure why we’re in Iraq
Absent Diane 3:08 pm 21 Mar 06

Saddam was vile in every sense…. he was so vile that even osama thought so…. so that’s gotta be worth something…

caf 3:06 pm 21 Mar 06

“Surely we can agree Saddam was a bastard…”

sure, why not.

“…the world is better off removed from power?”

non-sequiter, and I’m not convinced. At least he was a secular bastard.

johnboy 2:49 pm 21 Mar 06

While the US record is far from perfect (in fact bloody awfull) I prefer their unilateralism to the results the UN multilateralism gets. (See Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan right this minute).

Surely we can agree Saddam was a bastard the world is better off removed from power?

RandomGit 2:28 pm 21 Mar 06

I was convinced.

Absent Diane 1:00 pm 21 Mar 06

It probably should be me….

Chalker 12:19 pm 21 Mar 06

Who determines if the dictator is vile?

Absent Diane 11:18 am 21 Mar 06

I do agree Mal that he has a right to comment on such things… but it seems to be the trend in the last few years where the general population wants their government to be soley interested in their region and to stay out of others affairs……
which of course leads to deeper philosophical questions.. which would lead me somewhat off topic….
Should we be in iraq… yes we should… assisting fixing up the damage the yanks caused… should we have gone in.. yes morally obliged… but I think that once you have set a precedent as such you need to follow it up and go and blow the fuck out of other countries with vile dictators…

barking toad 10:50 am 21 Mar 06

The mayor volunteered a press release on this? He’s more brain fucked than I thought. And of course my humble apologies to the ABC for even thinking they would seek his comments.

DT 10:24 am 21 Mar 06

Barking toad: the ABC reported on Stanhope’s media release, not some desire to seek out a spokesperson for “their view of the world”.

barking toad 10:04 am 21 Mar 06

Unfortunately Mal the local mayor has delusions of grandeur along the lines of your thoughts.

The reality is though that the fact that Canberra was created as the site for the national parliament does not reflect any great glory on the local mayor depite his ambitions and wishes to be a world leader.

johnboy 9:59 am 21 Mar 06

The question is no longer why we went, the question is why we stay (or more accurately, went back).

yakz 9:46 am 21 Mar 06

I thought we went to war because Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, not because of the Nasty Leader.

Mal 9:46 am 21 Mar 06

Very muddle-headed, johnboy.

There was a very clear reason why the Yanks invaded Iraq: To get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Its now conceded by everybody, including Bush, that there were no WMDs. Given the reason no longer exists, we should get out.

Its good, of course, that Saddam Hussein is gone. You could even argue that the West had a responsibility to get rid of him, given the West bankrolled him for years, including while he used chemical weapons against Iranian civilians. But you have to remember why its good Saddam is gone: he used to kill & torture his own citizens, and destabilised the region by declaring war on his neighbours. Under the new conditions, there are even more Iraqis being killed & tortured, and by more people. The region has become even more destabilised, with al-Qaeda now firmly based in Iraq (the West used to bankroll Saddam precisely because he was a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism), Turkey considered about its eastern regions breaking up, and Iran so worried about encirclement that it is investing in nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Iraq has become a shambles, infant mortality has gone throw the roof, & the only disagreement about the situation is whether Iraq is in civil war or just plunging into it.

George Bush Senior, when asked why he didn’t overthrow Saddam when he was thrown out of Kuwait, used to say that Saddam might be replaced with someone, or something, worse. History has proven him correct.

Its sensible to argue that however we got here, Western troops are needed now to try to restore some sort of stability. However, the presence of Christian troops in an Islamic country is a direct provocation, & is of itself destabilising. A better solution would be to gradually replace them with a UN-organised peacekeeping force primarily sourced from Islamic countries, or, if they could ever get their act together, an Arab League force after ECOMOG lines.

Fat chance? Perhaps. In the case of Aussie troops though, we have the worst of both worlds. Like most foreign contigents there, Aussies are present as a tokenistic figleaf so that Bush can portray the invasion as more than an Anglo-American exercise. Its difficult to argue that we are making any significant physical contribution to stability. This may change as Nelson sends in more troops. At the same time, now & in the future, our troops’ presence is provoking violent resistance in Iraq & resentment towards Australia from Muslims throughout the world.

Finally, regardless of what you think of Stanhope, he isn’t on par with the mayor of Goulburn, or Queanbeyan or Dubbo. He is chief minister of the National Capital from which an entire continent, & the greatest nation on earth, is governed. The ACT would be in much better shape if more people woke up to themselves & realised that.

barking toad 8:50 am 21 Mar 06

Another example of the lefties at the ABC contacting the usual suspects to get comments supporting their view of the world.

And another example of our local mayor self importantly trying to strut the world stage.

Didn’t notice the mayors of Goulburn, Queanbeyan or even Captain’s Flat ringing up the ABC to pontificate on world politics.

Just concentrate on getting local issues sorted out ffs. You know, like education, health, police etc. And tell simon that warp speed buses and holes in hills for trams aren’t high priority when the cupboard’s bare.

Thumper 8:18 am 21 Mar 06

Let’s see.

We have Iraq, a country wracked by civil war, where the Sunnies and Shiites spend their daus planning random bombings of each other.

We also the US, who, like it or not, invaded and got rid of a certain rather nasty man by the Saddam. At that time their was much rejoicing.

The problem is, the US did not leave themselves an exit strategy and instead prewferred to convert the country to democracy.

Now, as any social, cultural student will tell you, you cannot bring democracy to people over night. It is an idea that needs generations to form and to come to fruition.

Sadly, no-one told this to ther yanks.

Having said that, the Sunnies and the Shiites still gleefully go about killing each other. The UN is a paper tiger and wouldn’t be seen dead near the country, which leaves the US in the position of trying to keep some semblance of civil order.

As such, we also have Britain and Australia, albeit, a very small percentage, with a military presence.

Don’t get me wrong, the yanks should have buggered off out of Iraq straight after they deposed of Saddam. However, to leave now would be to ensure the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians until one, the Sunnies or the SHiites, wins, and then they will take power and the region will become somewhat stable in comparison to what it is today, except in the same situation as when Saddam was in power.

And in the north the Kurds will just hold their own and wait until a civil way of biblical (sorry about that)proportions occurs. When that doers they will be in a situation where they can push for an independent Kurdistan.

Whatever the case, if the yanks leave now, the loss of human life will be immense.

It’s quite simple really. I just wonder why our brave leader can’t see it. Does he think the Sunnies and Shiites will hold bilateral talks and conferences and work out their differences?

Maybe he does, but it won’t happen.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site