So, let me get this: in the case of an hypothetical act of violence, the first responsible of such is not the perpetrator, but the government/group/individuals that do something that such perpetrators don't like and thus forced him to commit said act of violence?
Hrm. I don't know much about australian politics, but try substituting GWB and Al-Qaeda for two other political actors of your liking, and you might arrive to some dangerous conclusions...
No, what I meant was that (a) Bush's crusade against terrorism, real and imagined, (Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Castro, &c). was not our fight (b), our illustrious PM made it our fight, by pledging unconditional Australian support for US military operations, including first strikes against "terrorist" states. (c) therefore, our PM made Australia a higher-priority target for the terrorists, a more dangerous place for its people, all out of starry-eyed admiration for Sherriff George.
If Al-Qaeda terrorists attack Australia, and kill Australian civilians, it will be directly due to Howard having stuck our neck out in his eagerness to join the fight.
Shit! I just realised I left the bag of stuff I got at Dick Smith's at Melbourne Central station. Should I ring lost property?
Sorry, but I'll have to nitpick a bit more: not our war? In that case, if Al-Qaeda members happen to be found in the future living in Australia (or Spain, where I live), what should our authorities do with them? Pat their backs and wish them a happy stay?
Disagreeing with GWB's politics because they are wrong and counterproductive is one thing, but washing your hands and saying simply "not my problem" is not exactly a strong moral position. Or at least, it won't look as such the next time you are mugged in the street and start yelling for help...
I did not say that Australian authorities should ignore the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. They certainly are dangerous and not to be taken lightly. If they are found in Australia, the authorities should deal with them appropriately. However, there is a big difference from actively defending ourselves against attacks and going out into the world and loudly declaring our unconditional support for America, right or wrong.
America is seen by many (rightly or wrongly) as somewhat of a bully on the world stage. For us to loudly acclaim our unconditional support for any first strikes agaunst the US's enemies, real or imagined, is just asking for a fight, and volunteering our men, women and children as terrorist targets.
I don't think I've never seen anyone use that "rightly or wrongly" circumlocution in a situation where they actually mean "rightly." You do see America as a bully, don't you?
And I don't think it's not wrong to enter into mutual defence agreements with other countries. If country A promises to help defend country B in the event of attack by country C, the chances that country C will attack B are reduced. NATO works (or worked) like this--could WWII have been averted if something similar was in place?
You're trying to elevate your personal disagreement with one of the government's decisions to the level of a principle! You don't have a principle, you have a specific disagreement.
America's somewhat of a bully, though the other bullies are probably worse. As such, I'd rather live under American hegemony than, say, Chinese hegemony or somesuch.
Having said that, unconditionally supporting US first strikes against anyone the US deems to be 'terrorist' (a claim they made against Iraq and Cuba recently) is a long way beyond mutual defence. It's too much like us ganging up with the schoolyard bully to beat up the weak kids so that he'll like us.
Yes, Saddam Hussein is a sonofabitch, and Castro's a brutal dictator, but that's not enough reason to invade their countries and overthrow them. Especially since neither of the two viable alternatives to Saddam (Shiite Islamists and Communists) who could form a government in Iraq are acceptable to the US.
Yes, Johnny Howard is a shit. Bush is too, and America has caused
a lot of the trouble in the world through some really
half assed foreign policies. But...
> (If it were Al-Qaeda, I'd probably blame Johnny "W.'s cabana boy" Howard for getting us into this mess in the
first place.)
I myself might consider blaming blaming Al-Queda for their
own actions in this case. Quirky, I know....
Someone was obviously pissed off Daimaru have moved out.