|
Saddam - al Qaida link? Saddam probably views al Qaida much in the same way as
the West does [whilst not denying that unfortuneatley, such a link may exist,
and war will be a duty for the US Government unto it's people. Australia's role
is not so clear, given they could destroy Iraq alone and Bush's intentions
seemingly have more to do with revenge and America's latest White Whale - since
when has he cared about the UN or it's WMD policy?]
- as a group of fanatics dangerous to his status quo
- as an underutilised resource, like before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Listing possible suppliers of WMD is as long as page or so. Non Nato former
owners of nuclear weapons, Cuba, NorthKorea, India, China, Pakistan, Syria,
Iran, Sudan (probably a more rational choice for regieme change aiding a war on
terror), funding from Saudi Arabia, the list goes on, including many other
terrorist supporting States, such as Lybia, Lebanon and formerly Palestine (now
in a near civil war over control of Palestine with Hamas). At least choose a more appropriate enemy, like Sudan, where training camps
still exist, and a theocracy is killing dissidents in the south, over seemingly
evil and capitalist oil or assassinate heads of state and terrorists if they
bomb you. If Osama beleived the usual "fifty virgins" rant, wouldn't he have
flown the planes? (although it appears that some of the hijackers were not
"true" fanatics, rather alcoholics, mentally ill, severely depressed or
drifters who join cults anyway) killing the top leadership of terorist cells,
arresting the rest and destroying their resources on a retaliatory basis is an
unbeatable plan. It only requires that in general, adventurism is not
undertaken. The war in Afghanistan was a necessity to get to al Qaida. Some people may think that my view to assassinate people is out there and
dangerous, but it has the following advantages;
- little chance of war with oppressed people whom you have no quarrel with
- cheap
- no more dead Aussies (or US GI's)
- leaves the door for regieme change wide open
- fits in with a well rounded defence plan, including a militia to make invasion
untennable, powerful (not necessarily large) armoured corps, navy and airforce
to make invasion impossible, police and secret service look after security and
terror attacks, and a missile defense sheild that eliminates conventional
methods of WMD delivery
Of course, if you do not meddle in foreign conflicts, trade with your
neighbours and have such a military so there is no incentive for terrorist
cells or nation states to intiiate violence - you can be the most peaceful
nation in the world. Even if the Bali tragedy still occured, the recourse would
be, after it was known to do so, (probably) assassinate the leadership of Jamal
Islamia. Megawati would turn a blind eye. But then we have the brewing anti Muslim sentiment. This is almost another
matter of immigration and law and order, for what it's worth, ending the war on
drugs could double police officers ability to patrol the streets and solve
violent crimes. How we elect Governments and how and for how long they select
the judiciary as well as the law itself is the real issue. Allowing concealed
carry laws will also drop the crime rate. Whist not advocating an "open border policy", the buraecratic process could
be speeded up, so English wives of aussie men could come in without a 14 month
delay, and asylum seekers without security concerns could be lloked after by
charities. No more cost to those who do not want to pay - and the only
rationale for sending them back is that they don'thave papers. But you've
already assessed they are not security risks. Unfortuneately, the security
risks would be kept until assessed. If they are a sccurity risk they will be
arrested. If not, why not give them temporary residency? A coast guard should
be set up. Picking up boatloads of piss poor people is not training for war or
patrolling for foreign naval or spy vessels. A coast guard could also police
for piracy and protect property rights. Anyway, an outbreak of CJD is
ptentially more devestating than a terror attack to Australia. When Muslim Australians are not fanatics, and oppose the acts of violence
perpetrated by terrorists and their supporting States, the sentiment is becasue
of another Australian's irrationality.
| 
