Australia Ready To Strike Abroad

BBC ^ | 12-1-2002

[blam]

Bravo!!

[Capt. Tom]

Somebody's ox got gored. - Tom

[Seeking the truth]

Another pair of eyes opened!

[Enterprise]

"He told Australian television that international law was no longer adequate to confront the threats to national security."

I've always considered the phrase "international law" to be code word for "hate America first." But, to the point, he is correct. "International law" does not truly exist and is totally useless to combat terrorism. The terrorists will ultimately win the terrorism war by simple means of attrition, because they are in unlimited supply. It's time to limit the supply.

[blam]

" It's time to limit the supply."

Starting with the mosques. (Saudia Arabia first.)

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[toddst]

To add to your comment, it's time to hit the supply of terrorists - whever they are!

[chris1]

Why the heck can't our President be more like him? This crap about premption is such crap. If a robber is in your house with a gun, are you going to wait for him to shoot you first before you pull the trigger?

[Enterprise]

Exactly! (and thank you) (=^..^=)

[Diddle E. Squat]

Hey genius, it was Bush who first announced the doctrine change that the US would strike preemptively. Australia is now adopting OUR new strategy.

In your haste to bash Bush, you forgot to consider the facts and come off looking like a fool.

[Route66]

Our President has been getting blasted for stating our intention to strike pre-emptively. It is nice to see some other leader agree that this is necessary in order to win this war.

[Dog Gone]

The Australian leader also wants the United Nations charter to be amended to allow member countries to strike first if they believe an attack is imminent.

Well, the next step for Australia is come to the realization that the United Nations charter is not binding on any country.

[laredo44]

they are in unlimited supply

I believe terrorists are in very limited supply. You make it seem as if just anybody can and will become terrorists. That doesn't ring true to me.

[winner3000]

I am as much a hawk as anybody. However, I am nervous too about this pre-emptive stuff against non-states. There are two nuances to it. The first is the way the US is actually conducting its war on terror: Once the US identifies a terror cell in a foreign country, they are coordinating with the foreign country for either them taking care of the problem, or we take care of the problem after coordinating with them.
The second way of doing it is the way most people would characterize the Australian prime minister's words: Australia would deal with the problem with no coordination with the relevant nation, thus violating its sovereignty. That's the way the Europeans are mischaracterizing the US response. This sort of policy would give tyrants a great pretext to invade neighbouring countries (such as the Russians inserting themselves into Georgia, regardless of the willingness and ability of Georgians of dealing with the terrorist problem themselves).

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

Bunk. We will see Australia conquered and occupied by Muslims- unless ther U.S. jumps in and saves them. Take a look at the geopolitical map in their part of the world- they are the equivalent of a nice middle-class white family living in Watts, with a single-shot .22 for protection.

[Enterprise]

It is true that in total numbers that terrorists are somewhat "limited." Looking back to 1983, there was the terrorist bombing that took over two hundred U.S. Marines lives in Lebanon. Many of today's modern day terrorists were infants at that time, or were not even born. Where did they come from? Terrorists will continue to be trained, and will still be killing via suicide attacks twenty years from now. And twenty years after that! They are not in unlimited supply in total present numbers, but in future terms, they have no limits.

[Mr. Lucky]

Godspeed, mates.

[Dog Gone]

Pre-emptive strikes are justifiable in a host country that is unwilling or unable to act in coordination with the threatened country to eliminate the threat. One would hope that a country that is merely unable to act on its own initiative would be willing to cooperate, of course.

But this is merely an extension of the doctrine of striking at terrorists and those who harbor them. In most cases, it is not a strike at the host government, but where that is necessary, I don't have a problem with it.

The nature of warfare has changed in the past 100 years. In the past, aggression would manifest itself as an invasion across an international boundary or on the high seas. Today, weapons of mass destruction can be launched from within a country against another without an invasion, or infiltrators can instigate attacks in a neighboring country using the element of surprise. We call those infiltrators "terrorists."

It is unreasonable for a country to have to absorb a blow before acting against a particular threat, especially when those responsible can simply disappear into a civilian population after an attack. The only means to protect against such attacks is to destroy the people who are planning them wherever they may be.

[Jhoffa_]

May they begin with Barbra Streisand..

[Sparta]

Good luck, mates.