Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, if that's true, then it's a good thing you didn't have any relatives working in a certain New York building on a certain day in 2001.
Once something like that happens in your country, the matter becomes a lot more complicated.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, if that's true, then it's a good thing you didn't have any relatives working in a certain New York building on a certain day in 2001.
Once something like that happens in your country, the matter becomes a lot more complicated.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, now that gives you right to do whatever you like. You are always the GOOD guys, sure.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

Whoa there limey, he kind of implied that he lost family there. And he didn't say it was right, just that it's more complicated than it may have been presented.

At least throw something in there so a reader can tell just how sarcastic or light your text might be. There's little tone or signal, after all.

[edit: the actions of our government tend to occasionally frighten us too, in fact I'll bet Plisken there has a few complaints himself, but it's ... complicated]

[ July 09, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

[quote]Originally posted by oleg:

Quote:

So, now that gives you right to do whatever you like. You are always the GOOD guys, sure.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The power is enough to grant the rights. I think this principle is old like the world...

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's not what I said. Here is the post I was responding to:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He is saying that he is frightened by the actions that are being taken by the US government in, and he didn't specify this but it was implied by the discussion as I was understanding it, "the War on Terrorism".

He has every right to feel that way, especially in a country that may or may not have been touched by terrorism, as of yet. Once again, he didn't say what country he was from, so I'm just guessing here.

In my response, I was attempting to express my personal opinion about said actions, and how I feel now as opposed to before 9/11. Before the attacks, I would have had a major problem with the way this "war" is being conducted. I'm not a fan of governments strong arming one another to get their way, rattling a sabre at those who disagree with our policies. I am also a supporter of basic human rights, and humane treatment of prisoners, no matter what the crime.

But when I saw all of those people die in those towers, it sort of changed my outlook on things. Now I sort of turn a blind eye to some of the things that I would have been indignant about before. It's a strange thing how life can change you. I'm not happy about it, or proud, but when I consider the alternative, my resolve hardens.

Do I think we are the "good guys"? Absolutely not. Do I have compassion for innocents who are killed in this conflict? Of course. But I have a hard time believing that terrorism isn't a threat to my safety and the safety of my family, and so I will stand by while my government, and other governments around the world, prosecute this ugly, disgusting war the best way that they know how. If it's a choice between my family or someone else, there is no choice. Maybe that makes me a bad person...I don't know. But I would kill to protect my family, and by the same token I will support anyone who works to protect my family.

If someone were to present a better solution, where no one would be killed, or no one would be cajoled, threatened or put upon to do things that they don't want to do, then I would take that route in a heart beat. In the meantime, I'll stand aside and let someone else keep me safe at night. What else can I do?

[ July 09, 2003, 19:56: Message edited by: sachmo ]

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

i put the commoness of sex as one of the major causes of relationship breakups, divorces and general unsatisfication with marraige. as well as unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted deseases and people who will do anything to get into someone's pants. all of which is reduced or eliminated if there's no sex outside marriage. oh, yeah, there's no good reason not to get marriad relitivily young. but statistics say aviod the spring, get married in the fall. people are more sensible then.

it's a simple principle. if you take something special and make it common, then it's no longer special.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's a simple principle that may or may not apply to sex.

The fact is that there were plenty of divorces, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and unscrupulous rakes back in more austere periods of history. It simply wasn't talked about back then. I know this for a fact because it happened quite a bit in my families history and, thinking this must be some terribly uncommon trend, I eventually looked deeper into the issue.

The problems were just covered up better back then. A good percentage of Charm Schools and Boarding Schools were actually Schools for Wayward Girls (institutions for hiding pregnancy). Lack of birth control just meant that most 'loose women' were professionals, and the natural increase in prostitution adds to organized crime, it does not add to general virtue.

There will be sex, always. If you make marriage such a binding thing you will only make sex out of marriage more common, as a couple will get married to have sex ("because they love each other") then look elsewhere for satisfaction when their juvenile relationship skills make them miserable in each other's company.

You cannot eliminate sex outside of marriage. It has never been done (though I have heard the native people of Tasmania were free of adultery, I do not know this to be a fact, and look what happened to them).

Before we talk this particular discussion any further (in a separate thread) I'd have to do the ageist thing and ask both how old you are and how many years you spent as a parent-freed adult before you got in a cohabitated relationship.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

Yes, I was a bit sarcastic. I did cry watching the horror of sept.11. I will give anything to bring the responsible to justice. But I'm petrified by actions of US goverment. Saddam was a brutal and despicable dictater. BUT he had nothing to do with Al-Queda. Nor were the misguided British muslims who came to Afganistan to defend their religion. Now they face the court-martial without any hope of fair trail.
You want justice ? Bring up Osama before the court. Where is he ? Why did we invade Irag instead ??

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

What happened in Tasmania? And I assume you don't mean Tasmania, Australia?

I am afraid to say, but I think the bombings in Bali effected the Australian people more than the 9/11 event. The reason being, the 9/11 event was reported via TV and seemed remote, while the Bali bombings happened at a time when many Australian's where there, including many of our Star Footballers (Australian Rules Football).
I think this was a reason for our solid support of the US in Iraq. both terrorist events forming a bonding between our 2 nations.
It could also explain why the Australian Government wants to send troops to the Solomons, to ensure peace in our reason.

Australia doesn't have an official short name, other than AUST, so we just say OZ.
Tbontob was completely correct - OZ = Aus
I'm sure that their is a reference to the Wizard of OZ too? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I was watching a UK quiz show Last night and 8 out of 10 people, didn't know who the Priminister of Australia was... I'm interested, in how many of you guys (and the few ladies) know???

Deccan might have to answer about the situations in the Solomon Islands.
What I have 'heard' is Harold Keke, a local 'Warlord' and his supports have reportedly killed 50-200 people, destroyed villages, kidnapped people, and made between 1000-2000 people homeless. The remoteness of where is seems to be operating from leaves a lot of room for mis-information and/or exaggeration, and makes it hard to confirm details.

Perhaps Deccan can say what the local information is on the topic...

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

When a Nation, any nation, is unable to control the actions of the people that live there to the
point that it adversely affects their neighbors, then they should expect said neighbors to
intervene.

From the research that I have done, it would appear that the situation in the Solomon’s is such
that the government can not regain control with out the help of outsiders. The government is
also over the Last decade, been unwilling to make needed reforms. When a government looses
both the support of the majority of the people and the ability to control them, then the
government has lost its mandate to rule. This is a prime example of why foreign intervention
happens.

If the people support Keke, then they should rise up and seize their birthright and replace the
government. If they don’t support Keke, then they should seek him and his out and destroy this
threat to their homeland. If they allow the AU’s in under these terms, they will soon be second
class people in their own country.

Personally, I think the truth lies in the deep sea geology of the region. The people of the
Solomon’s should be bombarding the UN with requests for military aid that originates from
countries more neutral to the long term outcome. If these people don’t take a proactive stance
and force this issue to the front page of western news outlets, they will not get the help that they
deserve.