babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Australian PM and Pre-Emptive Attacks

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Australian PM and Pre-Emptive Attacks
Adam Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3034

posted 01 December 2002 02:11 PM      Profile for Adam Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Australian PM ready to act against terror.

quote:
Associated Press — Prime Minister John Howard said Sunday he was prepared to act against terrorists in neighboring Asian countries and the UN charter should be changed to allow nations to strike pre-emptively against terrorists planning to attack them.

From: Manitoba | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 December 2002 02:44 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This makes me laugh. I can't help myself!
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 02 December 2002 07:09 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is really so not funny.
How many Hitleresque comments from democratically elected leaders will it take to start WWIII?

I wonder if John Howard stopped to consider that this might be exactly what the people who planted the Bali bomb were hoping for.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 02 December 2002 02:03 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If he admits that the UN Charter should be changed, then he admits that such a posture is presently unlawful. George Bush, take note!

Second, when Bush came out with his own "pre-emptive attack" doctrine this summer, critics said that it would lead to MOST nations asserting their right, not just to self defence, but to pre-emptive attack.

So, now we have an example of that phenomenon. But of course, if I fear that you may pre-emptively attack me, then maybe I should pre-emptively attack you to prevent that from happening. So, we have a recipe for continual war.

There is a very fine analysis of this, and a critique of the Bush Doctrine, in this month's
Harper's Magazine, called "The Course of Empire" by David Hendricks. It seems not to be online, but usually when I write this, someone miraculously finds it and provides a link! IF they cannot, do buy the magazine as the article alone is worth the price of the mag.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 03 December 2002 04:46 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pre-emptive strikes should be considered act of war: Malaysian PM
quote:
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia — Prime
Minister Mahathir Mohamad said a
pre-emptive strike by Australia
against terrorists in Malaysia would
be viewed as an act of war, while
Australia tried to reassure its Asian
neighbours on Tuesday.

The Malaysian leader was
responding to a statement Sunday by
Prime Minister John Howard that
Australia could launch pre-emptive
strikes against suspected terrorists if
they were plotting attacks against his
country or countrymen.



quote:
But Mr. Howard's comments have angered Indonesia, the Philippines and
Thailand, stoking fears that Australia acts as a deputy sheriff for an
increasingly unilateralist United States in the region.

quote:
Australia and Malaysia remain military allies under a five-power arrangement
with the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Singapore. But verbal rows
between the two countries are part of the regional landscape.

Mr. Mahathir recently urged Australia to choose between closer ties with
Asia or its traditional alliance with the United States. An Australian opposition
leader responded that Mr. Mahathir should take "a running jump."


[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adam Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3034

posted 03 December 2002 05:44 AM      Profile for Adam Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Funny Pre-Emptive Attacks Cartoon

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Adam Smith ]


From: Manitoba | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 December 2002 08:59 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pre-emptive attack is the latest in international innovation from the draft dodgers cum war mongers managing government to our south. It is nice to see the Australians throwing their hat in with the the Yanks. But it got me to thinking, what if pre-emptive strikes had existed in history long before now? How would the world be different. What id at the first sign that fellow from Bethlehem was a trouble maker, the Romans pre-empted Jesus? What if the British pre-empted George Washington? What if the South Africans just assasinated Mandella rather than jailing him? There are so many what-ifs. Makes you think though, doesn't it?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 03 December 2002 11:27 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is a very fine analysis of this, and a critique of the Bush Doctrine, in this month's
Harper's Magazine, called "The Course of Empire" by David Hendricks.

Hendricks makes the point that Bush et al are talking not about a pre-emptive attack, but a preventive one.

If you have good reason to believe that the other side is going to attack you any day now -- they're massing troops on your border, for example -- and you strike first, that's a pre-emptive attack. If you simply figure "well, they're likely to do it sooner or later, so we might as well get the drop on them," and you go to war absent any indication that they're about to do the same, that's a preventive attack.

The second, of course, was a favourite tactic of insecure revolutionary states and dictatorships throughout the 20th century. And for a long time before, come to that.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 December 2002 12:27 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The reason John Howard makes me laugh is because he's being a buffoon.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 December 2002 12:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That cartoon was a scream!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adam Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3034

posted 03 December 2002 07:52 PM      Profile for Adam Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
actually if you study roman history you will not that they possibly were the ones who invented the pre-emptive strike, they would constantly attack others before others could attack them.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 03 December 2002 08:09 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, yes. Except that, being an empire, they also attacked people who -- being rational -- had no thought in ten thousand hells of attacking them first, or at all. That's how empires expand. Do you mean pre-emptive or preventive?

And there were, of course, empires before the Roman.

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 December 2002 10:00 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to the government of Australia website, the Australian government is trying to negotiate a free trade deal with Singapore.

Wouldn't Mr. John Howard have the common sense to realize who he might be offending before he shot his mouth off?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 04 December 2002 12:53 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He never has before... John Howard is like a clam, exactly the same size as his mouth.

Richard Gwyn's take

Jakarta Post editorial

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: swallow ]


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca