Thread: Iraq.

Invading isn't 'helping'. Numerous outside powers have invaded these countries in the past, way back beyond Ghengis in the 12th century and back to Biblical times. More recently the British, Russians and the US-led coalition. None of them did it to help the locals, it was all about geo-political control and exploitation of resources to benefit the invaders. Nothing new there - that's human history all over the world.
My opinion is the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan just repeated the mistakes of the past. Sadly, I think our Aussies who died or were injured were sent into futile wars without lasting benefits. Bush's whole idea of a grand crusade to turn the Middle East into democratic regimes similar to ours was never going to succeed because it went against thousands of years of local history, which couldn't be reversed overnight. Look how many centuries it took the English to become democratic.
There's a reason there are now some 50 million refugees in the world, you know. Its not just local dictators screwing their people, there's a bigger picture of outsiders, including the Iranians, Saudis and Syrians, trying to conquer their neighbours. Saddam did it to the Iranians.
I think our national interests are best served by staying out of it all and doing what we can to help the victims. Taking sides has helped to generate a generation of young Arab Australians who think it is their patriotic duty to go over there and fight for causes such as the liberation of Syria, just as young Aussies once thought it was their duty to go over and fight to defend England from Hitler. Our interfering foreign policy has helped to cause some idealistic young people to put other causes above their duty as Aussies. We are reaping the fruits of what we have sowed.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Invading isn't 'helping'. Numerous outside powers have invaded these countries in the past, way back beyond Ghengis in the 12th century and back to Biblical times. More recently the British, Russians and the US-led coalition. None of them did it to help the locals, it was all about geo-political control and exploitation of resources to benefit the invaders. Nothing new there - that's human history all over the world.
My opinion is the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan just repeated the mistakes of the past. Sadly, I think our Aussies who died or were injured were sent into futile wars without lasting benefits. Bush's whole idea of a grand crusade to turn the Middle East into democratic regimes similar to ours was never going to succeed because it went against thousands of years of local history, which couldn't be reversed overnight. Look how many centuries it took the English to become democratic.
There's a reason there are now some 50 million refugees in the world, you know. Its not just local dictators screwing their people, there's a bigger picture of outsiders, including the Iranians, Saudis and Syrians, trying to conquer their neighbours. Saddam did it to the Iranians.
I think our national interests are best served by staying out of it all and doing what we can to help the victims. Taking sides has helped to generate a generation of young Arab Australians who think it is their patriotic duty to go over there and fight for causes such as the liberation of Syria, just as young Aussies once thought it was their duty to go over and fight to defend England from Hitler. Our interfering foreign policy has helped to cause some idealistic young people to put other causes above their duty as Aussies. We are reaping the fruits of what we have sowed.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

I agree up to the point of people going overseas to fight, when in the past they went to support there own country not another. Which is what these people appear to be doing.

Originally Posted by 2stroke

I was under the impression that the ISIS were a Sunni group and the Iraqi govt. were Shiite?
I agree we should let it play out, pity the poor ordinary folk dodging the bullets and bombs though.

Oops, you're correct, my bad. Got them the wrong way around. Its a very complex situation. My points remain though. And yes, it's terrible for the poor ordinary people caught in the middle, which is why we should be more sympathetic when they seek sanctuary here.

This is a good attempt to explain the complicated situation, I think.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...unni-tom-rogan

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Oops, you're correct, my bad. Got them the wrong way around. Its a very complex situation. My points remain though. And yes, it's terrible for the poor ordinary people caught in the middle, which is why we should be more sympathetic when they seek sanctuary here.

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

Who are they when we greet them they need to let go. do we take one or the other . they will never live in peace even when they come to this country. They should belong and believe in this place? it is there new home They choose to leave. We did not ask them to come. If I leave a place it is always to improve myself if I move to change things back home it is not a good outcome for the new country I am in.

People with dual citizenship naturally still have strong feelings about their country of origin. For example, there are plenty of people from England who are now Australians, but if England was attacked again, I wouldn't condemn them for wanting to fly back over and defend England. Same goes for people from other countries, I think. You can't abolish peoples' pasts.
Of course, it would be different for their children as the second generation naturally would put being Australian first.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

People with dual citizenship naturally still have strong feelings about their country of origin. For example, there are plenty of people from England who are now Australians, but if England was attacked again, I wouldn't condemn them for wanting to fly back over and defend England. Same goes for people from other countries, I think. You can't abolish peoples' pasts.
Of course, it would be different for their children as the second generation naturally would put being Australian first.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

From what I have read both here and in England that is not the case. I wish it was as I have experienced in the past. No body started a business in the past without having English that is what we speak here is it not. But no we only tailor our business to our people's needs that is not Mingling or joining the community that you have moved to.

I am confused, how people can criticize those that go back to their mother country to defend a cause when countries send soldiers to fight and died in foreign soils for international political reasons.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

People with dual citizenship naturally still have strong feelings about their country of origin. For example, there are plenty of people from England who are now Australians, but if England was attacked again, I wouldn't condemn them for wanting to fly back over and defend England. Same goes for people from other countries, I think. You can't abolish peoples' pasts.
Of course, it would be different for their children as the second generation naturally would put being Australian first.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

I don't understand your reasoning.
If England was attacked by whom??? Themselves????
This is what these "Group Mentality" people are doing!
Steve