[LINK] OT: Howards anti-terrorist mailout
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:21:02 +1100
> On 10 Feb, Chris Maltby wrote:
>> Actually, I'd prefer it if they chose a foreign policy which
>> reduced the risk of Australia becoming/remaining a target.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 02:03:00PM +1100, James Pearce wrote:
> I disagree with this sentiment. If something is right, we should do
> it, whether it increases our chances of becoming a target or not. The
> attitude that we shouldn't do something because it may result in some
> attempted attack on Australia is 'bugger you, I'm allright thanks Jack"
> on a national level. That's not really a country I want to be a part of.
You disgree with what you thought I said, I think. The sort of foreign
policy which would best reduce our liklihood of being targetted is one
of engagement rather than confrontation and multilateral participation
when needed as part of the UN, not one of isolation. In other words,
being a good international citizen, not a lackey for the US.
> We should not support unilateral action against Iraq by America and
> allies because-despite the fact that Saddam should not be running a
> country-America has never overthrown a government and replaced it with
> a better one. They have always been worse. I'm hoping Afghanistan will
> be different, but it's too early to tell.
It is still a little early, but it doesn't look all that good at this