[LINK] OT: Howards anti-terrorist mailout
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:07:58 +1100
At 02:03 PM 10/02/03 +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.
Right doesn't justify risk of our country on the world stage. We are
small. We are weak. We couldn't even provide the ceramic inserts to the
flak jackets for the FA18 pilots for god's sake! If this was a playground
stoush, you could make the comparison to the 'small man syndrome' in
operation. Why in the world would Australia get involved when the result
could be years of fear and attacks by an enemy that we didn't need to have?
You don't see NZ jumping in. You don't see Switzerland or Denmark or
Thailand jumping in. Why should we? Is the Anglo history of UK, US,
Australia so violent and military that we have to become the 'axis of evil'
from the view of those we don't agree with? It's not really a hard jump to
make. This is all getting very ugly. Geopolitics will never be the same
after this. And for what reason? It sure isn't anti-terrorism, a
stateless real threat in a world of super and mini-powers prepared for
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
email@example.com -- http://member.melbpc.org.au/~jwhit/whitentr.htm