[LINK] OT: Howards anti-terrorist mailout
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:36:50 +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
> >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
> >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
That's rubbish. "If we hide maybe they won't see us?" If China started
invading South East Asia (which I don't think is going to happen, BTW) and
Australia decided not to join in any fight to stop it because China might
then attack us, I'd feel we deserved to get overrun when China eventually
made its way down here.
> 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
> from the view of those we don't agree with? It's not really a hard jump
> 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
> state warfare.
All of the countries you mentioned above aren't "jumping in" because they
don't agree with unilateral action against Iraq-not because of some vague
fear of becoming a target. There are many good reasons for not supporting
the US war on Iraq, but cowardice isn't one of them.