# Congressman Calls Oz A Threat



## tomahawk6 (28 Oct 2006)

Congressman Ford in his Senate campaign has called Australia a potential threat to the US. Just another example of why our democrats dont have a clue. Ford's campaign is in deep trouble.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20656046-2,00.html


----------



## Mike Baker (28 Oct 2006)

Wow, this is crazy, Australia a potential threat to the U.S.? Stupid comments on his part.


----------



## Sheerin (28 Oct 2006)

How exactly is this one idiot representative of an entire political party consisting of millions?

I'm sure republicans have made stupid remarks similiar to this.  



> "You work three jobs?  … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."  —President George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005



http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-uniquelyamerican.htm


----------



## paracowboy (28 Oct 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> How exactly is this one idiot representative of an entire political party consisting of millions?


they voted to put him in a position of authority?


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Oct 2006)

To the democrats there is no war on terror.Terrorists need to be arrested, charged and sentenced to prison terms. Thats what they want for the gitmo detainee's. It was a democrat Congress that defunded the war in Vietnam. If they get control they will do it again. The democrats have more in common with Europe's socialists/communists than with our own country. If you see utterances by terrorist leaders they echo democratic party talking points. Even CNN runs terrorist video's showing snipers killing US troops but wont show the Twin Towers. I am fed up with their undermining of the war effort.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2006)

So T6, how long do they want to send them away for?

Long enough for rehabilitation - or would that be re-education?
Long enough to punish them and convince them they really shouldn't do that - when they get internet, Koran, chapel, physical training facilities and three squares?
Categorize them as habitual offenders and put them away for life?
Or sentence them to death and give them a martyr's send off?


It really doesn't matter.

I am afraid that this "200 year war" as Robert Fulford in today's National Post reports is the view of the Jihadists as determined by on Mary Habeck of Johns Hopkins, will require at least one stint of the Democrats and the Liberals back in power before our Countries get it.


----------



## Sheerin (28 Oct 2006)

As for your point on Vietnam, wasn't it also a democrat that escalated your involvement (hell and even got you started there?)

Actually for your comment on European socialists, I would suggest that its only the fringe elements of the democratic party that do that.  While at the same time one could argue that the extreme-right of the republican party is fascist.  
From my vantage point outside of the US those who occupy the centre with both parties (which is most likely the majority of both parties) have a lot in common.  Similar ideas and similar attitudes.  

And getting back to Vietnam, didn't the majority of the population want to be removed from that conflict?  So really wasn't the Congress at the time doing what the public wanted it to do?  And isn't the government's ultimate responsbility is to the people who gave them power in the first place?


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Oct 2006)

How long were POW's held in WW2 ? How long were they held in the Vietnam War ? Til the war ends is the obvious answer. Those that have been released went back to the jihad and were killed in action. The Brits want their citizens released but they wont accept them for repatriation. They want them released just not to Britain. That says alot to me.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Oct 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> As for your point on Vietnam, wasn't it also a democrat that escalated your involvement (hell and even got you started there?)
> 
> Actually for your comment on European socialists, I would suggest that its only the fringe elements of the democratic party that do that.  While at the same time one could argue that the extreme-right of the republican party is fascist.
> From my vantage point outside of the US those who occupy the centre with both parties (which is most likely the majority of both parties) have a lot in common.  Similar ideas and similar attitudes.
> ...



I dont see massive protests in the streets like during the 70's. One must conclude that most americans support the war effort, despite media attempts to portray a different story.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How long were POW's held in WW2 ? How long were they held in the Vietnam War ? Til the war ends is the obvious answer. Those that have been released went back to the jihad and were killed in action. The Brits want their citizens released but they wont accept them for repatriation. They want them released just not to Britain. That says alot to me.



That's the point isn't it?  A "Prisoner" of War is not the same as a civilian "Prisoner".  One is in "Prison" for acting against the wishes of his/her government.  The other is in "Prison" for acting in accordance with the wishes of his/her government.

One is detained for punishment and/or rehabilitation.  The other is detained strictly to take them off the battlefield and deny them as assets to their government.  In the latter case if we treat their detainees well then we expect that our detainees will likewise be treated well.

The ultimate problem here is the lack of a recognizable "government" with a "command structure" that can both negotiate and also control the actions of its troops.  In the meantime, those that put themselves forward as troops of this undefined and unidentified government should expect to be detained for the duration......and if they expect the duration to be 200 years........perhaps they best make themselves comfortable.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Oct 2006)

We are showing restraint fighting a war against stateless enemies. How did the Germans deal with partisans ?
How did US forces do with captured werewolves in theoccupation of Germany ? Firing squads come to mind.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2006)

> Fow did the Germans deal with partisans ?



Perhaps not your best choice of example?


----------



## Sheerin (28 Oct 2006)

> I dont see massive protests in the streets like during the 70's. One must conclude that most americans support the war effort, despite media attempts to portray a different story.



I was talking about Vietnam not the current conflict in Iraq (which i recgonize that the US cannot just simply pull out).


----------



## geo (28 Oct 2006)

Hmmm.....
Canada is a threat to the US
and now
Australia is a threat to the US

I feel a lot better now ?!?!?!?


----------



## derael (29 Oct 2006)

Next up? Switzerland  :


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2006)

Those guys with the swiss cheese defence
holes all over - of course they're a threat.....


----------



## Red 6 (29 Oct 2006)

If Australia is a threat to US security, I'll take about 10 more, please.

Like my dad used to say about politicians, "Morons. They're all morons."


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2006)

Amen brother, AMEN!

From Robin Williams in Man of the year....
Politicians are like diapers....
Full of it AND
Needing to be changed for same said reason


----------



## Troop Suporter (29 Oct 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> To the democrats there is no war on terror.Terrorists need to be arrested, charged and sentenced to prison terms. Thats what they want for the gitmo detainee's. It was a democrat Congress that defunded the war in Vietnam. If they get control they will do it again. The democrats have more in common with Europe's socialists/communists than with our own country. If you see utterances by terrorist leaders they echo democratic party talking points. Even CNN runs terrorist video's showing snipers killing US troops but wont show the Twin Towers. I am fed up with their undermining of the war effort.



Did you see Lynn Cheney rip a strip off Wolf Blitzer the other night?

She gave it to him with both guns for showing terrorist propaganda on CNN, and asked him if he really wanted our side to win.

It was priceless!

Go Lynn!  ;D


----------



## rregtc-etf (30 Oct 2006)

Currently, Australia is probably the most supportive ally the US has next to the UK.  The support for Iraq from the UK could dry up quickly if there is a gov't change and  Brits pull out, as military planning progresses.  

As far as Australia is concerned, PM John Howard seems to be pushing Australia's military commitments in East Timor and the Solomon Islands.  I wonder if it is a way of 
pre-deployment allowing him to say, "Bugger, we're rather tied up with some hard yakka at the moment, s'truth."  The Aussies do have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but not in great numbers in comparison .

As far as Australia's nuclear ambitions.  It does not have any nuclear power plants, relying on coal fired electricity.  The big concern right now is global warming and climate change, which equals drought and agricultural failure in Aus.  The government is starting to talk positively about nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions,,so it seems that Australia has a desire to take on nuclear technology for civil use.   My question is this, what will happen in world politics when Australia and Iran both state, "as sovereign countries, we want nuclear power!"

On another front, Australia has a low 30 million population,  the fastest growing segment in Australia is the Muslim immigrant community.  So in 20 or 30 years it would not be unrealistic for Australia to be a democratic, nuclear powered,  English speaking, Muslim dominated country.  I wonder if the Americans calculate or plan 20 or 30 years ahead when it comes to national security?


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2006)

rregtc-etf said:
			
		

> Currently, Australia is probably the most supportive ally the US has next to the UK.  The support for Iraq from the UK could dry up quickly if there is a gov't change and  Brits pull out, as military planning progresses.
> 
> As far as Australia is concerned, PM John Howard seems to be pushing Australia's military commitments in East Timor and the Solomon Islands.  I wonder if it is a way of
> pre-deployment allowing him to say, "Bugger, we're rather tied up with some hard yakka at the moment, s'truth."  The Aussies do have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but not in great numbers in comparison .
> ...



Well I would tend to group Australian desire to have nuclear energy & Canada's on par.  Both being Nuclear powers - yeah sort of?

In international eyes (excluding muslim states) most all countries will have the same warm & fuzzy feeling they have about Canada being a nuclear power.... 

The majority of countries will not have the same feeling with respect to Iran... which will kick up a row in the muslim states.... again!


----------

