Aussies favor preemptive strikes against terrorists.

[Hubris Boy]

I'm not normally a fan of MLP... that sort of thing is best left to those who can't come up with any original ideas of their own. But I saw this on Fark and Drudge, and was so amused that I thought I'd pass it along:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ia_terrorism_2

For those who can't be bothered to actually read the article before jumping in to discuss it, here's the most important quote:

He [Australian PM John Howard] said in an Australian television interview that he favors changes in the U.N. charter and international law to allow deployment of troops overseas for pre-emptive strikes against terrorists planning to attack his country.

Looks like the Aussies are starting to believe that letting thugs with bombs blow up their citizens is a Bad Thing^®.

To save everyone time, I've encapsulated below the discussion that this post will probably generate.

Blah blah blah blah arrogant blah blah irresponsible blah blah immoral. Blah blah social inequities blah blah United Nations. Blah blah blah cultural prejudice blah blah willful ignorance blah blah valid cultural aspirations. Blah blah blah moral high ground blah blah blah total understanding blah blah credible means. Blah blah blah militant extremists blah blah red herring.

Blah blah social oppression blah blah blah western hegemony blah blah coercive. Blah blah pejorative blah blah blah bias. Blah blah blah unfair blah blah kill them all and let God sort them out blah blah blah fascist blah blah blah blah ad hominem attacks blah blah blah Hitler blah blah blah mouthbreather.

[Cam]

Please for the love of god stop the madness.

[tw]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
For those who can't be bothered to actually read the article before jumping in to discuss it, here's the most important quote:

Looks like the Aussies are starting to believe that letting thugs with bombs blow up their citizens is a Bad Thing.

What the article really says is that the Assies and Phillipinos have agreed to rule changes that permit their anti-terrorism forces to cooperate. Changes made apparent and necessary by a small political problem created when Australia and Canada closed embassies in Manila. How that political problem resulted in discovery for rule changes is not mentioned. It appears that existing laws made some essential security cooperation impossible. The article cites changes so trivial that I can't believe anyone would even this article.

[jaguar]

Only thing i have to say is this is not a new policy, not a reactionary policy to the Bali Bombings, merely an expansion of existing policy.

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by tw

<snip>...I can't believe anyone would even this article.

Hey... you left out the verb. You can't believe anyone would even what this article? Read? Believe? Inhale? Disembowel? Circumnavigate?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw

What the article really says is that the Assies and Phillipinos have agreed to rule changes that permit their anti-terrorism forces to cooperate. Changes made apparent and necessary by a small political problem created when Australia and Canada closed embassies in Manila.

Hmmm...I didn't quite get that. The above statement sounds like opinion and commentary...or was that the intention?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Only thing i have to say is this is not a new policy, not a reactionary policy to the Bali Bombings, merely an expansion of existing policy.

A Rumsfeld-quality comment. Almost. :-)

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
Hmmm...I didn't quite get that. The above statement sounds like opinion and commentary...or was that the intention?

from the original article
The accord stipulates enforcement in accordance with each country's laws and international legal obligations. The Philippines forbids foreign troops from being based here without a treaty and from involvement in local combat.

Apparently there are legal complications that make it difficult for these two nations to cooperate in operatons and investigations of terrorism. One could say this is a knee jerk response to Bali. But it appears to be a bureacratic discovery and resulting corrective action maybe inspired by Bali. That corrective political agreement makes investigations and anti-terrorist operations easier for those in the field - eliminates red tape created by indecision or misinterpretation of existing laws and treaties. The bottom line is that these are trivial diplomatic agreements - and is definitely not some major policy change.

Yes, the PM did advocate more UN action and pre-emptive strikes. But then politicians also promised a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. When he has some actions, then that part also becomes newsworthy. However already we have posted too many characters for what the article really deserves.