Australia & New Zealand invade Soloman Islands

[etech]

BBC

The two countries have invaded the Soloman islands to remove illegal weapons from the people there. Has anyone seen those weapons? I think it is just a ploy on the part of those two countries to illeagally take over the islands. Just how much oil is in those islands. Did the UN approve this mission. Why isn't France, Russia and Germany helping them in their illeagal unjust war?

Will the president's of Austrlia and New Zealand go to hell? Obviously they deserve to for these crimes against humanity.

Why are the Australian's withholding medical resources from those poor innocent people? It's obviously a new world order conspriacy.


bonus question.

Why does the BBC need to get a new fact checker? One sentence in the article. Post it and you win nothing. This offer is void in France and Germany. Thank you for playing.

 

[Corn]

The ghosts of the conflict remain - the shipwrecks, the submerged fighter jets and bullet casings.

Fighter jets in th WW2 pacific theater? Doubt it.

 

[flavio]

Genesis 3:1-7 (NIV) Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
(Give 5 points per right answer)

1. Melville's Moby Dick begins, "Call me Ishmael." We say it is told in the first person. In what person is Genesis told? From who's viewpoint?

2. Who is the "good guy" in this story? Who is the "bad guy"? Can you make a strong case for the reversal of roles?

3. Traditionally, the apple is considered to be the fruit the serpent offered to Eve. But apples are not endemic to the near east. Select one of the following, more logical substitutes, and discuss how myths come into being and are corrupted over time: olive, fig, date, pomegranate.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Corn

The ghosts of the conflict remain - the shipwrecks, the submerged fighter jets and bullet casings.

Fighter jets in th WW2 pacific theater? Doubt it.

Correct of course. Obvious to anyone that knows anything about history. It seems that the BBC is sliping in its reporting.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thanks flavio, now I'm going to be up all night. The speaker talks about God and the serpent and the first two people as if he preceded men and was at least contemporaneous with both. Could it be the Devil. But what kind of witness or author for the Bible is that?

 

[Moonbeam]

Jet aircraft of WW2

 

[LunarRay]

Flavio,

1. Melville's Moby Dick begins, "Call me Ishmael." We say it is told in the first person. In what person is Genesis told? From who's viewpoint?

2. Who is the "good guy" in this story? Who is the "bad guy"? Can you make a strong case for the reversal of roles?

3. Traditionally, the apple is considered to be the fruit the serpent offered to Eve. But apples are not endemic to the near east. Select one of the following, more logical substitutes, and discuss how myths come into being and are corrupted over time: olive, fig, date, pomegranate.[/quote]

Tell me who the Sons of Man are versus Sons of God... As described in Genesis... who lay with whom and why.. and is the fruit the result of this "laying" and the tempting the snake... and the flood the ridding... and have the sons of God reemerged?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: etech
BBC

The two countries have invaded the Soloman islands to remove illegal weapons from the people there. Has anyone seen those weapons? I think it is just a ploy on the part of those two countries to illeagally take over the islands. Just how much oil is in those islands. Did the UN approve this mission. Why isn't France, Russia and Germany helping them in their illeagal unjust war?

Will the president's of Austrlia and New Zealand go to hell? Obviously they deserve to for these crimes against humanity.

Why are the Australian's withholding medical resources from those poor innocent people? It's obviously a new world order conspriacy.


bonus question.

Why does the BBC need to get a new fact checker? One sentence in the article. Post it and you win nothing. This offer is void in France and Germany. Thank you for playing.

They've now changed "jets" to "aircraft". It's a genuine mistake.

The troops are "peace keeping" - they were invited to do this by the goverment:

The Australian-led mission has been sent to the islands at the behest of the Solomons Government, to help restore law and order.

More information on the mission can be found here

IMHO I think it's a stretch to compare the invasion and temporary administration of Iraq with peace-keeping in the Solomon islands. I know you've got an agenda to push - but I don't see how you can compare this situation like for like with Iraq.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: etech
BBC

The two countries have invaded the Soloman islands to remove illegal weapons from the people there. Has anyone seen those weapons? I think it is just a ploy on the part of those two countries to illeagally take over the islands. Just how much oil is in those islands. Did the UN approve this mission. Why isn't France, Russia and Germany helping them in their illeagal unjust war?

Will the president's of Austrlia and New Zealand go to hell? Obviously they deserve to for these crimes against humanity.

Why are the Australian's withholding medical resources from those poor innocent people? It's obviously a new world order conspriacy.


bonus question.

Why does the BBC need to get a new fact checker? One sentence in the article. Post it and you win nothing. This offer is void in France and Germany. Thank you for playing.

Like Fender already said, the troops are there on invitation of the govt.
So tell me etech, when the US decides to send troops to Liberia because the Liberian govt. invites them to restore order are you going to start a thread to b*tch about the Bush administration. After all they are sending troops to conquer a poor african country???

Thx for playing

btw: this thread reminds me of this thread

in a pathetic attempt to bash the French about the UN approved mission in Congo, the resident neo-cons didn't even know the difference between 2 countries.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jet aircraft of WW2

Wow moonie, jets were developed in WWII. Now should I explain why none of them were in the Soloman islands or do you wish to remain ignorant of WWII history?


"Like Fender already said, the troops are there on invitation of the govt."

Was there peace in Iraq and would Saddam's government have invited peace keepers in to his little dictatorship?

 

[Fencer128]

This thread has moved away from the tenous link it was promoting between Iraq and the Solomon Islands - to an all out defense of all of the points so far raised.

The jet thing was a mistake, now corrected. Let's not all "have a cow" over it.

Before we change the issue to:

Was there peace in Iraq and would Saddam's government have invited peace keepers in to his little dictatorship?

Let us first address the initial post. I would like to see how these points can be defended:

The two countries have invaded the Soloman islands to remove illegal weapons from the people there.

I thought they invaded, at the governments behest, to "restore law and order". It wasn't a pre-emptive defensive act by the Australian and NZ governments. IMHO that would have to be the case to make a valid comparison with Iraq.

Has anyone seen those weapons?

You mean like WMD? But they're most likely talking about handguns, rifles and the like. Not NBC - not like the issue with Iraq that promotes such questions.

I think it is just a ploy on the part of those two countries to illeagally take over the islands.

I'll eat my hat if that happens. I'm guessing they don't particularly relish the chance to be shot at aka Iraq style either right now.

Just how much oil is in those islands.

*sarcasm*

Did the UN approve this mission.

Is that necessary when the legitimate goverment of the country requests such intervention? Again, this is not an Aus/NZ pre-emptive war - it's a government sponsored peace-keeping mission.

Why isn't France, Russia and Germany helping them in their illeagal unjust war?

*sarcasm*

Will the president's of Austrlia and New Zealand go to hell? Obviously they deserve to for these crimes against humanity.

What, intervening on behalf of the government to restore law and order?

Why are the Australian's withholding medical resources from those poor innocent people? It's obviously a new world order conspriacy.

*sarcasm*

I can see where you're trying to go with this, but this isn't the comparison you need to make your point.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[etech]

I thought they invaded, at the governments behest, to "restore law and order". It wasn't a pre-emptive defensive act by the Australian and NZ governments. IMHO that would have to be the case to make a valid comparison with Iraq.

Quote from the article.

Illegal weapons are the focus of the early days of intervention.

The trafficking of firearms between islands within the Solomons archipelago, and further north into Papua New Guinea's secessionist province of Bougainville, is a major worry for the peacekeepers.

Their main task is to disarm the ethnic militias who have controlled and abused this troubled country for years.

You are correct, the ignoranance of the BBC reporter and some here that thought that fighter jets fought in the Soloman islands is at best just a small point.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jet aircraft of WW2

Wow moonie, jets were developed in WWII. Now should I explain why none of them were in the Soloman islands or do you wish to remain ignorant of WWII history?


"Like Fender already said, the troops are there on invitation of the govt."

Was there peace in Iraq and would Saddam's government have invited peace keepers in to his little dictatorship?

etech

It's YOU who wanted to make a comparison between the Solomon Isl. and Iraq (and any intelligent person would know that you are comparing 2 different things!!!!!!

I guess you need a fact checker

please answer my question

Thx for playing

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: etech

I thought they invaded, at the governments behest, to "restore law and order". It wasn't a pre-emptive defensive act by the Australian and NZ governments. IMHO that would have to be the case to make a valid comparison with Iraq.

Quote from the article.

Illegal weapons are the focus of the early days of intervention.

The trafficking of firearms between islands within the Solomons archipelago, and further north into Papua New Guinea's secessionist province of Bougainville, is a major worry for the peacekeepers.

Their main task is to disarm the ethnic militias who have controlled and abused this troubled country for years.

But from a link off of the page with the article on it (I linked it in an earlier post of mine) it says:

The Australian-led mission has been sent to the islands at the behest of the Solomons Government, to help restore law and order.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[zantac]

Originally posted by: etech
The two countries have invaded the Soloman islands to remove illegal weapons from the people there. Has anyone seen those weapons?

It appears that they have

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jet aircraft of WW2

The only japanese "jet" used against the Allies was more of a suicide rocket. And used a long way from the Solomans.

Text

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: etech

I thought they invaded, at the governments behest, to "restore law and order". It wasn't a pre-emptive defensive act by the Australian and NZ governments. IMHO that would have to be the case to make a valid comparison with Iraq.

Quote from the article.

Illegal weapons are the focus of the early days of intervention.

The trafficking of firearms between islands within the Solomons archipelago, and further north into Papua New Guinea's secessionist province of Bougainville, is a major worry for the peacekeepers.

Their main task is to disarm the ethnic militias who have controlled and abused this troubled country for years.

But from a link off of the page with the article on it (I linked it in an earlier post of mine) it says:

The Australian-led mission has been sent to the islands at the behest of the Solomons Government, to help restore law and order.

Cheers,

Andy

So you approve of missions of this type to restore law and order when the government of the country requests help. What do you do when the government of the country is the problem?

 

[Orsorum]

etech, normally I agree with many of the things you post - however, the point of this entire thread is beyond me. There is an enormous difference in the politics surrounding the two situations, and the stability and ability of each respective government to police their countryside.

Pointing out what is in reality a very minor slip in the BBC article is tenuous, at best. To a reporter who is not a military historian, I doubt the distinction between "fighter" and "fighter jet" really makes a difference, and has little import on the overall credentials and merits of the article.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
etech, normally I agree with many of the things you post - however, the point of this entire thread is beyond me. There is an enormous difference in the politics surrounding the two situations, and the stability and ability of each respective government to police their countryside.

Pointing out what is in reality a very minor slip in the BBC article is tenuous, at best. To a reporter who is not a military historian, I doubt the distinction between "fighter" and "fighter jet" really makes a difference, and has little import on the overall credentials and merits of the article.

Don't worry, he knows all that. He is just basically trolling.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: etech

I thought they invaded, at the governments behest, to "restore law and order". It wasn't a pre-emptive defensive act by the Australian and NZ governments. IMHO that would have to be the case to make a valid comparison with Iraq.

Quote from the article.

Illegal weapons are the focus of the early days of intervention.

The trafficking of firearms between islands within the Solomons archipelago, and further north into Papua New Guinea's secessionist province of Bougainville, is a major worry for the peacekeepers.

Their main task is to disarm the ethnic militias who have controlled and abused this troubled country for years.

But from a link off of the page with the article on it (I linked it in an earlier post of mine) it says:

The Australian-led mission has been sent to the islands at the behest of the Solomons Government, to help restore law and order.

Cheers,

Andy

So you approve of missions of this type to restore law and order when the government of the country requests help. What do you do when the government of the country is the problem?

Etech,

can you answer my question I asked earlier in this thread

btw: with your last question to Fencer you are admitting that the comparison you made between the Solomon Isl. and Iraq is flawed. You are comparing apples with oranges (see my question)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The problem is of course that etech is trying to equate hosting an invited guest and having your home overrun.

I suggest if he had his home overrun by a bunch of strangers he would of course equate them to having invited family over. Hopefully they would be French for full effect.

 

[Bulk Beef]

We had F-14s at Pearl Harbor. I saw it in a movie.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Corn

The ghosts of the conflict remain - the shipwrecks, the submerged fighter jets and bullet casings.

Fighter jets in th WW2 pacific theater? Doubt it.

Correct of course. Obvious to anyone that knows anything about history. It seems that the BBC is sliping in its reporting.

heh heh snotty aviation buffs. ask people to distinguish between between a "fighter plane" and "fighter jet" and i'm sure 99% of them couldnt say what the difference is, even people who know history...most regular people use them synonymously.

 

[etech]

freegeeks

Etech,

can you answer my question I asked earlier in this thread

So tell me etech, when the US decides to send troops to Liberia because the Liberian govt. invites them to restore order are you going to start a thread to b*tch about the Bush administration. After all they are sending troops to conquer a poor african country???

That's the question you are all worked up about? Sure, I can answer it for you.

If the US decides to send troops to Liberia I will hope that it will work out for the best but I have my doubts. Liberia is a civil war, the chances that peace and order will be restored are low in my opinion. Iraq, on the other hand, was being ruled by a despotic ruler. His removal will make a definite change for the better in the lives of the Iraqi people. That change will have a better chance if the forces that backed Saddam and despots like him will let democracy flourish there and not try to undermine what can be accomplished.


Orsorum

etech, normally I agree with many of the things you post - however, the point of this entire thread is beyond me. There is an enormous difference in the politics surrounding the two situations, and the stability and ability of each respective government to police their countryside.

Pointing out what is in reality a very minor slip in the BBC article is tenuous, at best. To a reporter who is not a military historian, I doubt the distinction between "fighter" and "fighter jet" really makes a difference, and has little import on the overall credentials and merits of the article.

Yes, there are differences in the politics but what are the goals in each situation. To restore peace and order and remove weapons. In one the government is overwhelmed by outlaw gangs of, in the other the government was the outlaw gang which the people could not remove by themselves.

I already explained that noting the inaccuracy of the BBC in their report of saying that jet aircraft were downed in the Soloman islands in WWII was a small point. Of course that did not stop the moontroll from exposing his ignorance on the subject. I was glad to see that the BBC rectified its error.

Drewshin

heh heh snotty aviation buffs. ask people to distinguish between between a "fighter plane" and "fighter jet" and i'm sure 99% of them couldnt say what the difference is, even people who know history...most regular people use them synonymously.

Perhaps the people you "hang" with are ignorant. The majority of people I know would know the difference, but then the people I hang with work in technical fields where details are important.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jet aircraft of WW2

Wow moonie, jets were developed in WWII. Now should I explain why none of them were in the Soloman islands or do you wish to remain ignorant of WWII history?

Wow, etech, that's what my link clearly verified. You're getting jumpy.