Right-wing talking points the same as on Iraq
“As the closest US ally in this region, Australia should be certain in supporting Trump’s brave action. We must support our closest friend on the world stage and accept long -term benefits to the world of eliminating Iran’s nuclear capacity,” he reads. Today’s editorial Australia.
In addition to the “final support” call for the US attack on Iran, as well as large national pages invasion support I am not talking about the editorial of Iraq in 2003-in April of the year, especially considering the followed ones, Baghdad decline And the competitors of the war:
The performance of the ‘intellectual’ left in Australia and elsewhere in the West was a shameful thing… Do you remember the swamp? Do you remember the bloody campaign we will make a swamp before caught in the ‘Street by Street BY’ fight? … Never underestimate the power of ideology and rally in this case to lose its anti-American-real. But at least now we know that this is not love, but a leftist intellectual, we don’t have to say that it is upset.
However, when we look at the following comments that lead to an attack on Iraq, and then comparing the spell from the same people in favor of conflict with Iran, you should consider who is. Really I never needed to say I’m sorry.
Australia On December 6, 2001, foreign editor Greg Sheridan:
When Israel and Palestinian flames emerge in the flames and in the struggle for Kandahar in Afghanistan, it may seem strange to think about a brand new military attack.
Afghanistan success can offer a model [for the war on Iraq]. Air force alone can rarely win a war. However, if the US acts as the Air Force, almost every earth power can prevail. The North Alliance, which was now very military victorious, seemed desperately divided, Ragtag and unreliable. US weapons and air support created all the difference.
BUSH administration has a historical chance [i.e. to invade Iraq] He will have to get it.
Sheridan on September 5, 2002:
In 1991, as it was related to the Gulf War, we saw how wrong most alarmist estimates about the void and impossibility of the US action.
The first and most important reason for moving is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and seeks more. Nowhere in the debate, a serious figure believes that Iraq has no such weapon.
Sheridan on September 14, 2006:
Let’s be the first person to present a brave, revisionist view. George W. Bush can ultimately be a great president, especially in foreign policy, especially in the War of Terrorism.
Israel’s military strikes in Iran bring the Middle East to a maximum wider danger of conflict, at the same time, perhaps the moment of maximum opportunity.
Israel gave a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear weapon program. This development alone makes the Middle East safer in the medium term, and over time, perhaps allows the opportunity to re -interact in meaningful dialogue with Iran with a rearranged internal political alignment.
In Netanyahu and Trump, Iran faces leaders who will pay for the actions of Iran itself through deputies, terrorists or missiles.
There are still many bad things that Iran can do. But now, contrary to the past, managers understand that they will come at great cost.
Trump and Netanyahu calculate that the application of these costs to Iran will ultimately reach a more stable Middle East.
I hope they are right.
Related article block place holder
Article ID: 1210769
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Down on May 13, 2003:
Mr. Speaker, we have already seen evidence that it looks like mobile biological laboratories in two regions in Iraq, and can produce biological materials for use in mass destruction weapons. I know that hearing this is disappointed by the opposition, but I’m afraid that’s true.
Download, now retired from politics, on June 15, 2025 (Under the title: “A ‘diplomatic child’ can question Israel’s action against Iran”):
The Israelites currently have the opportunity to correct [the threat posed by Iran and its regional proxies] Once and for everyone. If they received the advice of clumsy Western politicians like our own government, the war would continue with Iranian deputies.
Herald Sun Corner writer Andrew Bolt 23 June 2003:
It is still seen [whistleblower Andrew] Wilkie’s decision on the exact threat of Saddam’s arms program – but we already know the decision of the costs of removing this real threat by invading Iraq. Fortunately, the government ignored it, because if the result: If he had listened to Wilkie, Saddam would still be in power, Wilkie himself said he could fall into the hands of terrorists. Instead, Saddam went and Iraq was rescued from the cruelty with a surprisingly small number of casualties, and this is not Andrew Wilkie, who was right, but the Howard government.
I am not saying that Trump had no faithful ally of Israel, but he has always escaped from the war and was mocked as “Taco – – Trump always took out chicken.
He refused to confront Russia because of his barbaric attacks against Ukraine, and after promising to stop firing missiles to the US goals, he quickly called on the US Houthi rebels, but not to those who were Israel.
It is still unclear whether it will allow us to make a shot for Israel, but its threats are a great help.
Then the US Republican speaker Newt Gingrich in October 2001:
If we do not use this to replace Saddam after changing the Taliban, we prepare the ground for a disaster.
The replacement of the theocratic dictatorship in Iran with a secular government with peace with neighbors is the only result of the existing Israeli-Iran war that will succeed, a non-welfare and non-nuclear future for Iranians.
FOX News Host Sean Hannity in February 2003:
We will go in and we will liberate this country in a few weeks and will end very quickly. No, it’il end very quickly. And what I’m going to tell you here is that you will find mass graves. We will open them… Gulags and these prisons and stories of rape, torture and misery, and then we will find all weapons of mass destruction.
Related article block place holder
Article ID: 1210414
It has proved that you can successfully remove and neutralize threats in the world without joining wars forever.
Daily telegram On 21 October 2001, columnist Piers Akerman:
Some people run around the country, say they don’t know why the Australians will fight, so let me clarify a few things. Australian military forces have been participating in more struggle against evil for a long time. Is it very difficult to understand this?
He despises men and women representing us to reduce conflict. That’s why I support this effort and greet those interested. Now, is this clear?
Israel’s brave attack against the lethal moles of the Islamic Republic of Iran should make Australia’s incomplete approach to defense a sharp focus.
The Israelites, who threatened the destruction of the 46 years, showed what a small country could do when it was under the threat of existential war. Today, Australia is greater threatened the day before the Japanese bombing Darwin’s nine -month bombing.
… We can hope that Trump will only take time for our left leader, but if the Albanian alliance will develop, his government needs to abandon his anti -American views.
Should Australia go into war with Iran?
We want to get news from you. Write us at letters@crikey.com.au. Crirase. Please add your full name. We reserve the right to regulate for length and clarity.
