OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands [Archive]

View Full Version : OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands

deccan

July 9th, 2003, 04:25 AM

Baron Grazic: Thought I'd make a new thread to avoid annoying people.

Maybe the language that I originally used was too harsh, but these are some of the facts that I'm certain of:

1) The Solomon Islands Parliament is being pressed by the Australian Government to ratify a bill drafted in Canberra that would effectively give Australian troops and police "license to kill" authorizations (i.e. there will be no legal recriminations for any Solomon Islanders killed by OZ personnel.)

2) There will be changes to the laws of the Solomon Islands to allow Australians and New Zealanders to hold government Posts. Effective day-to-day control of government and the country's finances will pass to Australia while the entire bureacracy and system of government is rejigged from the ground up.

3) The intervention force will include such support staff as legal prosecutors and judges so that criminals can be prosecuted and sentenced immediately without waiting for the Solomon Islands judiciary to be rebuilt.

4) There will supposedly be a big military operation on Guadalcanal Island to flush out and capture Harold Keke and his followers.

P.S. The S.I. Parliament held off passing the said bill earlier by not convening, but I just heard on the radio this afternoon that the debate officially started today with an address by the Prime Minister in favor of intervention.

Baron Grazic

July 9th, 2003, 06:20 AM

The man on the ground always knows more than the supports in the stands.
If your facts are acurate (and I'm not saying they aren't) than the Oz govt needs to chill a bit...

What I have heard is the civil unrest in the Solomans, and that the Oz government wants to "ensure peace in the region", because the SI would "become a haven for money laundering, drug trafficking and a terrorist hide-out".

Of course, I'm just stating what I have read in the newspapers.
What have you seen and what are the thoughts of the people in the Solomans?

Rojero

July 9th, 2003, 06:37 AM

With all the chaos in the world, it is sad that everyday it seems to just escalate, as a spieces as a race, I fear the worst.

Baron Grazic

July 9th, 2003, 06:51 AM

I think the world needs something like contact with an alien race, to get us all to co-operate, and even then, I'm not sure it would work... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

dogscoff

July 9th, 2003, 09:36 AM

trafficking and a terrorist hide-out".
I don't care what they say, western governments love terrorism. It has provided them with a readymade, universal justification to do whatever the hell they like.

narf poit chez BOOM

July 9th, 2003, 09:45 AM

sudden shock can only do so much. you want the world to recover? then hold doors open for people, smile, say 'please', 'thank you' and 'good morning'. don't encourage movie-makers to make movies with excessive sex and violence and espeicailly ones that glorify it. if someone asks for help, give it. do your best to understand the other persons position. respect just laws and the people that enforce them.

no, getting a gun and shooting bad guys will not solve all our problems. not even hard work can garentee that. but that's no excuse not to do the hard work.

there. a short bit of my view on how to save the world.

Loser

July 9th, 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
don't encourage movie-makers to make movies with excessive sex and violence and espeicailly ones that glorify it. I'd have to disagree, Narf. I firmly believe that shaming sex is more of a problem than glorifying it. As long as neither party is objectified (expect for reasons related to artistic expression: Natural Born Killers, Eyes Wide Shut, Thelma and Louise, or Brazil), both parties enjoying the act should be the norm, and protection is emphasized. Being raised Puritan and having experienced just about everything 'the world' has to offer I feel openness requires an avoidance of shame, which requires sex to be as common a topic as it is an activity (and hundreds of thousands are doing it at any time)

What is 'Oz'? Why O-Z?

What is the background of this conflict in S.I.?

What has been happening down there for the Last few years?

tbontob

July 9th, 2003, 04:02 PM

Loser, I agree with you about sex. Repressing it only makes it go underground where it may surface in other ways.

In a broader light...the problems may be a result of our not being willing to consider the brotherhood of man.

If we think a person or a group of people as "other", then it is a short step to the use of force.

About Oz...I was confused about it too some years ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Oz = Aus (Australia).

sachmo

July 9th, 2003, 04:03 PM

July 9th, 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
trafficking and a terrorist hide-out".
I don't care what they say, western governments love terrorism. It has provided them with a readymade, universal justification to do whatever the hell they like.<hr /></blockquote>May be not all western governments (I believe I live in a country that still puts human rights first before combat against terrorism) but I must agree that some activities of the US government really frighten me more than any terrorist activities. And if deccan is right (I know too little about the political situation in that part of the world) I am worried about that too.

sachmo

July 9th, 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Q:
May be not all western governments (I believe I live in a country that still puts human rights first before combat against terrorism) but I must agree that some activities of the US government really frighten me more than any terrorist activities. And if deccan is right (I know too little about the political situation in that part of the world) I am worried about that too.Well, if that's true, then it's a good thing you didn't have any relatives working in a certain New York building on a certain day in 2001.
Once something like that happens in your country, the matter becomes a lot more complicated.

oleg

July 9th, 2003, 07:05 PM

Loser

July 9th, 2003, 07:48 PM

Whoa there limey, he kind of implied that he lost family there. And he didn't say it was right, just that it's more complicated than it may have been presented.

At least throw something in there so a reader can tell just how sarcastic or light your text might be. There's little tone or signal, after all.

[edit: the actions of our government tend to occasionally frighten us too, in fact I'll bet Plisken there has a few complaints himself, but it's ... complicated]

[ July 09, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Loser ]

Master Belisarius

July 9th, 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
[QUOTE]So, now that gives you right to do whatever you like. You are always the GOOD guys, sure.The power is enough to grant the rights. I think this principle is old like the world...

sachmo

July 9th, 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
So, now that gives you right to do whatever you like. You are always the GOOD guys, sure.[/QB]That's not what I said. Here is the post I was responding to:

May be not all western governments (I believe I live in a country that still puts human rights first before combat against terrorism) but I must agree that some activities of the US government really frighten me more than any terrorist activities. And if deccan is right (I know too little about the political situation in that part of the world) I am worried about that too.
He is saying that he is frightened by the actions that are being taken by the US government in, and he didn't specify this but it was implied by the discussion as I was understanding it, "the War on Terrorism".

He has every right to feel that way, especially in a country that may or may not have been touched by terrorism, as of yet. Once again, he didn't say what country he was from, so I'm just guessing here.

In my response, I was attempting to express my personal opinion about said actions, and how I feel now as opposed to before 9/11. Before the attacks, I would have had a major problem with the way this "war" is being conducted. I'm not a fan of governments strong arming one another to get their way, rattling a sabre at those who disagree with our policies. I am also a supporter of basic human rights, and humane treatment of prisoners, no matter what the crime.

But when I saw all of those people die in those towers, it sort of changed my outlook on things. Now I sort of turn a blind eye to some of the things that I would have been indignant about before. It's a strange thing how life can change you. I'm not happy about it, or proud, but when I consider the alternative, my resolve hardens.

Do I think we are the "good guys"? Absolutely not. Do I have compassion for innocents who are killed in this conflict? Of course. But I have a hard time believing that terrorism isn't a threat to my safety and the safety of my family, and so I will stand by while my government, and other governments around the world, prosecute this ugly, disgusting war the best way that they know how. If it's a choice between my family or someone else, there is no choice. Maybe that makes me a bad person...I don't know. But I would kill to protect my family, and by the same token I will support anyone who works to protect my family.

If someone were to present a better solution, where no one would be killed, or no one would be cajoled, threatened or put upon to do things that they don't want to do, then I would take that route in a heart beat. In the meantime, I'll stand aside and let someone else keep me safe at night. What else can I do?

[ July 09, 2003, 19:56: Message edited by: sachmo ]

narf poit chez BOOM

July 9th, 2003, 08:55 PM

i put the commoness of sex as one of the major causes of relationship breakups, divorces and general unsatisfication with marraige. as well as unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted deseases and people who will do anything to get into someone's pants. all of which is reduced or eliminated if there's no sex outside marriage. oh, yeah, there's no good reason not to get marriad relitivily young. but statistics say aviod the spring, get married in the fall. people are more sensible then.

it's a simple principle. if you take something special and make it common, then it's no longer special.

Loser

July 9th, 2003, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i put the commoness of sex as one of the major causes of relationship breakups, divorces and general unsatisfication with marraige. as well as unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted deseases and people who will do anything to get into someone's pants. all of which is reduced or eliminated if there's no sex outside marriage. oh, yeah, there's no good reason not to get marriad relitivily young. but statistics say aviod the spring, get married in the fall. people are more sensible then.

it's a simple principle. if you take something special and make it common, then it's no longer special.It's a simple principle that may or may not apply to sex.

The fact is that there were plenty of divorces, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and unscrupulous rakes back in more austere periods of history. It simply wasn't talked about back then. I know this for a fact because it happened quite a bit in my families history and, thinking this must be some terribly uncommon trend, I eventually looked deeper into the issue.

The problems were just covered up better back then. A good percentage of Charm Schools and Boarding Schools were actually Schools for Wayward Girls (institutions for hiding pregnancy). Lack of birth control just meant that most 'loose women' were professionals, and the natural increase in prostitution adds to organized crime, it does not add to general virtue.

There will be sex, always. If you make marriage such a binding thing you will only make sex out of marriage more common, as a couple will get married to have sex ("because they love each other") then look elsewhere for satisfaction when their juvenile relationship skills make them miserable in each other's company.

You cannot eliminate sex outside of marriage. It has never been done (though I have heard the native people of Tasmania were free of adultery, I do not know this to be a fact, and look what happened to them).

Before we talk this particular discussion any further (in a separate thread) I'd have to do the ageist thing and ask both how old you are and how many years you spent as a parent-freed adult before you got in a cohabitated relationship.

oleg

July 9th, 2003, 10:55 PM

Yes, I was a bit sarcastic. I did cry watching the horror of sept.11. I will give anything to bring the responsible to justice. But I'm petrified by actions of US goverment. Saddam was a brutal and despicable dictater. BUT he had nothing to do with Al-Queda. Nor were the misguided British muslims who came to Afganistan to defend their religion. Now they face the court-martial without any hope of fair trail.
You want justice ? Bring up Osama before the court. Where is he ? Why did we invade Irag instead ??

Baron Grazic

July 10th, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by loser:
It has never been done (though I have heard the native people of Tasmania were free of adultery, I do not know this to be a fact, and look what happened to them)

What happened in Tasmania? And I assume you don't mean Tasmania, Australia?

I am afraid to say, but I think the bombings in Bali effected the Australian people more than the 9/11 event. The reason being, the 9/11 event was reported via TV and seemed remote, while the Bali bombings happened at a time when many Australian's where there, including many of our Star Footballers (Australian Rules Football).
I think this was a reason for our solid support of the US in Iraq. both terrorist events forming a bonding between our 2 nations.
It could also explain why the Australian Government wants to send troops to the Solomons, to ensure peace in our reason.

Australia doesn't have an official short name, other than AUST, so we just say OZ.
Tbontob was completely correct - OZ = Aus
I'm sure that their is a reference to the Wizard of OZ too? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I was watching a UK quiz show Last night and 8 out of 10 people, didn't know who the Priminister of Australia was... I'm interested, in how many of you guys (and the few ladies) know???

Deccan might have to answer about the situations in the Solomon Islands.
What I have 'heard' is Harold Keke, a local 'Warlord' and his supports have reportedly killed 50-200 people, destroyed villages, kidnapped people, and made between 1000-2000 people homeless. The remoteness of where is seems to be operating from leaves a lot of room for mis-information and/or exaggeration, and makes it hard to confirm details.

Perhaps Deccan can say what the local information is on the topic...

Thermodyne

July 10th, 2003, 01:34 AM

When a Nation, any nation, is unable to control the actions of the people that live there to the
point that it adversely affects their neighbors, then they should expect said neighbors to
intervene.

From the research that I have done, it would appear that the situation in the Solomon�s is such
that the government can not regain control with out the help of outsiders. The government is
also over the Last decade, been unwilling to make needed reforms. When a government looses
both the support of the majority of the people and the ability to control them, then the
government has lost its mandate to rule. This is a prime example of why foreign intervention
happens.

If the people support Keke, then they should rise up and seize their birthright and replace the
government. If they don�t support Keke, then they should seek him and his out and destroy this
threat to their homeland. If they allow the AU�s in under these terms, they will soon be second
class people in their own country.

Personally, I think the truth lies in the deep sea geology of the region. The people of the
Solomon�s should be bombarding the UN with requests for military aid that originates from
countries more neutral to the long term outcome. If these people don�t take a proactive stance
and force this issue to the front page of western news outlets, they will not get the help that they
deserve.

Loser

July 10th, 2003, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
What happened in Tasmania? And I assume you don't mean Tasmania, Australia?What other Tasmania (http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/theblackwar.html)? Althought there seems to be more (http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6594848%255E5422,00.html) questions (http://mentalspace.ranters.net/archives/000014.shtml) here than I was previously aware of.

Baron Grazic

July 10th, 2003, 02:17 AM

I thought their might have been another Tasmania in the US, or somewhere else.
I've heard of stories along these lines, but I'm staggered by those figures...
Some of the claims, I would want to see their evidence before giving them another thought, but then again, I could be biased. Some of my distant relatives were sent to Tassie as convicts...

But this is a different topic again from the Solomons...

[ July 10, 2003, 01:18: Message edited by: Baron Grazic ]

deccan

July 10th, 2003, 02:25 AM

Warning: Long post.
Warning: Serious discussion.

Whoa, I didn't mean this to be another "heated debate" on the Iraq situation. Anyway, here's a lowdown on the Solomon Islands (S.I.) since Loser asked.

Some disclaimers: I've only been in the country since early 2000, so I'm not a native. I also don't go out much (hey, I'm an SEIV-playing nerd after all, otherwise I wouldn't be posting on this board), and I've only left the capital city Honiara once to visit the provinces in all my years here (sad, huh?). I'm no historian too, so I may get some facts wrong. Also, I'm a senior executive of one of the largest logging companies operating, so my views and opinions will inevitably reflect that fact.

S.I., as its name implies, is composed of many islands. For the purpose of this discussion, we'll ignore the small ones and geographically isolated ones (Ontong Java, Rennell Islands, Makira Province etc.) The most important islands / provinces we need to consider are Guadalcanal Island (Central Province), the Malaitan islands (Malaita Province), and the various islands that make up Western Province (Vangunu Island, New Georgia etc.)

As some of the more historically inclined people may know, S.I., and more specifically Guadalcanal Island, was a very important theatre of operations during World War II (WWII). It is believed that the losses suffered here by the Japanese Navy at the hands of U.S. forces prevented Japanese reinforcements from arriving at Midway and turning the tide of the crucial battle there. WWII-related events continues to play an important role even in modern S.I. life, because every year, many war veterans, both Japanese and American, visit the country to grieve for their lost comrades.

The thing is before WWII, under the rule of the British (who set up their administrative capital at Honiara on Guadalcanal Province), the populations of the various islands more or less stayed put. However, for various reasons, when the Americans came, for some reason, they found it useful to import large numbers of Malaitan people into Guadalcanal Province to work for them. Even today, most people (me included) believe that Malaitans are more hardworking, sharper, but also more war-like and aggressive than the natives of Guadalcanal. The "Gualais" as they are known, are often thought of as being "dull", "slow" and "lazy".

When WWII ended, guess what, the Malaitan population stayed on Guadalcanal, and through the decades, completely dominated economic and political life in Honiara. They bought large tracts of land in and around Honiara from the Guadalcanal natives who subsequently felt that they were "cheated" and eventually the Malaitan population grew to such a point that Honiara became a sort of mini-Malaita.

At the end of the 1990s, the major export industries in the Solomon Islands were timber (conducted mainly by Asian, specifically, Malaysian companies) and tuna fishing (conducted by EU fishing boats, yeah, those boats sure range far don't they?, the Taiwanese and the Japanese). There was also a promising gold mining project run by an Australian company on Guadalcanal Island and funded using Asian Development Bank and World Bank money.

The thing is most of the logging and fishing were located in the resource-rich Western Province, whose natives are widely considered as shrewd as the Malaitans, though nowhere near as prone to violence. So the situation was that the export earnings of the Western Province were being funnelled to Honiara, heavily taxed by the Malaitan political elite in the capital and only meagre returns were being sent back.

This, combined, with the second-class status that many Gualais felt they were being relegated to on their own island, is naturally a recipe for disaster.

At around the end of the 1990s, large Groups of young, unemployed Gualais began harrassing and threatening Malaitan people who had bought land on Guadalcanal, asking for return of the land or monetary compensation. These Groups coalesced around a loose organization called the Guadalcanal Liberation Army (GLA, I kid you not), later renamed the Isatabu Freedom Movement (IFM). Eventually, these militias forced Malaitans to leave land located at the outskirts of Honiara. After a bit of this, Honiara felt like a city under siege, since no one dared to enter or leave the city by land.

In response to this, the Malaitans formed a group of their own, the Malaita Eagle Force (MEF). There wasn't really much violence at the beginning but mostly they lobbied the S.I. Government (and the Prime Minister of that time in particular, a Malaitan named Ulufalu) to compensate the displaced Malaitans. However, because the GLA/IFM's activities were mainly concentrated in the outskirts of Honiara, the expatriate population at Honiara were mostly annoyed / fearful of the bands of MEF people. Ulufalu continued to deny the Malaitans' request to compensate the displaced people using government money (good for him, I say!) Eventually rumors surfaced in Honiara that Ulufalu was secretly organizing yet another militia group of his own, code-named Seagull, to use against the MEF.

This was compounded by rumors and warnings by the GLA/IFM that people who didn't want to be hurt should leave Honiara because they would soon emerge from the jungle and "take" the city. They eventually did take over the Ross Mining facility, and helped themselves to the guns and explosives stored there. The Australians were all evacuated by helicopter. I could hear the chopper going around all day.

The MEF, angry at Ulufalu's inaction against the GLA/IFM and worried about being boxed in, decided the best defense was a good offense. In early 2000, they executed a well-planned coup d'etat, taking control of all police stations and armouries in Honiara and placing Ulufalu under house arrest.

Well, that was a pretty eventful day to say the least. I woke up expecting just a normal workday like everyone else, but it soon became clear that the whole city was eeriely quiet. There was zero traffic in the street and all telephone lines were down. Everyone was huddled in their homes and then Andrew Nori, a prominent Malaitan lawyer and politician, came on the radio, and announced that the MEF had taken effective control of the city overnight. They had also commandeered the offices and facilities of the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation and the Solomon Islands Telekom Company.

At around noon, MEF people, equipped with assault rifles and grenade launchers taken from the government armories began patrolling Honiara. They also started commandeering vehicles from people (we lost two cars and never recovered them). There was sporadic gunfire at the outskirts of the city when the GLA/IFM tried to find out what was happening (I live real close to the western edge of the city so I know). At this point however, the MEF vastly outgunned the GLA/IFM, so there was no real firefight.

Another complicating factor was that at this time, three Taiwanese warships were docked at Honiara, part of their annual visit here (the S.I. government recognizes Taipei instead of Beijing, and the Taiwanese give them money in return and try to give a good military showing every year). However, the Taiwanese refused to leave their ships (to be fair to them most of the guys on the ships were young men barely past their teens doing their obligatory military service) but stayed docked. After a while, the MEF and some prominent members of the Malaitan community wrote a letter warning the Taiwanese to stay out of S.I.'s domestic problems and the Taiwanese hauled anchor and left.

During this time, nobody left their houses and those who had satellite t.v. stayed glued to CNN (who were really exaggerating the situation here). The next day, we woke up to the sound of heavy automatic gunfire. The MEF had grabbed two police patrol boats and were strafing the coastline outside Honiara with machineguns. There was also some shooting at the international airport, which resulted in the cancellation of all international flights for the foreseeable future.

That day, we decided that it would be safer to hide out in the main, expensive hotel in the centre of the city (lots of expats there) than stay where we lived. That very night, while we were gone, our compound was broken into and raided. Heh.

But it wasn't until the Australian government decided to send warships to evacuate their citizens that we really started to panic (the Ozzies are leaving? They must know something we don't. Uh-oh.)

To be continued ...

Baron Grazic

July 10th, 2003, 02:46 AM

Thanks for the update. A few questions?
So you are still located, relatively save in the Hotel, I hope?
Thinking of pulling out yourselves?
What nationaliality are you, if I may ask, of course?
Do you see any possibility of a peaceful situation when things cool down a bit?

deccan

July 10th, 2003, 04:03 AM

I think you've misunderstood. All of that were events in 2000. I've a while to go before I come to events in 2003. Hehe. History, you know.

Baron Grazic

July 10th, 2003, 04:58 AM

Sorry, I thought the Last part was 2003.
I'll wait for the update...

deccan

July 10th, 2003, 05:50 AM

Note: One reason why I'm writing this is that I hate to see incorrect statements about the current situation in S.I. and leave them uncorrected. However, to really appreciate what's going on here and thereby be qualified to give opinions and comment on the situation, you really need to understand all that's happened, to see the big picture so to speak, and that's impossible without a sort of chronology of events.

Continuing my story...

Okay, we heard it first on CNN that Canberra had just authorized warships to evacuate Australian citizens, and we watched an interview in which Alexander Downer, the Ozzie Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that the ships would also evacuate any other foreign national who needed evacuating.

As it turned out, when the ships arrived, they took people from rich world countries, i.e. Australia, New Zealand, U.K., U.S. etc. but they refused to take anyone from China, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, India etc. They did take the two dozen or so Fijian soldiers who were in S.I. as "peace monitors" under the U.N. banner. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif As I recall, they were among the first to board, complete in U.N. colors. I was there at the wharf. I'm Malaysian by the way, but I haven't lived in Malaysia for a long, long time. The wife of one of my colleagues, who was pregnant at that time, was really pissed about this, but I kind of expected it. Anyway, I did specifically request to be allowed to stay behind. I thought it was all great fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

At the same time, more complicating factors: we heard news that the Western Province, backed by Isabel Province and Choiseul Province were making noises about declaring themselves independent of the Solomon Islands. As I said, they had no love of the Malaitan political elite in Honiara, and gangs of people started harassing and threatened Malaitan people who were living in Gizo, the capital of Western Province. One Malaitan youth was killed when he tried to fight back and that really angered the Malaitan population in Honiara.

Another important fact: Choiseul Province is located right next to Papua New Guinea, specifically, Bougainville island of PNG. Again, history buffs will know that Bougainville has been struggling for independence from PNG on and off for the past several decades, which means that they have 1) lots of guns 2) lots of experience in guerilla warfare. Add to the fact that many people in Choiseul and Bougainville are friends / family (it's after all only an accident of history that the two islands ended up in different countries), and you realize that the Western Province suddenly has military back up from some elements of the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA).

Eventually the Malaysian community here lobbied the Malaysian government hard enough to get the Royal Malaysian Air Force to send a Hercules transport plane in and get some people (including those people from Taiwan, China, India, Thailand etc. that the Australians missed) out. A couple of colleagues went and all of the expat women and children, but most of us (including me) stayed behind.

The next few weeks was mostly life as usual in the capital, except for sporadic looting and gunfire, no police and no government. The MEF deployed their people at the outskirts of the city to keep out the GLA/IFM. They even took a bulldozer, fitted it with metal plating armor, drilled holes for guns, and used it to raze a few Gualais villages, but all that was far away from the city. In the meantime, the exodus of Malaitans from Western Province continued, and boatloads of armed BRA people zipped back and forth between Western Province and Bougainville.

After a while, the GLA/IFM, being vastly outgunned, simply sort of melted apart, except for Harold Keke's gang of die-hard rebels. The Australians came back in, organized a big meeting in Townsville, Australia, and got the remnants of the GLA/IFM, except for Keke's band who refused to participate, to sign a peace agreement (the Townsville Peace Agreement, TPA) with the MEF.

Under the TPA, the various organizations were supposed to disband and all armed parties were given an amnesty period within which everyone who voluntarily gave up their weapons would not be charged for any crimes.

So what's the problem, you ask? Simple, the stupid amnesty thing wasn't working, so when its time was up, they renewed it, then extended it again, and again, and again... Just today, I heard on the radio that they are going to extend the amnesty period for one ultra-final, absolutely Last, no exceptions permitted, time.

Somehow, I'm not convinced.

To be continued...

Geckomlis

July 10th, 2003, 06:27 AM

-delurk-
Deccan:
Thank you for sharing with us. I have been trying to follow the SI events via CNN and BBC, but it has been very confusing, not well-covered, or not covered in a balanced way. Your Posts have clarified many things for me.
Take care.
-relurk-

Baron Grazic

July 10th, 2003, 06:52 AM

Thanks Deccan.
Some of these details are new to me (Townsville Peace Agreement) but the time frame seems to be when I was over-seas.
I hope we can all work things out peaceable, but I'm not holding my breath...
You will keep yourself out of trouble and keep us updated, won't you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

dogscoff

July 10th, 2003, 09:22 AM

Interesting reading, Deccan. Thanks.

Once something like that happens in your country, the matter becomes a lot more complicated.
If it's so complicated, why do the US, UK and other governments think that such a simple 'solution' (kill loads of random foreigners) can be applied?

Loser

July 10th, 2003, 12:14 PM

This is great Deccan. It's much like hearing about the Iraq war on television and radio (CNN, BBC, and a coiuple of others) and then reading about it in that one guy's blog (http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com). Thanks.

Originally posted by dogscoff:
If it's so complicated, why do the US, UK and other governments think that such a simple 'solution' (kill loads of random foreigners) can be applied?Whoa.... tangent. Revive the Iraq thread and post this there and I will be happy to respond.

[ July 10, 2003, 11:15: Message edited by: Loser ]

Loser

July 10th, 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Q:
I am a citizen of the country the Geneva convention comes from, which the US government not longer obeys when it comes to the war against terrorism.The Geneva convention was getting lip service long before the 'war on terrorism' started. Rule regarding munitions, engagement of paratroopers, manipulation of the weather, and a few others have been violated with only a modest attempt at cover-up.

I think we should have rules of war and treatment of participant of such. But war is war and few countries that participate in more than a few are going to follow all the rules.

You want to talk about inhumane? Let's compare prison systems. I'll give you the point on capital punishment (more to get past it than because I think it is inhumane), and let's talk about treatment of prisoners who have not been so sentenced. But let's do that in another thread. You start it, and I will reply.

Thermodyne

July 10th, 2003, 02:07 PM

Q,

Which parts do we (USofA) not follow? If you mean the treatment of Afgan POW�s, then you need to go back and actually read the sections again. Especially the areas that deal with the requirements that soldiers must meet to gain the protection of the conventions. And it is more than one convention.

Loser

July 10th, 2003, 02:14 PM

Ooo... Good Point.

primitive

July 10th, 2003, 02:44 PM

Bad point.

If they are not acceptable as POWs, then they should be treated as criminals and been given the basic rights criminals are given (right to a lawyer and so on)

There is absolutely no excuse to keep anybody outside of any law and deprive them of their basic human rights.

Thermodyne

July 10th, 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Bad point.

If they are not acceptable as POWs, then they should be treated as criminals and been given the basic rights criminals are given (right to a lawyer and so on)

There is absolutely no excuse to keep anybody outside of any law and deprive them of their basic human rights.Ah.........Now we are on track. They do not fit the requirements of solders, not even if we use a very loose description. So they are civilians? No, they meet the criteria that forbid them from being treated as such. They fall into a Category that holds bandits, renegades and deserters. Along with saboteurs and spies. They were subject to summery execution except that there was no documented state of war, and no invocation of the conventions. So now they must fall under the authority of civilian law. But which Version? American law? I doubt that case would hold water. Afgan law? That would sure suck for them. The war on terrorism was not foreseen by the statesmen of years gone by. Back then if terrorists were caught, they were killed and everyone went home happy. But there were also not organized nations of terrorist that needed to be dealt with. Well there were a few small kingdoms that were spanked from time to time. But all and all, nations were not controlled by terrorists. So what do we do with the Gitmo-Afgans? Send them home to a long lingering death? That would suck for them. Send them to Iran to be rearmed and retrained? That would suck for most of the world. Bring them to the states and turn them loose? I'll get my equipment out of storage and kill the SOB�s my self if they do that. Perhaps we should send them to the EU. Would they take them? There is a good chance that they will still be at Gitmo when the lease runs out, and then the Cubanos can decide what to do with them. I would think that re-education would be the first step. Then they could be used to spread Marxism across the Islamic world.

Now most of my solutions have been in jest, but that is because there is no good solution. There are a lot of people crying out about the rights of these people, but very few good solutions being offered. Personally, I would like to see them prosecuted (persecuted) under their own Islamic laws.

July 10th, 2003, 03:32 PM

I am talking e.g. about the prisoners that are held captive since months without trial and without beeing accepted as prisoners of war at Guantanamo.
This is against the constitution of the US (at least as far as I know). And as I said if you start to make exceptions of the constituation and the basic human rights that are declared in it for certain people you are on the road to tyranny and police state.
Are you in the US not concerned about the plans to survey every e-mail, every credit card transaction?? Where will this end?

Thermodyne

July 10th, 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Q:
I am talking e.g. about the prisoners that are held captive since months without trial and without beeing accepted as prisoners of war at Guantanamo.
This is against the constitution of the US (at least as far as I know). And as I said if you start to make exceptions of the constituation and the basic human rights that are declared in it for certain people you are on the road to tyranny and police state.
Are you in the US not concerned about the plans to survey every e-mail, every credit card transaction?? Where will this end?The situation of the Gitmo_Afgans is not clear. In the end I think they will be returned to the Afgan government. But it will have to work it's way across the many court dockets that pave the way to the high courts.

As to the tracking of email and electronic fund transfers, I'm all for it. I abide by the law and have no fears on this point. Lets get real, you will have to trip a filter to get looked at. If you do drug sales or contract murder by email, then it sucks. For me it makes no differance what so ever.

Loser

July 10th, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Q:
This is against the constitution of the US (at least as far as I know). The Constitution itself is not all that big on Civil Rights. You'll find that material in the Bill of Rights, the first handful of amendments. And those only apply to U.S. citizens. To find the laws governing treatment of non-citizens you'd need to look more into U.S. Law itself (messy) or into our treaties with other nations: Geneva Convention, etc.

sachmo

July 10th, 2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Q:
I am a citizen of the country the Geneva convention comes from, which the US government not longer obeys when it comes to the war against terrorism.
But my compassion for the victims of the terrorism is absolutely independent of their passport and I sincerely hope that my reason would still govern my emotions when a relative would be under the victims.
But no matter how much I share the cry for justice, no matter how much I understand your concern for safety: the basic human rights must never never never be canceled for a human beeing, even if this human has commited the most horrible crimes. If you go over this line you will end up in tyranny and become inhuman yourself.[/QB]I see your point...I really do. In fact, a big part of me still feels that way. But when I close my eyes and see a car bomb exploding and killing my family, the rights of terrorists pale in comparison.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the US didn't stir up this hornet's nest by themselves. However, if we are fighting an enemy who targets obviously innocent civilians and who's only purpose is to destroy as many of my people as possible, then how can I give pause or quarter to them in return? If a man were to break into my house and try to harm my family, I would kill him, or die trying. Unfortunately for me, I can't see the distinction in this case, except my government is doing the figting for me.

In response to this quote:

Posted by Dogscoff
If it's so complicated, why do the US, UK and other governments think that such a simple 'solution' (kill loads of random foreigners) can be applied?
All that I can say is that I believe that the policy my government is following is the one that they believe to be the most effective. If there were an alternative to the fighting, I believe that they would persue it. I know the US isn't popular with many people, but our government isn't out to take over the world. Nor do we revel in the deaths of foreign nationals. But we will protect ourselves, and that's where things get ugly. I am an American, and I want my children to grow up and be safe. Whatever it takes.

oleg

July 10th, 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by sachmo:
...But we will protect ourselves, and that's where things get ugly. I am an American, and I want my children to grow up and be safe. Whatever it takes.So how many Iraqi children want you trade for one American? All of them ?

And why do you belive what US goverment is doing is actually protecting your chieldren ? I have a feeling US became less secure after this colonial war. Saddam was no danger for US as we can see now. He had no WMD and was keeping religious fanatics in check.

[ July 10, 2003, 16:37: Message edited by: oleg ]

Loser

July 10th, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
So how many Iraqi children want you trade for one American? All of them ?Were the Iraqi children safe before? Will they be safe five years from now?

While it is U.S. National security that truely motivated that incusrsion (see some of my more hawkish rants in the Iraq thread), these are things that should be taken into account when one wishes to consider 'right' or 'wrong'.

dogscoff

July 10th, 2003, 06:06 PM

If a man were to break into my house and try to harm my family, I would kill him, or die trying. Unfortunately for me, I can't see the distinction in this case, except my government is doing the figting for me.
And that's where your metaphor falls over. If you were on one of the 9/11 flights, with a chance to rush the hijackers- that would be analogous to fighting off an intruder in your home to protect your family. In those cases you would be justified in taking some fairly extreme measures of self defence.

However, waginbg war on Afghanistan/ Iraq is analogous to going out of your home, finding someone who might be an potential intruder (or a friend of a potential intruder, or someone who is rumoured to be prepared to sell burglary equipment to a potential intruder, or maybe just someone you don't like the look of), breaking into their home, killing a few of hisfamily members and smashing up their possessions.

Then, when your target has fled out the back door, you award the contract for the repairs to his home to your best buddy (with the target's surviving family selling off their remaining assets to pay the bill), build a few airbases in his back garden and start threatening the neighbours.

Loser

July 10th, 2003, 06:23 PM

I firmly believe all government comes from, and remains closely related to, organized crime. I'm not surprised the similarities show so strongly in your stretched analogy, Dogscoff. When a better solution comes along, I'll jump on it (if I don't get too old and static first), but I don't see the dove path working, I don't see the isolationist path working, and I just don't know what else to say (Pax Schmax).

One things for sure. There will continue to be terrorists, but any government is going to think twice before backing them or giving them sanctuary. Of the rest: omelets, eggs, you know the deal.

sachmo

July 10th, 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:

And that's where your metaphor falls over. If you were on one of the 9/11 flights, with a chance to rush the hijackers- that would be analogous to fighting off an intruder in your home to protect your family. In those cases you would be justified in taking some fairly extreme measures of self defence.

However, waginbg war on Afghanistan/ Iraq is analogous to going out of your home, finding someone who might be an potential intruder (or a friend of a potential intruder, or someone who is rumoured to be prepared to sell burglary equipment to a potential intruder, or maybe just someone you don't like the look of), breaking into their home, killing a few of hisfamily members and smashing up their possessions.

Then, when your target has fled out the back door, you award the contract for the repairs to his home to your best buddy (with the target's surviving family selling off their remaining assets to pay the bill), build a few airbases in his back garden and start threatening the neighbours.[/QB]If my government tells me it is fighting this war to kill those who would do me and my family harm, I will support them. *shrug*

I see your point, but I still see that the government is protecting me and my family. I guess everyone is differnet.

However, waginbg war on Afghanistan/ Iraq is analogous to going out of your home, finding someone who might be an potential intruder (or a friend of a potential intruder, or someone who is rumoured to be prepared to sell burglary equipment to a potential intruder, or maybe just someone you don't like the look of), breaking into their home, killing a few of hisfamily members and smashing up their possessions.

Then, when your target has fled out the back door, you award the contract for the repairs to his home to your best buddy (with the target's surviving family selling off their remaining assets to pay the bill), build a few airbases in his back garden and start threatening the neighbours.
If said person had already come into my house and hurt my family, I would hunt him down and kill him. Or if he told me, "I will come to your house sometime and hurt your family", I wouldn't wait for him to show up. I'd go and get him first.

[ July 10, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: sachmo ]

sachmo

July 10th, 2003, 07:01 PM

narf poit chez BOOM

July 11th, 2003, 12:55 AM

and this is how militia Groups form. all of them, in essense, believe they are protecting there own little group. the rule of law must be upheld. everyone must receive justice.

The fact is that there were plenty of divorces, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and unscrupulous rakes back in more austere periods of history. It simply wasn't talked about back then. I know this for a fact because it happened quite a bit in my families history and, thinking this must be some terribly uncommon trend, I eventually looked deeper into the issue.

The problems were just covered up better back then. A good percentage of Charm Schools and Boarding Schools were actually Schools for Wayward Girls (institutions for hiding pregnancy). Lack of birth control just meant that most 'loose women' were professionals, and the natural increase in prostitution adds to organized crime, it does not add to general virtue.
although i wasn't thinking of that, i am aware of said theories regarding boarding houses, although i cannot say by what i know wether said theories are correct. if they are, any such problems where probably caused by ignoring said social problems, which nearly always makes them worse. i don't like band-aid solutions.

Sinapus

July 11th, 2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by sachmo:
...But we will protect ourselves, and that's where things get ugly. I am an American, and I want my children to grow up and be safe. Whatever it takes.So how many Iraqi children want you trade for one American? All of them ?
<hr /></blockquote>How nice. An either/or fallacy with cynical appeal to emotion. Not to mention a bit insulting. Shall I ask how many Iraqi children you were willing to "trade" for "keeping religious fanatics in check" or similar?

If you really want to play the appeal to emotions/"what about the chiiilllldren" game, you might want to stop and think about a few things.

And why do you belive what US goverment is doing is actually protecting your chieldren ?
Because I don't expect barbarians to play nice. (No, I don't think the Iraqis are barbarians. They certainly were ruled by some until Last April. Al Qaeda and other Groups also fit that description.)

. o O(Why do I get the feeling someone's going to bring in the "well why didn't you go liberate some repressive nation arbitrarily chosen and preferably way out in some area that would take months to deploy to" claim? Wonder if they think WWII was illegitimate because we didn't bust open all the Gulags? Wonder if they're going to use that first claim, then say we don't have enough troops in Iraq? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif )

Thermodyne

July 11th, 2003, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
So how many Iraqi children want you trade for one American? All of them ?

And why do you belive what US goverment is doing is actually protecting your chieldren ? I have a feeling US became less secure after this colonial war. Saddam was no danger for US as we can see now. He had no WMD and was keeping religious fanatics in check.That was really stupid. How many American young men gave their lives to keep Hitler from
spanking all of Europe? After the English had proclaimed �Peace in our time.� and paid a full
measure of appeasement? And the time before that when Europe took the world to war over the killing of a has-been royal that probably would have not been able to maintain his holdings for
another generation. And in the process set communism loose on the world. Which America
then held off at your door step for 50 years at great cost in lives and materials. And lets not
forget that most of this crap in the Middle East right now is the result of French and English
diplomacy at the end of world wars. IMHO it is far better to stamp the **** out of evil
governments right at the start, than to wait until the situation takes on an energy of it own. You speak with the naivet� of a person who has never risked all that he had for the benefit of others.

[ July 11, 2003, 00:36: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

July 11th, 2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by sachmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Q:
May be not all western governments (I believe I live in a country that still puts human rights first before combat against terrorism) but I must agree that some activities of the US government really frighten me more than any terrorist activities. And if deccan is right (I know too little about the political situation in that part of the world) I am worried about that too.Well, if that's true, then it's a good thing you didn't have any relatives working in a certain New York building on a certain day in 2001.
Once something like that happens in your country, the matter becomes a lot more complicated.<hr /></blockquote>I am a citizen of the country the Geneva convention comes from, which the US government not longer obeys when it comes to the war against terrorism.
But my compassion for the victims of the terrorism is absolutely independent of their passport and I sincerely hope that my reason would still govern my emotions when a relative would be under the victims.
But no matter how much I share the cry for justice, no matter how much I understand your concern for safety: the basic human rights must never never never be canceled for a human beeing, even if this human has commited the most horrible crimes. If you go over this line you will end up in tyranny and become inhuman yourself.

deccan

July 11th, 2003, 01:44 AM

*Ahem* Just to get things a little bit back on topic.

Continuing my story...

While being held under house arrest, the Prime Minister Ulufalu was forced to resign under duress. After the TPA was signed, there was some doubt as to the legality of the resignation, but the S.I. Parliament eventually decided to name a new P.M., Sogavaere and organize new elections. This happened in 2002, and the Sogavaere government was kicked out and Allen Kamekeza was named P.M., continuing till today.

In practice, both Sogavaere and Kemakeza followed the same policy towards the militants. Where Ulufalu held firm and refused to bow to their demands, the policy of the Sogavaere and Kemakeza governments was one of appeasement. Basically, whatever the guys with guns asked for, the government gave it to them.

For example, following the TPA, the government decided to compensate the displaced Malaitans with money which the Ozzie and NZ governments rather stupidly lent to the S.I. government. Naturally, the families of the cabinet members and senior members of the supposedly defunct MEF got first priority.

Many former MEF members were also recruited into a sort of semi-legal paramilitary group called the "Special Constables" (SC). They were also offered sums of money in return for giving up their guns. They took advantage of the offer by giving up only the oldest and broken down guns, but held on to the big, bad, automatic weapons. Their excuse: Harold Keke is still somewhere out there in the jungle. Disarm him first, and then we'll disarm. All the while, the "Special Constables" (SC) make all sorts of spurious claims ("danger allowance", 'family allowance" etc.) and the government keeps paying them off. After all, it's all someone else's money.

Naturally, the government's finances are a big mess, and the wages of ordinary government employees keep being delayed for longer and longer periods of time. A couple of weeks ago, one of the judges of S.I., a pretty good guy I might add, courageously announced in the newspapers, that with the constant delays in his wage payments and the very low level of his wages, he was in real and serious danger of being bribed, and he warned of the consequences to the country should this continue. Of course, the P.M. makes sure that the wages of the SC are *never* late.

In the meantime, Harold Keke is making a nuisance of himself to the Gualais, his very own people. He doesn't dare show his face in Honiara, where the Malaitans will gun him down on sight, but out in the bush, he's king, happily raping, robbing and murdering and no one to stop him. His people supported him at first, because they thought he'd stand up for them against the Malaitans, but it turns out he's not so good against Malaitans and they hate him with a vengeance.

Pretty much the same thing in the Western Province (WP). The BRA came and then refused to leave, terrorizing the towns and villages all over the western side of S.I. The BRA thing is now under control though, which is a credit to the WP people, but that certainly isn't the doing of anyone in the federal government.

Right now, it's every man for himself in the government departments. Each Government department wants fees paid to them directly and not the Ministry of Finance. You get the idea. The idea that the government should compensate the people for any losses whatsoever that they have suffered, no matter how spurious, has filtered down to the general Malaitan populace as well, so that the Ministry of Finance building is in a constant state of siege.

The more obviously corrupt the Government becomes, the less relevant it becomes to the people of S.I. Currently, the Government has very little influence outside of the capital.

And that's about all I can say about the state of the country right now. I could go on, but then I'll have to name specific people and practices, and I could get into trouble for that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thermodyne

July 11th, 2003, 01:50 AM

Deccan:

I have a question, who funds all of this?

Baron Grazic

July 11th, 2003, 02:11 AM

From one of Deccan's comments, it looks like I could be, as an Australia tax payer... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Thermodyne

July 11th, 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
From one of Deccan's comments, it looks like I could be, as an Australia tax payer... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif It does sort of have that stink that colonial interventions used to have.

The mine companies move in and then begin to suffer from local unrest. A few people die and
next thing you know, some guys in red jackets are protecting your brand new governor. All this
and more out of the kindness of the crown.

Now if there were snake eating advisors and strange companies providing un-needed services.
Then I would be looking closer to home http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

deccan

July 11th, 2003, 07:03 AM

Finally, a Last section for me to express some of my personal opinions on the situation in the S.I.

On balance, I support Australia's planned intervention in S.I. But I have many reservations.

1) Obviously Australia should have intervened much, much earlier. A show of force in support of Ulufalu's refusal to negotiate with the militants would have been relatively inexpensive and very effective. But, in the real world, it took 911 and the Bali bombing to stir the Australian government into taking action.

2) The fact that the Australians delayed acting for so long means that they will now have to rebuild many institutions that were effectively destroyed during the so-called ethnic tension. This isn't a question of building physical structures, but a question of re-training and properly motivating a cadre of competent, honest civil service employees. This is an extremely difficult and time-consuming task. I am not certain that the Australians yet realize the scope of the responsibility they have chosen to shoulder and may back out at a crucial moment.

3) The very scope of the intervention that is now necessary worries me. History has proven that large numbers of highly-paid aid workers in small, poor economies do bad things to those economies. Furthermore, the scope of the intervention and the amount of money involved creates moral hazards amongst some parties. In effect, some parties will inevitably greatly benefit more than others from all of the money being spent by the Australians here and may go to great lengths to artificially prolong the intervention as much as possible. These include local politicians sucking up to the Australians, some sectors of Australian-owned businesses and even possibly some of the aid workers sent here.

4) The Australian government answers to the Australian electorate, not the S.I. electorate. Therefore, any decisions taken here (example: economic and social policy, scope and depth of the intervention etc.) will necessarily be subject to the whims of Australian voters, which may change from time to time and can be a dangerous thing for Solomon Islanders.

A couple of suggestions that I would recommend, but see no signs of the Ozzie government being keen on include:

1) Initiate and enforce a comprehensive land reform. An extremely small proportion of the land in S.I. are properly registered parcels. By far the vast majority of land, and this includes land that people build houses on, farm on, and yes, even log on, are what is known as "customary lands", i.e. land owned in custom. Disputes over customary land are resolved in an extremely complicated way that involves calling in witnesses (tribal elders and chiefs) who are familiar with the oral traditions and customs of the various tribes / clans involved and who frequently don't speak English and instead must make their pronouncements in some obscure, nearly extinct regional dialect. This is a very contentious / subjective / difficult to properly administer and document task. This makes land tenure insecure and reduces the incentive of landowners to make long terms plans / investment decisions concerning their land.

2) Government (and taxation) should be conducted at the most local level possible. This is thorny issue. Making government and taxation local would avoid the problem of revenues from resource-rich areas being leeched away to pay to solve the problems in resource-poor areas and the tensions this causes. However, it would increase the overall administrative cost of government because of the need to duplicate many institutions and infrastructure. On balance, I still think that it's a good idea. Some areas of the S.I. don't really need to be subsidized because they produce plenty of revenue already. But some areas are so poor and isolated that they might see a boat from the outside world at most once a year. Properly separating them would make the subsidies that really needed in the really poor areas more explicit.

Last question:

Baron Grazic indicated earlier that the funding for the intervention was sold to the Australian public at least partially on the premise that it would help to prevent the S.I. from becoming a breeding ground for organized crime, drug production and smuggling, terrorism etc. To be honest, I believe that this is incredibly far-fetched. If the Australian government really is selling it on that basis, they are surely lying because all of those are extremely implausible scenarios. On the other hand, if the Australian public were sold on the basis that the it is a good thing to help a faltering neighbor, then that's another thing entirely, but it would be up to the Ozzie voters and taxpayers to decide whether or not it's worth it.

narf poit chez BOOM

July 11th, 2003, 07:41 AM

it sounds to me like if the sitution continues, it will become a breeding ground for etc.

deccan

July 11th, 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
it sounds to me like if the sitution continues, it will become a breeding ground for etc.I personally find it implausible, but I suppose it's not impossible.

1) Terrorism

What cause and what grievances? There are no fundamentalist Muslims here. There are lots of rather fundamentalist Christians, but they aren't violent, just ... wonky.

2) Organized Crime

The economy is really too small for crime organizations to bother with.

3) Drug Production

Possible, but the logistical problems are huge. S.I. doesn't export anything in any significant quantity except round logs anywhere, so ships leaving the islands are always highly visible.

Loser

July 11th, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by deccan:
There are lots of rather fundamentalist Christians, but they aren't violent, just ... wonky."Wonky"?

What is this "wonky"?

You should tell us about "wonky".

oleg

July 11th, 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... You speak with the naivet� of a person who has never risked all that he had for the benefit of others.And you are sure of that. What do you know of me to brand me a coward just because I am against the US policy ?

Loser

July 11th, 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
What do you know of me to brand me a coward just because I am against the US policy ?Now that's just silly. He's calling you what is he calling you because of your peacenik, or at least pacifist, rhetoric. This is clear from what was written.

[ July 11, 2003, 14:07: Message edited by: Loser ]

July 11th, 2003, 05:34 PM

Deccan thank you for your information about a political situation I almost completely missed.
May I ask you two questions:

1.) Is this plannend Australian intervention somehow backed by the UN? If not do you know why this situation is ignored by the UN?
2.) Do the Solomons have any natural resources of relevance?

I wish you and the people of the Solomons good luck and a more peaceful future.

dogscoff

July 11th, 2003, 05:46 PM

There are no fundamentalist Muslims here.
Believe it or not, it's possible to have terrorists who aren't fundamentalist Muslims. Or Christians.

BTW, "Wonky" means the same as "skewiff".

Thermodyne

July 11th, 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... You speak with the naivet� of a person who has never risked all that he had for the benefit of others.And you are sure of that. What do you know of me to brand me a coward just because I am against the US policy ?<hr /></blockquote>Coward? I find it hard to extrapolate that from my statement. Me thinks you protest too much. And no I am not sure, but you are firming up my suspicions.

My statement was not directed at your person, only at the foundation of your argument. History has shown us that appeasement is only putting off the price that will have to be paid later. A loan if you will. The diplomats borrow a little peace now to be paid for later, with interest.

Edit: This turned into a rant from here on, but it felt good to write it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It should be noted that each potential hot spot has an underlying cause that drives it. And often this relates to the culture of the people involved. And while peace is a worthy goal, it has never been achieved long term without that spilling of blood. Let�s look at the cold war, one of the longest periods of peace that Europe has known in modern times. It was achieved because the result of a war was too terrible to contemplate. And for once, Western Europe had a common foe. This stand off was maintained at the expense of America, the old USSR, and China for the most part. And the blood was mostly theirs along with both Koreas, both Vietnam�s and quite a few Central Americans and lets not forget to mention the Jews and Arabs. During this time Germany was worried about the Bear to the east, France was trying to regain her colonial holdings and England was just trying to adjust to life after empire.
When the cost of the cold war became too great to endure, both in monetary terms and political will of the people, it was decided to spend the other side into bankruptcy. And we all watched as the USSR died. Now we have a billion people who were under the soviet boot set free and another billion that were sucking at the soviet tit suddenly going hungry. The politicians are hollering about how great the peace is. While the ex-client states are looking to pick up some unfinished business left from times long past. And we all patted ourselves on the back, "Peace in our time" had returned. Bull ****! But we are a stupid species, so we went on appeasing evil men and their governments. Some of us even arranged it so that there was an influx of cash because of it. The rest of us sat back and assumed that it was so far away that we didn�t need to worry about it. All the while a lot of educators taught our kids that war and force of arms was a bad thing, this based on their limited understanding of the US involvement in Vietnam.
So one day some rag heads passing as Islamic defenders of the faith knock down some buildings, and the world changes. So we are left with some hard choices to make. We can spank back just a little, as we had been doing. Or we could go and remove this plague from the face of the earth. And as a Last choice we could begin a measured response that would place us in a position that allows for selective actions aimed at redesigning a culture. A little show of force here, a demonstration of our might of arms there, with some nation building for desert. Well folks, I for one am going to say that we are on the third choice and it is a stupid plan based on the lessons learned during the cold war! We should have tossed that stuff out the door and started with a clean sheet of paper.
When a nation is attacked, the government should act swiftly and with all reasonable force available to remove the threat. You can not change people�s attitudes, and you can not make war on governments alone. Just as you can not fight terror with terror. If your nation is under attack by Islamic terrorists, then like it or not, you need to make the Islamic Nations that are supporting said terrorism pay a price so terrible that they will spend the next few generations wondering what went wrong. If the leadership is actually the leaders of their religion, then the religion must be treated as a hostile government. If your allies support you, then fine. If they can not find a way or desire to support you, then they should be allowed to beg off with honor. But if your allies oppose you, then perhaps the relationship needs to be re-examined in depth. And once you go to war, it should be total war as far as that goes. The object should be the removal of the enemies� ability to harm you. Unfortunately with terrorism (unconventional warfare) this will require making war so terrible that the average man will not be willing to risk it. That includes the bombing of civilian targets and the removal of the nation�s ability to feed and house its people. Do I look forward to this with joy, hell no. I don�t enjoy seeing people suffer. But if I have the choice of having me and mine die or pounding the hell out of them, then I choose to let them die and suffer. And because of the hard work of the people of my nation, we are in the position to give better than we get with regards to every nation on earth. This is a fact that will not soon change. And to put this nation in the position of needing to use that power is a very dangerous thing. In times of war, the will of the people rests with far too few people, many of them not elected. The power that is instantly concentrated in a few days during time of war will take decades to be properly redistributed. And unfortunately, America is divided along ideological boundaries to an extent that has not existed since the American Civil War. This makes for a very unstable political situation at home. The difference this time is that most of the people don�t have a clue about what they are supporting or opposed to. They only know what they hear from their professors, and to disagree openly with them will put you right on the path. And they know the �Truth� that the news services provide. People should become truly informed and then take a stand. To say that this is bad or that is bad and then support it with the standard line that was presented on the six o�clock news is a waste of time. To take an ideological stand and then support it with a broad �way the world should be� argument was a waste of your parent�s college money. People need to look at both the cost and the benefit of their positions and then develop an original idea in support of their conclusions. Then make a statement that offers both a reason (need) and a solution that is based on something more tangible than collegiate political science or religious dogma.

OK This turned into a rant, and I done. But first let me share an experience that I had.

The World Bank was meeting in DC and I was stuck in traffic. So I leave my car and go into a little caf� to get a soda. There I find myself waiting in line with some young demonstrators. As we chatted I asked them what they were marching about. All but one replied that it was a �statement� and that it was �meant to show the world that the people had power to influence their government�s just like during the Vietnam War�. Ok that�s a bunch of who-ya bull****! But one of them made the case for the harm that loans and easy credit were doing to the third world. I didn�t agree with it all, but it was a good argument. When it came time for him to pay for his food, the first card he offered was refused as was the second. He then began trying to borrow some cash from his comrades. I asked him if easy credit and high interest were also hurting him. His reply was that he was just a little short until his dad forwarded some funds to his account. He failed to see that he was taking advantage of the very thing he was protesting. He had heard the dogma and could use it as a very good argument. But he did not understand the basic principles that were at the root of the problem. He was borrowing money that he expected someone else to pay back. Just as many people now call for peace, without having any intention of paying the bill that will come due later. The have the dogma down pat, but they don�t choose to see the end result as history and experience say it will be. They chose to see and hope what it could be. They sit back and assume that the bill will never come due. Or that their will not be a price to pay, no bill waiting in the mail. But history has shown us time and again that the bill will come a knocking. And as the world�s population snowballs, the bill will come due. Do you want to pay it now? Or leave it for your children? Do you want to be sheep and baah out the dogma and ideas of others or do you want to take a hard look and make some hard decisions of your own. In tough times, like minded individuals will come together and bring about change. But these same people will fight and bicker among themselves during times of plenty. I ask you this, how much longer will the times of plenty Last? I think a great portion of the world would answer that the time has already come and gone. And if we borrow peace now, how will our children pay the bill when it comes time to balance the books?

[ July 11, 2003, 17:41: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro

July 11th, 2003, 08:15 PM

Australians shouldn't cringe from the duty of helping others who can't or won't help themselves. It is the duty of civilized nations to intervene. I know that sounds like I think Australians should be acting like the regions policeman but so what. The region needs a policeman. Think of it this way, Would you rather let that country go to hell? Would you trust the Islamic thugs of the Indonesian Army to intervene and set things straight. Would you trust some pretty Blue Helmets of the U.N. to restore order. I would trust the Australians. Back in the good ol' days this probably would have been called "white mans burden" which isn't exactly very nice, but hey sometimes it is the duty of others to intervene and sometimes that means smacking around a little country. Did Australia get rid of that aircraft carrier yet? I know they got some pretty cool catamaran commando ships!

That dingo's got my baby...back ribs!

narf poit chez BOOM

July 12th, 2003, 01:28 AM

well, i was thinking of what would happen if things continued to deteriate.

Erax

July 12th, 2003, 02:36 AM

Thermo, your views sound... familiar. You wouldn't be an ex-US Navy lieutenant turned science fiction writer, would you ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I'd just like to say that there is no effective way to make war on terrorism, because the terrorists hide. They do not show their faces. The ones who support them do so secretly. Conventional warfare will NOT work against such an enemy (I'll assume your 'kill them all' suggestion was a rant). But there is a weapon out there that may work. It won't kill your enemy but it will make his children leave his camp and join yours; it's called television.

Take over their schools, their universities, their TV and radio stations. At the very least, make them lift state bans on what can be broadcast or taught in their countries, then flood them with your culture. Build hospitals, movie theaters, community centers. Send your pacifists over to be their children's teachers. The US has the power to do this, it will restore your credibility with the rest of the world and it will have support from peace and war proponents at home.

And unfortunately, America is divided along ideological boundaries to an extent that has not existed since the American Civil War. I am not an American and I do not live in the US, but that is also my perception. Only this time it isn't North vs. South, it's Coasts vs. Center.

Thermodyne

July 12th, 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Erax:
Thermo, your views sound... familiar. You wouldn't be an ex-US Navy lieutenant turned science fiction writer, would you ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I'd just like to say that there is no effective way to make war on terrorism, because the terrorists hide. They do not show their faces. The ones who support them do so secretly. Conventional warfare will NOT work against such an enemy (I'll assume your 'kill them all' suggestion was a rant). But there is a weapon out there that may work. It won't kill your enemy but it will make his children leave his camp and join yours; it's called television.

Take over their schools, their universities, their TV and radio stations. At the very least, make them lift state bans on what can be broadcast or taught in their countries, then flood them with your culture. Build hospitals, movie theaters, community centers. Send your pacifists over to be their children's teachers. The US has the power to do this, it will restore your credibility with the rest of the world and it will have support from peace and war proponents at home.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> And unfortunately, America is divided along ideological boundaries to an extent that has not existed since the American Civil War. I am not an American and I do not live in the US, but that is also my perception. Only this time it isn't North vs. South, it's Coasts vs. Center.<hr /></blockquote>Me in the Navy, well I took a ride in sub once. Been on a couple of boats too. Actually they were ships and the sub was a boat http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Who do you think I am? Perhaps I might want to look at his work.

The split is along party lines and while each side has its areas of power, it is not a clean divide. I feel that if a party would form that was right in the middle, they would become the majority very quickly. The two parties we have now just keep going further and further apart.

TerranC

July 12th, 2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro:
The region needs a policeman.The region needs drastic political and social reforms, not some wealthy, well-armed country invading others under the pretense of "policing".

It would take more than the Solomons going topsy turvy to classify Oceania/South East Asia a region needing policing.

Will

July 12th, 2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The split is along party lines and while each side has its areas of power, it is not a clean divide. I feel that if a party would form that was right in the middle, they would become the majority very quickly. The two parties we have now just keep going further and further apart.More like the split is along party lines... as long as it's not within 10 months of an election. For me, both Democrats and Republicans have become mostly indistinguishable. There are a few exceptions at the extremes of both parties, but for the most part, they're the same because they want to stay in office.

Personally, I take the same view as Erax. Anyone who thinks that conventional warfare will defeat unconventional tactics is just fooling themselves. The British tried during the Revolutionary War/War of Insurrection, and the start-up USA won in part because they (usually) refused to "play by the rules", march out in a long line, and let the other side shoot you while you shoot it. Vietnam, US troops were there trying to figure out just exactly who they were fighting; is this village supporting us or "the Commies"? Not that there was much that was conventional about Vietnam... It just seems analagous to the current "war"; are they with us, or with them, and what will it take for them to switch sides?

But I think the way to go is "cultural warfare". Right now, we aren't making much of an attempt to spread our ideas to the Islamic world. Parts of the younger generations in that culture are coming closer to a "westernized" culture, more because their elders are telling them not to than anything else. If there was an active outreach to truly embrace these people, then the radical fundamentalism that has spawned this particular batch of terrorists will eventually die out. The current policy of going into their house and making a show of force, shooting off some guns... that will only serve to harden their resolve, and we will have more, not less, terrorism on our hands.

Anyway, sorry for perpetuating the topic drift. deccan, thank you for posting this information, it hasn't exactly had an easy time getting to me through other channels... Let us know if anything else comes up!

TerranC

July 12th, 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Will:
But I think the way to go is "cultural warfare". Right now, we aren't making much of an attempt to spread our ideas to the Islamic world. Parts of the younger generations in that culture are coming closer to a "westernized" culture, more because their elders are telling them not to than anything else. If there was an active outreach to truly embrace these people, then the radical fundamentalism that has spawned this particular batch of terrorists will eventually die out. The current policy of going into their house and making a show of force, shooting off some guns... that will only serve to harden their resolve, and we will have more, not less, terrorism on our hands.Are you saying that the only effective way of stamping out islamic fundamentalism is assimilating them into western culture, erasing any cultural uniqueness?

Krsqk

July 12th, 2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by TerranC:
Are you saying that the only effective way of stamping out islamic fundamentalism is assimilating them into western culture, erasing any cultural uniqueness?I'm hoping we're not falling into the trap of "everything is beautiful in its own way" here. Some cultures--such as any culture which justifies killing to promote any religion--are worthy of being stamped out. Any "unique" qualities in their culture which are worth saving can be found in other Islamic cultures, or other Middle Eastern/Asian cultures, anyway. The defining element of their culture is the belief that killing infidels is good and earns them a spot in eternal bliss. That certainly isn't worth preserving. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[edit] Not that I think that exporting Western culture to them is the best thing to do; there are many elements of Western culture which I also find objectionable (such as the increasing emphasis on personal rights instead of personal freedom--general freedom requires the individual to act responsibly whereas the right to do something removes all responsibility for an action from the individual).

[ July 12, 2003, 04:04: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

TerranC

July 12th, 2003, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
The defining element of their culture is the belief that killing infidels is good and earns them a spot in eternal bliss. That certainly isn't worth preserving.That's not a defining element of their culture; if it was, all islamic states would have declared a Jihad against ALL other cultures on the planet.

Also, every culture is unique; American Culture is different than British culture, just like Palestinian culture is probably different than Iraqi culture. It seems to me as if you talk as if you live in Planet PickACulture, where it's alright to stamp out anything you deem intolerable.

BTW, Islam does not promote itself by killing other, nor does any other modern religions of the world.

Edit: Minor grammatical error

Another Edit: I'm pushing this towards an OT discussion. I'll stop replying further.

[ July 12, 2003, 04:28: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Will

July 12th, 2003, 05:48 AM

I'm not saying it's the only way, but it is _a_ way. I would hope that it gets to the point where there's a level of cultural understanding, so those factions where the goal really is "kill all the infidels" eventually lose their influence and voice in the culture, and then disappear entirely. I don't like all aspects of western culture either (most of my issues are with American culture, since I'm living in it), including the "victim" culture that we have. But, a complete incorporation would be very difficult, and take quite a bit of time, so I don't think that will happen. Most likely, it will result in changes to their culture and ours, but both will remain independant.

In an attempt to shove something resembling on-topicness, this would be similar to the changes deccan would like to see in S.I., land reform with definite boundries, government power given to local regions rather than central capital, etc. Small changes to the culture, which bring it in line with the rest of the world (as far as definitions of property), promote stability, etc.

Krsqk

July 12th, 2003, 06:30 AM

I see (I think). You were looking at Islamic culture/Middle Eastern culture as a whole, whereas I see fundamentalist/terrorist factions as a separate culture. To the best of my knowledge, most Muslims have a healthy respect for human life, something terrorists definitely do not have. I think an important characteristic like this shared by a widespread, reasonably organized group of people is enough to define it as a culture of its own. IMO, of course.

And you're right--this is well off topic.

Erax

July 12th, 2003, 10:24 AM

Once again... you cannot target the terrorists directly because they (and those who support them) are in hiding. This applies to cultural warfare (nice phrase, Will) as well. What you CAN do is target the population as a whole and bring them closer to your position, so that it becomes harder and harder for the extremist factions to find new recruits and get funding.

Post-war Japan is an example of this process. Their unique culture has not died out, but it has become intermingled with Western culture (and Western culture has received a contribution from them). The example is not perfect because Japan is an industrialized nation and that has an impact.

Thermo : I was trying to be funny, and I was referring to Robert Heinlein. I know you are not him because he is no longer alive. But you do sound a lot like him.

deccan

July 12th, 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Q:
[QB]Deccan thank you for your information about a political situation I almost completely missed.
May I ask you two questions:

1.) Is this plannend Australian intervention somehow backed by the UN? If not do you know why this situation is ignored by the UN?
2.) Do the Solomons have any natural resources of relevance?
[QB]1) No. I don't believe that the current problem is pressing enough to be worth the time of the UN Security Council. As crises go, this one is pretty small in the grand scheme of things.

2) Tropical timber, some gold deposits (not terribly rich), fish. That's about it.

deccan

July 12th, 2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by deccan:
There are lots of rather fundamentalist Christians, but they aren't violent, just ... wonky."Wonky"?

What is this "wonky"?

You should tell us about "wonky".<hr /></blockquote>Well, they're really weird. For example, there's this clan that goes around calling themselves the lost tribe of Israel, or something, complete with silly justifications on how they ended up in this part of the world and are black.

There are also only two t.v. channels here. One is the BBC, the other is some evangelical Christian station using American programming.

I don't think that they're prone to terrorism because they seem to have an infinite capacity to absorb / assimilate other beliefs into their own, essentially making one big super-pantheon of gods etc., even though Christianity is supposed to be monotheistic.

deccan

July 15th, 2003, 12:43 AM

The S.I. Parliament unanimously passed a "policy statement" stating their support in principle to the intervention, but the actual 'enabling" bill has yet to be passed.

The S.I. Prime Minister has also requested that the Australians only investigate and prosecute crimes that occur after the intervention and not before. He was widely booed. Looks like someone's trying to cover their behinds.

Loser

July 15th, 2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
I don't think that they're prone to terrorism because they seem to have an infinite capacity to absorb / assimilate other beliefs into their own, essentially making one big super-pantheon of gods etc., even though Christianity is supposed to be monotheistic. Originally posted by Paul
When in Rome, do as the Romans.This seems to have served them very well in the past, I have no doubt that it will continue to do so for wome time to come.

[ July 14, 2003, 12:30: Message edited by: Loser ]

Wardad

July 15th, 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
...I don't think that they're prone to terrorism because they seem to have an infinite capacity to absorb / assimilate other beliefs into their own, essentially making one big super-pantheon of gods etc., even though Christianity is supposed to be monotheistic. BURN THE WITCHES!!!!

Cheeze

July 15th, 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
For example, there's this clan that goes around calling themselves the lost tribe of Israel, or something, complete with silly justifications on how they ended up in this part of the world and are black.Deccan, the Wamponi?? (really obscure movie reference) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Do they also have a great love for orange soda and a terrible sense of direction?

deccan

July 15th, 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Cheeze:
Deccan, the Wamponi?? (really obscure movie reference) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Do they also have a great love for orange soda and a terrible sense of direction?Remember what I said about them not being prone to terrorism? I have a feeling they might make an exception to you if you tell that to them in their face. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Baron Grazic

July 16th, 2003, 01:55 AM

I heard today that Australian troops are expected to be in SI within the week, assuming both OZ & SI government gives the go ahead...

deccan

July 16th, 2003, 02:12 AM

There are rumors that the OZ troops are on a ship waiting outside S.I. waters. I do know that there are advance scouts already in the country.

Baron Grazic

July 21st, 2003, 02:35 AM

deccan - The Australian PM, just announced that troops are on the way.
Keep your head down, and let us know what is happening your end...

deccan

July 21st, 2003, 05:14 AM

Yep, the S.I. Parliament has passed the "enabling" bill.

Some militants are beating up and generally terrorizing people so that they don't tell on them to the Australians that they have weapons.

If I have time, I'll type up some excerpts from the local newspapers.

Loser

July 21st, 2003, 05:55 PM

Deccan, I just want to thank you for keeping all of us in the know on this one.

So, eh, thank you.

deccan

July 23rd, 2003, 12:21 AM

Doh, top item in the news yesterday and today is the export of dolphins from S.I. It's even in the Yahoo headlines.

deccan

July 25th, 2003, 05:01 AM

Ozzie troops are in town patrolling the city centre today. They got airlifted in yesterday. No action of any kind though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Baron Grazic

July 25th, 2003, 05:49 AM

Troops or Police because we sent 150 Police officers too?

It is reported that SI will be receiving 2225 members of the 'Australian-led intervention force' with soldiers and police from Australia, New Zealand and Fiji.

13 RAAF Hercules tranport aircraft have began flying in, plus the HMAS Manoora landed about 600 troops at historic Red Beach yesterday.

July 25th, 2003, 10:51 AM

Now this made the way to the news even here in Europe. And it was mentioned that some people see a danger of Australian "colonialism" in the region.

Again my best wishes to you and the people of the Solomon Islands for a more peaceful future.

deccan

July 26th, 2003, 01:37 AM

Yeah, there are both police and troops. Also, I think my house got buzzed by a very low-flying Ozzie chopper yesterday. That's probably because we have a fairly big compound with lots of cargo containers and heavy equipment and high fencing completely surrounding the perimetre. I think they wanted to make sure that we weren't some kind of militant base. Heh. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

deccan

July 27th, 2003, 01:50 AM

Heh. I had a personal run-in with the Ozzie intervention this afternoon (Saturday). Five Australian troops (they were definitely soldiers, not police, were in army fatigues, carrying big assault rifles) pulled up at my front gate in a pickup. Only two of them got out of the car though, and since I was in the yard at the time, they talked to me.

It seems that they've noticed that we had fresh gravel strewn over our compound (because we have heavy machinery moving in and out all the time and they tear up the earth) and were interested in buying some gravel. They said it was for fixing up the potholes in the roads here. So I sent them to our sister company from which we get our gravel.

Still, with our high fencing, and the fact that our front gate is actually a side gate into a rather narrow lane (we keep the real front gate permanently closed for security reasons), the only way they could have known the ground inside our compound is covered with gravel was yesterday's chopper.

So maybe their real reason for visiting was to scope us out on thr ground? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

deccan

August 1st, 2003, 02:43 AM

Alexander Downer is in town. I heard that he will be meeting with members of the Ozzie expat community today.

Baron Grazic

August 1st, 2003, 05:35 AM

The Australian press is now having a field day.
I'm not sure if any of their stories are true but we are getting reports such as :-
"A SI resident whose car that was stolen by militants months ago has woken up this morning to find that they returned it. He wishes to thank the Australian troops for scaring the thief into returning his car".

Also there is also a lot of talk about the corruption in the SI police force, with a video showing a number of policy officers beating up a suspect in the jail.

Keep us updated Deccan.

narf poit chez BOOM

August 1st, 2003, 06:37 AM

who's alaxander d-whosit?

Baron Grazic

August 1st, 2003, 06:49 AM

The Honorable Alexander Downer MP. Title: Minister for Foreign Affairs. Party: Liberal Party of Australia

I didn't think many people would know who Alexander Downer was.

I asked the question before who knew the Australian Prime Minister's name, and no-one replied.

[ August 01, 2003, 05:50: Message edited by: Baron Grazic ]

deccan

August 1st, 2003, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
[QB]
I'm not sure if any of their stories are true but we are getting reports such as :-
"A SI resident whose car that was stolen by militants months ago has woken up this morning to find that they returned it. He wishes to thank the Australian troops for scaring the thief into returning his car".
[QB]That was in the local newspaper as well but it said the source was someone speaking anonymously. I don't personally know anyone who's had that happen. Just yesterday, I had my (Ozzie) lawyer call me up and say, "Hey, I heard someone's trying to return some vehicles to you guys." and I was like "Duh, like I wish."

I do know that certain high-placed people in the civil service are under investigation for corruption. Serves 'em right too.

narf poit chez BOOM

August 1st, 2003, 08:16 AM

i remember hearing about somebody who might be the australlian prime mininster with a first name 'John'.

heh. i have trouble keeping track of the major canadian politician's.

TerranC

August 1st, 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i remember hearing about somebody who might be the australlian prime mininster with a first name 'John'.His Last name starts with the letter H.

P.S.: What I just said goes 2 ways...

Baron Grazic

August 1st, 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
[QB]
I do know that certain high-placed people in the civil service are under investigation for corruption. Serves 'em right too.
[QB]Alert the world press!!! A possible corrupt senior civil servant. That must be a world first. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Edit - At least 1 Canadian knows who is the OZ PM is, and 1 "Mouse" from "Cheese" has an idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Edit 2 - Have a good weekend all...

[ August 01, 2003, 08:02: Message edited by: Baron Grazic ]

narf poit chez BOOM

August 1st, 2003, 06:17 PM

Edit 2 - Have a good weekend all...
thank you.

Baron Grazic

August 14th, 2003, 01:06 AM

Warlord Harold Keke and 2 of his senor followers have surrendered to Australian troops and are now in custody aboard an Asutralia navy vessel.

Deccan, How does the SI people feel?

deccan

August 14th, 2003, 02:24 AM

Whoa, you sure get news fast. I first heard of Harold Keke's capture Last night at dinner, but nobody was sure if it was true or not. There was a lot of helicopter activity but people were saying that they were headed to Choiseul Province.

Probably most of the S.I. locals want Keke's blood. Yesterday's newspaper's headline was a prosecutor asking for Parliament to allow death sentences so it could be used on Keke. Most people around here are pretty riled up about Keke's recent admission that he'd killed the Melanesian Brotherhood emissaries that went sent to him.

Baron Grazic

August 14th, 2003, 05:24 AM

The Australian forces were not going to sit quietly on news like that for very long. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The next move they want to do is clean up the SI Law Enforcements. They keep showing the same footage of a shackled man being held by 2 officers and hit a couple of time by another. The detanee does attempt to hit the office back however.

deccan

August 14th, 2003, 05:41 AM

One thing for certain: no more speeding in Honiara. One of my colleagues got pulled over for speeding Last week, first time in 10 years!

Baron Grazic

August 14th, 2003, 05:55 AM

What is the speed limit?

narf poit chez BOOM

August 14th, 2003, 08:42 PM

a rather strange, but welcome end to a warlord's um, job, i suppose.

job, because i couldn't remember how to spell carrer. see?

deccan

August 15th, 2003, 01:24 AM

Sorry, I have no idea what the speed limit is. My colleague didn't get ticketed by the Ozzie police, just got warned to drive more carefully in the future.

Excerpt from today's copy of the "Solomon Star":

Harold Keke's reign of terror has finally come o an end.

The notorious warlord has surrendered and gave himself up to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands yesterday, averting a possible bloody assault on his Weathercoast stronghold.

"At 9 o' clock this morning (yesterday), I advised Keke that he was now formally under arrest in relation to a warrant which was issued for his arrest on March 28, 1999," Deputy Police Commissioner Ben McDevitt told journalists.

Keke surrendered and gave himself up to head of the regional mission, Nick Warner, military commander Lt-Col John Frewen, and Mr. McDevitt on their arrival at Mbiti village around 7.30 a.m. yesterday.

After he surrendered, Keke, his wife, children, close family members and two of his right-hand men, were airlifted aboard HMAS Manoora, which was waiting offshore.

In the HMAS Manoora, Keke was told that he was under formal arrest.

Mr. Warner and his party then returned to Mbiti village from HMAS Manoora to join other members of RAMSI for a handing in and destruction of weapons ceremony.

He said about 50 men belonging to Guadalcanal Liberation Front paraded before they presented to them their weapons which were destroyed in front of the villagers.

End excerpt.