If everyone left the party whilst the Rodent is still sending our poor kids in Harms way.
Why?
Wouldn't it be funny?
-
Filthy
Wouldn't it be funny?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Bla ... 04555.html
If everyone left the party whilst the Rodent is still sending our poor kids in Harms way.
Why?
If everyone left the party whilst the Rodent is still sending our poor kids in Harms way.
Why?
-
Filthy
Well our troops aren't going anywhere...little Johnny will just use this as another opportunity to try and big note himself and our country as the Yanks biggest allies/pussies!!!
I mean big bad Tony even stood up for the rights of British citizens and got them out of camp x-ray, while little Johnny has allowed Bush do whatever he wants to Australian citizens for up to 5 years when they haven't even had any charges laid against them!!!
I mean big bad Tony even stood up for the rights of British citizens and got them out of camp x-ray, while little Johnny has allowed Bush do whatever he wants to Australian citizens for up to 5 years when they haven't even had any charges laid against them!!!
It looks as though Howard/Downer/Nelson are increasingly looking more and more stupid over the "strategy" in Iraq.....
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=228746
From where I sit, I cannot fathom how on earth we can expect to prevent/defeat sectarian violence (civil war) in Iraq. Certainly not with 550 non combat troops. As more "coalition of the willing" troops withdraw from the region, the more ridiculous our involvement is. And to deploy further non combat troops is laughable in trying to achieve a peaceful and harmonic Iraqi state. What we will see at the end of the very long dark tunnel is a nest of terrorists with a strong hold in Iraq that was never there prior to the invasion. Well done to all involved (sarcasm intended).
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=228746
From where I sit, I cannot fathom how on earth we can expect to prevent/defeat sectarian violence (civil war) in Iraq. Certainly not with 550 non combat troops. As more "coalition of the willing" troops withdraw from the region, the more ridiculous our involvement is. And to deploy further non combat troops is laughable in trying to achieve a peaceful and harmonic Iraqi state. What we will see at the end of the very long dark tunnel is a nest of terrorists with a strong hold in Iraq that was never there prior to the invasion. Well done to all involved (sarcasm intended).
-
dodgey
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 9616
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:07 am
- Location: In the Bar having a Punt
The War in Iraq and the David Hicks fiasco will deliver the Libs into OPPOSITION at the forthcoming election...ealesy wrote:Well our troops aren't going anywhere...little Johnny will just use this as another opportunity to try and big note himself and our country as the Yanks biggest allies/pussies!!!
I mean big bad Tony even stood up for the rights of British citizens and got them out of camp x-ray, while little Johnny has allowed Bush do whatever he wants to Australian citizens for up to 5 years when they haven't even had any charges laid against them!!!
Get your Hard earned on Rudd as our next PM
-
jimmyc1985
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: Position A
The deployment of extra training troops last week was another political stunt by Howard aimed at undermining Rudd that has backfired amidst Blair's commitment to reduce troop numbers. The intention of Howard committing extra training troops was to effectively say: "look, we aren't sending combat troops, we're sending extra training troops to help the Iraqis become self-sufficient which in the long run will mean we can reduce our number of combat troops deployed. How can Mr Rudd be opposed to us sending more training troops when we're actually helping the Iraqis become more self-sufficient - isn't that what Mr. Rudd wants?" Typical Howardian politics, really. As i said, the stunt has backfired badly now that England are withdrawing a good portion of their troops and Howard has struck out again.BenDoolan wrote:It looks as though Howard/Downer/Nelson are increasingly looking more and more stupid over the "strategy" in Iraq.....
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=228746
From where I sit, I cannot fathom how on earth we can expect to prevent/defeat sectarian violence (civil war) in Iraq. Certainly not with 550 non combat troops. As more "coalition of the willing" troops withdraw from the region, the more ridiculous our involvement is. And to deploy further non combat troops is laughable in trying to achieve a peaceful and harmonic Iraqi state. What we will see at the end of the very long dark tunnel is a nest of terrorists with a strong hold in Iraq that was never there prior to the invasion. Well done to all involved (sarcasm intended).
Also, one of the greatest 'thin end of the wedge' quotes ever came from Howard yesterday. In response to the fact that the Poms are withdrawing large amounts of troops, Howard said: "That will still leave British forces in southern Iraq 10 times the [size of the] Australian force." So the Poms can withdraw a few thousand troops and it doesn't matter because they've got plenty more still there, but we can't withdraw 500 odd because the terrorists will win
? Nice one Johnny. And as for Downer's persistant calls for a 'conditions-based rather than time-based withdrawals strategy' on the 7.30 Report last night, he looks to have put his foot in it given that there are some time stipulations attached to Blair's winding down of troop numbers. Again, well done Downer.-
Filthy
-
jimmyc1985
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: Position A
So are Downer's and Johnny's! Rudd really should poleaxe Howard over this and i suspect he will. The problem for Howard and Downer is that the Rudd is the ex Opposition Minister for Foreign Affairs and he is therefore perhaps more knowledgeable and more adept at arguing over Iraq than Howard and Downer put together. They're in serious strife, the Libs.Filthy wrote:I've seen spin before Jim and fellas but gee nothing like the spin of the past 2 days.
My head is spinning!!!
Yes, it's all very well to make that statement, and all too easy. "Condition based" withdrawal......yeah right. "We will withdraw when the job is done". Great, and when might that be? "However long it takes".jimmyc1985 wrote: .
And as for Downer's persistant calls for a 'conditions-based rather than time-based withdrawals strategy' on the 7.30 Report last night, he looks to have put his foot in it given that there are some time stipulations attached to Blair's winding down of troop numbers. Again, well done Downer.
I mean seriously, what is the objective? Is it to stop the civil unrest and the growing terrorist network? If so, then the deployment may last an eternity. Is it to assist and educate Iraqi forces to handle to situation for themselves? If so, then surely you are able to put a time line on that process......
-
Filthy
To do that you'd have to go back and settle the Succession dispute after Mohammed died without a son ie successor.BenDoolan wrote:Yes, it's all very well to make that statement, and all too easy. "Condition based" withdrawal......yeah right. "We will withdraw when the job is done". Great, and when might that be? "However long it takes".jimmyc1985 wrote: .
And as for Downer's persistant calls for a 'conditions-based rather than time-based withdrawals strategy' on the 7.30 Report last night, he looks to have put his foot in it given that there are some time stipulations attached to Blair's winding down of troop numbers. Again, well done Downer.
I mean seriously, what is the objective? Is it to stop the civil unrest and the growing terrorist network? If so, then the deployment may last an eternity. Is it to assist and educate Iraqi forces to handle to situation for themselves? If so, then surely you are able to put a time line on that process......
On the one hand you had a nephew who said he was....enter Sunni.
On the other another side another nephew who said he was...enter the majority Muslim sect in the world, Shiite.
And thirdly, add to the mix the totally different ethnically Kurds who have said they will NEVER be under "Iraqi" control again having suffered under Sodom Insane so terribly but the Turks have said if they declare an independent state they'll invade Kurdish Iraq.
All courtesy of the secret Sykes-Piquot Treaty (Poms & Frogs) who divied up the Ottoman Empire and into spheres of influence and created Iraq (after promising a independent Arab State). Unfortunately someone forget to tell Mr. Sykes and Monsieur Piquot that the Sunnis and Shiites had mortally hated each other for 1400 years and took delight in butchering each other in the name of Allah of course.
Then the Poms installed a King and hung around for 10 years fighting a insurgency....dropping mustard gas on villages and doing their usual colonial thing....until they through up their hands and left. Ever since there has been a strongarm Sodom like person keeping a lid on it but the Genie is out of the bottle now....excuse the pun.
As much as things change, nothing ever does in some areas. History always repeats when you involve the ignorant and or fanatics like Bush and Co.
Great post.
I am puzzled at the total ignorance of history among "world" leaders.
No, I never expected anything from Bush, but Tony Blair: a fairly well educated leader and quite smart I believed. How could he not know that the British had years of hell in Iraq in the twenties and finally gave up and handed the country to the Sunni elite? How could he not know that by stirring the pot he would have the choice between a nasty civil war and giving the country to Iran... not the benevolent democracy that he talked about?
And Condi Rice has a Phd. in history, but of course she was specialized in Russia and communism... so she has all rights to be completely ignorant of neighbouring countries.
Sad state of the education system worldwide, or is it that the "ego" of the leaders is so strong they forgot the facts and preferred oil filled dreams.
I am puzzled at the total ignorance of history among "world" leaders.
No, I never expected anything from Bush, but Tony Blair: a fairly well educated leader and quite smart I believed. How could he not know that the British had years of hell in Iraq in the twenties and finally gave up and handed the country to the Sunni elite? How could he not know that by stirring the pot he would have the choice between a nasty civil war and giving the country to Iran... not the benevolent democracy that he talked about?
And Condi Rice has a Phd. in history, but of course she was specialized in Russia and communism... so she has all rights to be completely ignorant of neighbouring countries.
Sad state of the education system worldwide, or is it that the "ego" of the leaders is so strong they forgot the facts and preferred oil filled dreams.
Red and Black Forever