FIRST THEY THREATEN TO CUT AID TO PAKISTAN THEN THEY WANT PAKISTAN TO FIGHT HARDER AGAINST THE TALIBAN.
Dick Cheney dropped in on Pakistan yesterday because the weather wouldn’t let him into Afghanistan. So while he’s there he tells Musharraf that the Pakistanis ought to be making more of an effort to curtail Taliban fighters from entering Afghanistan from Pakistan. The Pakistan President must be fuming. First he gets told that aid may be cut and then he’s told that he must make more of an effort to fight America’s war for them. No wonder the US is losing this war. Bush and Cheney; America’s worst enemies.
SOMETHING HAS GOT TO GIVE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS – AND THE SOONER THE BETTER.
Condoleeza Rice has said that Bush will not abide by legislation to limit the Iraq war. Rice has ‘urged the Democratic-controlled US Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.’ Bush is moving further and further away from reality if he believes he can defy Congress in this way. Everything about the Bush-Cheney-Rice administration clearly shows America drifting closer and closer toward a totalitarian state that ignores its own legislature and the voices of it peoples.
IT SEEMS SPECIAL OPERATION TEAMS ARE ALREADY OPERATING IN IRAN – AND THEY ARE NOT JUST AMERICAN TEAMS.
‘The US is reportedly stepping up covert operations in Iran in a new strategy that risks sparking an "open confrontation" with the Islamic republic.’ There are a few noises on the grapevine that are saying that it is not just US special forces operating inside Iran gathering intelligence for the coming attack. Apparently, according to some anonymous sources, Australian SAS people are also operating in Iran. I hope for Howards sake, not to mention the soldiers themselves, that none of them get caught. The political repurcussions of any of them getting caught and then shot for spying would be disatrous for the good name of Australia.
WILL HOWARD TRY TO STAY ON AT BENNELONG OR BOW OUT BEFORE THE ELECTION – EITHER WAY HE LOOKS LIKE A LOSER.
Whatever Howard does, it looks like his days are now numbered. Recent polls have already indicated that he would lose his seat and now the odds are on Maxine McKew gaining it. So the big question is going to be: Will John Howard take his chances at the next election or will he jump ship prior to the election and hand it over to Costello? Either way he’s going to look like a loser and, for a bloke that has always wanted to be nothing other than one of history’s winners, that’s going to hurt. I can’t think of it happening to a more deserving Australian Prime Minister.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
18 comments:
Damien you are serious? Do you really believe all of this conspiracy stuff that you publish here?
Do you support the likes of the Taliban? given their attitude and long track record of oppressing women killing those Muslims who dare to denounce their faith? And the fact that they finance their activities by the production of heroin. Why should we not all support any action ,by the US and Pakistan to remove their pernicious influence from that part of the world ?
I support the right for peoples self-determination without the interference of nations like the US that couldn't give a flying toss about how Muslims live and behave and who have ulterior motives for beiing in Afghistan.
The reality is that absolutely nothing in Afgahnistan has changed - except that what sembence of government there is there, and that's confined to Kabul, is pro-US.
Afghanistan belongs to the regional peoples there and they have been fighting either among themselves or foreign invaders for eons. Your self-righteous crap about invading them for their own good is pure hypocrisy.
For well over three hundred years foreigners have been poking their noses in to the Afghan peoples business. How would you be if they invaded your country and started telling you how to live your life?
You are an arrogant hypocrite if you think you are any better than they. Perhaps if the West left people they don't understand alone then maybe they'll leave the West alone and find a way of sorting there own problems out for themselves. If they want help they can ask for it. Forcing it down their throats will only make it worse for everyone.
In the end the invaders will inevitably lose and as far as I'm concerned the quicker the better because then life can get back to normal - for them and for us.
By the same token couldn't we say that non-indigenous people have been poking their noses in to the lives and land of the Indigenous people of Australia? Does Australia really belong to the Aboriginals and is the European governmental system enforced on the country - which is also largely pro-US today - is illegitimate?
Since the Aboriginal peoples have occupied this land for ten of thousands of years, I'd say they'd have more claim to it than Europeans who have only been here a little over a couple of hundred years.
European treatment of Aboriginal people serves only to demonstrate further the arrogance of Europeans as they moved from place to place around the planet colonising and pillaging where ever they go.
Nothing has really changed.
I have immigrant European grandparents on both sides of my family who moved to Australia. In this way I believe we might be considered 'invaders'.
Do immigrants have a responsibility to leave Australia and return to where they or their families came from? Or isn't it more sensible that people just get used to the fact that land changes hands over time?
Immigrants at this late stage in the occupation could not reasonably be expected to leave Australia. However, all European and other settlers that have arrived here since the the first fleet settlers should at least respect the original inhabitants of the land and not treat them the way they have been treated and indeed, continue to be treated.
It's called mutual respect - something Europeans find very difficult to cope with.
Would this not mean that in a certain number of years (100? 150?) it will be legitimate for Israel to remain on the land it claims if they respect the Palestinian people?
vbDamien
I posed a perfectly civil question to you and you claim that I am a Hypocrite in return
You are an arrogant hypocrite if you think you are any better than they. Perhaps if the West left people they don't understand alone then maybe they'll leave the West alone and find a way of sorting there own problems out for themselves. If they want help they can ask for it. Forcing it down their throats will only make it worse for everyone.
Now it would seem to me that by your own logic if we were to apply this standard to the UK or Europe you would be suggesting the expulsion of all recent immigrants because their influx into those places likewise represents an invasion of sorts. Am I right or do you have a different standard for those parts of the world?
Iain Hall, there was caveat to me calling you an arrogant hypocrite which went “…if you think you are any better than they”. I also suggest that you read my other comments to those that have raised the similar issues as you with regard to other historical invasions.
I might remind everyone that this is the twenty-first century and that we are supposed to be living in a world that no longer tolerates one group of peoples invading another country and killing/displacing its peoples so that the invaders can either take that which does not belong to them or settle on lands that do not belong to them. Modern societies are supposed to have moved past all that and learnt to live side by side with respect and tolerance for ones neighbours. Historical comparisons that try to justify modern invasions and takeovers are not valid. If they were then the world can kiss any ideas it had about lasting peace and we can all go to war with each other in a glorious free for all and may the strongest nation win – if there is anything left to win.
Anonymous, the kind of right-wing Zionist Israelis that are settled on land that does not belong to them will never ‘respect’ Palestinians.
Now it would seem to me that by your own logic if we were to apply this standard to the UK or Europe you would be suggesting the expulsion of all recent immigrants because their influx into those places likewise represents an invasion of sorts. Am I right or do you have a different standard for those parts of the world?
I'll try again Damiem can you answer my question because it is a simple one that you seem to be dodging by suggesting that I have to trawl through your archiveto find an answer.
Iain Hall, I had answered your question but clearly it went over your head. I’ll try a different tack to make it as simple as I can for you.
This is your question: “Now it would seem to me that by your own logic if we were to apply this standard to the UK or Europe you would be suggesting the expulsion of all recent immigrants because their influx into those places likewise represents an invasion of sorts. Am I right or do you have a different standard for those parts of the world?”
This is my answer: People who immigrate to a country do so at the invitation of the host country or, at least, with the permission of the host country. People who invade a country are usually unwelcome in the country they invade and are highly unlikely to receive permission to invade even if they were dumb enough to actually ask. It’s not a matter of applying ‘different standards’; it’s a simple matter of understanding the difference between being ‘immigrant’ and ‘invader’. Can you now see the difference? Why would one want to expel people that have been invited or have received permission to live in a country?
Few people actually asked the Aboriginal people if it was alright to come and live in Australia. And, before you ask, yes – I am one of the few people that actually did!
I can assure you that none of my relatives asked any Aboriginal people anything before they moved to Australia. As such, that you did so is fascinating to me. Who did you ask? Was it local South Australian groups or others?
Anonymous, why am I not surprised. Who I wrote to is between me and them.
Excuse me - of course the actual person is between you and them.
I was more wondering whether it was a local (as in 'in your state') group or a national body. It's just I recognise that indigenous groups have local areas and not all recognise the national bodies that are meant to represent them. As well, when the recognition of first owners is done at the start of your average political speech (at least on the left of Australian politics) the group acknowledged is the local group, not the indigienous people as a whole.
I was just wondering whether it was a local/state group or a national group.
I didn't write to any individual; I wrote to a body of people. When I said 'who I wrote to is between me and THEM' (as against '...me and him/her') I would have thought that that might have been a clue to the fact that I had not written to an individual but a body of people.
Once again; who I wrote to is between me and them.
It’s not a matter of applying ‘different standards’; it’s a simple matter of understanding the difference between being ‘immigrant’ and ‘invader’. Can you now see the difference? Why would one want to expel people that have been invited or have received permission to live in a country?
Hang on a minute Damian
I am actually referring to the many millions of people who have entered these countries without invitation or permission will you not concede that such people are invaders and as such should be expelled? Or be seen as invaders under your definition?
I certainly understood that Damian that's why I asked if it was a state or a national group?
Iain Hall, let me just repeat what I said earlier with regards to historic invasions and occupations and how they should be viewed relative to modern invasions and occupations. It went like this:
"I might remind everyone that this is the twenty-first century and that we are supposed to be living in a world that no longer tolerates one group of peoples invading another country and killing/displacing its peoples so that the invaders can either take that which does not belong to them or settle on lands that do not belong to them. Modern societies are supposed to have moved past all that and learnt to live side by side with respect and tolerance for ones neighbours. Historical comparisons that try to justify modern invasions and takeovers are not valid. If they were then the world can kiss any ideas it had about lasting peace and we can all go to war with each other in a glorious free for all and may the strongest nation win – if there is anything left to win."
Invasions and occupations of peoples countires and land is just not acceptable in modern times. If it were then we might just as well go back to the dark ages where it's every man for himself.
Anonymous, as I said, it's between me and them. How many, where abouts or what states is between me and them only.
Post a Comment