I am not amazed at all that lefties are siding with ISIS.
LOL. Who the hell is siding with ISIS here?
I am not amazed at all that lefties are siding with ISIS.
LOL. Who the hell is siding with ISIS here?
Anyone who wants them to stick around. Or doesn't mind if they stick around.
I am not amazed at all that lefties are siding with ISIS.
Talking about a problem is always greater than doing something about a problem with these people.
I am not amazed at all that lefties are siding with ISIS.
LOL. Who the hell is siding with ISIS here?
Anyone who wants them to stick around. Or doesn't mind if they stick around.
Which people are they? You are showing a lack of understanding about the issue, and what's been discussed in here.
Which is common for anybody who uses 'left' v 'right' in a discussion.
I am not amazed at all that lefties are siding with ISIS.
LOL. Who the hell is siding with ISIS here?
Anyone who wants them to stick around. Or doesn't mind if they stick around.
I don't see you calling for western military intervention against Boko Haram. Does that mean that you want them to stick around?
I am not amazed at all that lefties are siding with ISIS.
LOL. Who the hell is siding with ISIS here?
Anyone who wants them to stick around. Or doesn't mind if they stick around.
I don't see you calling for western military intervention against Boko Haram. Does that mean that you want them to stick around?
We should have been involved there too.
trust Daytripper to turn this into a left v right debate.
trust Daytripper to turn this into a left v right debate.
When you have the usual clowns like Milne, Hanson-Idiot, Bandt and Fairfax on one side and everyone else on the other, then what else would you call it ?
It is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the hard left is against anyone doing anything to assist in the fight against IS.
trust Daytripper to turn this into a left v right debate.
When you have the usual clowns like Milne, Hanson-Idiot, Bandt and Fairfax on one side and everyone else on the other, then what else would you call it ?
It is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the hard left is against anyone doing anything to assist in the fight against IS.
That's bullshit and you know it.
All the Greens want is that the Parliament has a debate about going to war. We elect people to Parliament to "represent" us. Or so I thought.
On such a serious issue, an adult Parliament should be able to have an open debate about being involved in war, so that we are all fully informed. But, that's only a side issue here.
The way to deal with ISIS/ISIL is to create circumstances where there is no reason for such organisations like them, Al-Qaeda, JI or anyone else to exist. Poking the bear isn't the way to do it.
trust Daytripper to turn this into a left v right debate.
When you have the usual clowns like Milne, Hanson-Idiot, Bandt and Fairfax on one side and everyone else on the other, then what else would you call it ?
It is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the hard left is against anyone doing anything to assist in the fight against IS.
That's bullshit and you know it.
All the Greens want is that the Parliament has a debate about going to war. We elect people to Parliament to "represent" us. Or so I thought.
On such a serious issue, an adult Parliament should be able to have an open debate about being involved in war, so that we are all fully involved. But, that's only a side issue here.
The way to deal with ISIS/ISIL is to create circumstances where there is no reason for such organisations like them, Al-Qaeda, JI or anyone else to exist. Poking the bear isn't the way to do it.
Bullcrap as well, we elect Governments to make decisions, not spend 20 years debating peoples personal biases.
trust Daytripper to turn this into a left v right debate.
When you have the usual clowns like Milne, Hanson-Idiot, Bandt and Fairfax on one side and everyone else on the other, then what else would you call it ?
It is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the hard left is against anyone doing anything to assist in the fight against IS.
That's bullshit and you know it.
All the Greens want is that the Parliament has a debate about going to war. We elect people to Parliament to "represent" us. Or so I thought.
On such a serious issue, an adult Parliament should be able to have an open debate about being involved in war, so that we are all fully involved. But, that's only a side issue here.
The way to deal with ISIS/ISIL is to create circumstances where there is no reason for such organisations like them, Al-Qaeda, JI or anyone else to exist. Poking the bear isn't the way to do it.
Bullcrap as well, we elect Governments to make decisions, not spend 20 years debating peoples personal biases.
And part of the problem is the unwillingness of the Executive to grant Opposition parties access to ALL the information they are using to form the case for their decisions.
trust Daytripper to turn this into a left v right debate.
When you have the usual clowns like Milne, Hanson-Idiot, Bandt and Fairfax on one side and everyone else on the other, then what else would you call it ?
It is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the hard left is against anyone doing anything to assist in the fight against IS.
That's bullshit and you know it.
All the Greens want is that the Parliament has a debate about going to war. We elect people to Parliament to "represent" us. Or so I thought.
On such a serious issue, an adult Parliament should be able to have an open debate about being involved in war, so that we are all fully involved. But, that's only a side issue here.
The way to deal with ISIS/ISIL is to create circumstances where there is no reason for such organisations like them, Al-Qaeda, JI or anyone else to exist. Poking the bear isn't the way to do it.
Typical Socialist Green - lets talk about an issue and do nothing. That way you are on safe ground to sneer and be critical of anyone who attempts to actually do something.
I'm finding it hard to understand what a debate will achieve. Both Labor and the Coalition are at one on this so thats game over basically as far as any formal debate goes.
Can I understand on a practical level what you would do about IS?
I assume all the "righties" will be gearing up to join the army and take ISIS out themselves?
trust Daytripper to turn this into a left v right debate.
When you have the usual clowns like Milne, Hanson-Idiot, Bandt and Fairfax on one side and everyone else on the other, then what else would you call it ?
It is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the hard left is against anyone doing anything to assist in the fight against IS.
That's bullshit and you know it.
All the Greens want is that the Parliament has a debate about going to war. We elect people to Parliament to "represent" us. Or so I thought.
On such a serious issue, an adult Parliament should be able to have an open debate about being involved in war, so that we are all fully involved. But, that's only a side issue here.
The way to deal with ISIS/ISIL is to create circumstances where there is no reason for such organisations like them, Al-Qaeda, JI or anyone else to exist. Poking the bear isn't the way to do it.
Typical Socialist Green - lets talk about an issue and do nothing. That way you are on safe ground to sneer and be critical of anyone who attempts to actually do something.
I'm finding it hard to understand what a debate will achieve. Both Labor and the Coalition are at one on this so thats game over basically as far as any formal debate goes.
Can I understand on a practical level what you would do about IS?
A fully informed debate creates a fully informed and supported decision. No harm in that..we do it for every other issue.
IS is created by people in an emotional state of mind because they have anger at people imposing their will on them. Every supposed terrorist organisation has that as their foundation. So in practical terms, everyone needs to tell the USA to get the ■■■■ out of everywhere else. It is their foreign policy position, basically since Vietnam, to impose their will on the rest of the world and that we, Britain and others happily go along with it.
So those opposed to that imposition seemingly have no other option but to stop such actions. To do this, the UN must have a binding vote of all member nations, stopping the USA from forcing democracy and whatever else on socieities that do not want or need it.
I assume all the "righties" will be gearing up to join the army and take ISIS out themselves?
Why? Bush didn't go there himself so why should I? I'd prefer a few lefties to sign up and go on my behalf. Maybe we can bring in a draft for all the Greenies to go, that'll fix most of our problems with one solution.
trust Daytripper to turn this into a left v right debate.
When you have the usual clowns like Milne, Hanson-Idiot, Bandt and Fairfax on one side and everyone else on the other, then what else would you call it ?
It is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the hard left is against anyone doing anything to assist in the fight against IS.
That's bullshit and you know it.
All the Greens want is that the Parliament has a debate about going to war. We elect people to Parliament to "represent" us. Or so I thought.
On such a serious issue, an adult Parliament should be able to have an open debate about being involved in war, so that we are all fully involved. But, that's only a side issue here.
The way to deal with ISIS/ISIL is to create circumstances where there is no reason for such organisations like them, Al-Qaeda, JI or anyone else to exist. Poking the bear isn't the way to do it.
Typical Socialist Green - lets talk about an issue and do nothing. That way you are on safe ground to sneer and be critical of anyone who attempts to actually do something.
I'm finding it hard to understand what a debate will achieve. Both Labor and the Coalition are at one on this so thats game over basically as far as any formal debate goes.
Can I understand on a practical level what you would do about IS?
A fully informed debate creates a fully informed and supported decision. No harm in that..we do it for every other issue.
IS is created by people in an emotional state of mind because they have anger at people imposing their will on them. Every supposed terrorist organisation has that as their foundation. So in practical terms, everyone needs to tell the USA to get the fark out of everywhere else. It is their foreign policy position, basically since Vietnam, to impose their will on the rest of the world and that we, Britain and others happily go along with it.
So those opposed to that imposition seemingly have no other option but to stop such actions. To do this, the UN must have a binding vote of all member nations, stopping the USA from forcing democracy and whatever else on socieities that do not want or need it.
FFS - do you think they raced off to put Australian troops over there without discussing all the issues first?
Just because the debate was not on ABC774 or QANDA does not mean the debate never occurred.
I assume all the "righties" will be gearing up to join the army and take ISIS out themselves?
Why? Bush didn't go there himself so why should I? I'd prefer a few lefties to sign up and go on my behalf. Maybe we can bring in a draft for all the Greenies to go, that'll fix most of our problems with one solution.
WTF?
im glad now there was not a debate on this.
trust Daytripper to turn this into a left v right debate.
When you have the usual clowns like Milne, Hanson-Idiot, Bandt and Fairfax on one side and everyone else on the other, then what else would you call it ?
It is what it is. The fact of the matter is that the hard left is against anyone doing anything to assist in the fight against IS.
That's bullshit and you know it.
All the Greens want is that the Parliament has a debate about going to war. We elect people to Parliament to "represent" us. Or so I thought.
On such a serious issue, an adult Parliament should be able to have an open debate about being involved in war, so that we are all fully involved. But, that's only a side issue here.
The way to deal with ISIS/ISIL is to create circumstances where there is no reason for such organisations like them, Al-Qaeda, JI or anyone else to exist. Poking the bear isn't the way to do it.
Typical Socialist Green - lets talk about an issue and do nothing. That way you are on safe ground to sneer and be critical of anyone who attempts to actually do something.
I'm finding it hard to understand what a debate will achieve. Both Labor and the Coalition are at one on this so thats game over basically as far as any formal debate goes.
Can I understand on a practical level what you would do about IS?
A fully informed debate creates a fully informed and supported decision. No harm in that..we do it for every other issue.
IS is created by people in an emotional state of mind because they have anger at people imposing their will on them. Every supposed terrorist organisation has that as their foundation. So in practical terms, everyone needs to tell the USA to get the fark out of everywhere else. It is their foreign policy position, basically since Vietnam, to impose their will on the rest of the world and that we, Britain and others happily go along with it.
So those opposed to that imposition seemingly have no other option but to stop such actions. To do this, the UN must have a binding vote of all member nations, stopping the USA from forcing democracy and whatever else on socieities that do not want or need it.
FFS - do you think they raced off to put Australian troops over there without discussing all the issues first?
Just because the debate was not on ABC774 or QANDA does not mean the debate never occurred.
It didn't occur in the Parliament in a joint sitting whereby everyone's views are canvassed..not a couple of shonky members of the Executive, plus Peta Credlin and the top military advisors.
We made the mistake of going to war with Iraq the second time around because of extremely dodgy intelligence on WOMDs.
And the whole point? By going to war with IS we are giving them exactly what they want! Why give them that satisfaction? They want to kill westerners we know this.
I assume all the "righties" will be gearing up to join the army and take ISIS out themselves?
Why? Bush didn't go there himself so why should I? I'd prefer a few lefties to sign up and go on my behalf. Maybe we can bring in a draft for all the Greenies to go, that'll fix most of our problems with one solution.
WTF?
It's a joke Ben
[/End Sarcasm]
It didn't occur in the Parliament in a joint sitting whereby everyone's views are canvassed..not a couple of shonky members of the Executive, plus Peta Credlin and the top military advisors.
We made the mistake of going to war with Iraq the second time around because of extremely dodgy intelligence on WOMDs.
And the whole point? By going to war with IS we are giving them exactly what they want! Why give them that satisfaction? They want to kill westerners we know this.
You do realise we are not going to war in the same way this time, that it is an entirely different set of circumstances?