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?
Irrelevant IT.
We are being told to just accept the word of the PM and the head of the armed forces on this without debating the information.
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.
The government is elected for a reason. To govern and make decisions.
They consulted with all the experts and made an informed decision.
I'm not sure how adding the like of Jacqui Lambie, Sarah Hanson Young, Scott Ludlum, Christine Milne, Ricky Muir and Clive Palmer would have improved the standard of debate aside from providing tin foil hats for everyone.
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?
Irrelevant IT.
We are being told to just accept the word of the PM and the head of the armed forces on this without debating the information.
What on earth could anyone else add that would bring more information to the table?
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?
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?
Irrelevant IT.
We are being told to just accept the word of the PM and the head of the armed forces on this without debating the information.
What on earth could anyone else add that would bring more information to the table?
Information from sources on the ground about whether we are actually needed or not. I'm sure the Greens and others have contacts like from Amnesty International and the Aid agencies. They are on the ground and in a position to know exactly the circumstances.
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?
Irrelevant IT.
We are being told to just accept the word of the PM and the head of the armed forces on this without debating the information.
What on earth could anyone else add that would bring more information to the table?
Have to say you are wrong on this Paz. We employ the PM to make this sort of decision. Just because they got it wrong last time doesn't make this one a bad decision. If Labor were in power they would do exactly the same thing and I dare say so would the Greens. It is part of the role they have to play.
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?
Irrelevant IT.
We are being told to just accept the word of the PM and the head of the armed forces on this without debating the information.
What on earth could anyone else add that would bring more information to the table?
Have to say you are wrong on this Paz. We employ the PM to make this sort of decision. Just because they got it wrong last time doesn't make this one a bad decision. If Labor were in power they would do exactly the same thing and I dare say so would the Greens. It is part of the role they have to play.
He can still make the decision, with the backing of the Parliament and therefore in theory the people.
What good is the Parliament if the views of the people aren't allowed to be shared in it?
The government is elected for a reason. To govern and make decisions.
They consulted with all the experts and made an informed decision.
I'm not sure how adding the like of Jacqui Lambie, Sarah Hanson Young, Scott Ludlum, Christine Milne, Ricky Muir and Clive Palmer would have improved the standard of debate aside from providing tin foil hats for everyone.
hang on a mo.
If current government consulted with the experts and all those others you just listed were also presented with the same expert findings, then the same decision would have been made would it not?
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?
At the very least there needs to be clearly defined objectives and strategy. Don't do it and we'll be stuck in an open-ended conflict that will last years or decades.
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?
At the very least there needs to be clearly defined objectives and strategy. Don't do it and we'll be stuck in an open-ended conflict that will last years or decades.
We will defeat ISIS. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
Then, in another 5 years, we will defeat ISIS' successor. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
Then, five years after that, we will defeat the successor to the successor to ISIS. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
We'll defeat ISIS. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
Then, in another 5 years, we will defeat ISIS' successor. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
Then, five years after that, we will defeat the successor to the successor to ISIS. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
We'll defeat ISIS. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
Then, in another 5 years, we will defeat ISIS' successor. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
Then, five years after that, we will defeat the successor to the successor to ISIS. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
And the US will be able to test their military machine, new aeroplanes, drones etc in combat. and show the rest of the world how powerful they are so do not mess with them.
We'll defeat ISIS. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
Then, in another 5 years, we will defeat ISIS' successor. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
Then, five years after that, we will defeat the successor to the successor to ISIS. It will take time, but we'll get there, and the West will be safer as a result.
I'm a doomsdayer, I doubt this will comntiue on forever, the whole thing will just end up going crazy and some nut-job will fire a nuc somewhere and Hasta la vista, baby.
The government is elected for a reason. To govern and make decisions.
They consulted with all the experts and made an informed decision.
I'm not sure how adding the like of Jacqui Lambie, Sarah Hanson Young, Scott Ludlum, Christine Milne, Ricky Muir and Clive Palmer would have improved the standard of debate aside from providing tin foil hats for everyone.
hang on a mo.
If current government consulted with the experts and all those others you just listed were also presented with the same expert findings, then the same decision would have been made would it not?
Jesus - you can't expect the entire Parliament to get sensitive defence briefings.
Its not World of Warcraft, you know.
What next - should we expect Darebin council to get a briefing too?
With the way the Middle East was carved up at and after Versailles , eg a previously non-existent Kuwait being created, maybe it would have made a lot more sense to create Kurdistan.
But then the Poms betrayed everything they and T E Lawrence promised and worked for.
The government is elected for a reason. To govern and make decisions.
They consulted with all the experts and made an informed decision.
I'm not sure how adding the like of Jacqui Lambie, Sarah Hanson Young, Scott Ludlum, Christine Milne, Ricky Muir and Clive Palmer would have improved the standard of debate aside from providing tin foil hats for everyone.
hang on a mo.
If current government consulted with the experts and all those others you just listed were also presented with the same expert findings, then the same decision would have been made would it not?
Jesus - you can't expect the entire Parliament to get sensitive defence briefings.
Its not World of Warcraft, you know.
What next - should we expect Darebin council to get a briefing too?
there is a big difference between that and minister and shadow ministers for related fields.
