0
   

Australia and Iraq.

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 07:24 am
post deleted
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 03:49 pm
Bush was asked how he thought the Oz withdrawal would be-- It was his business to answer. "Disasterous" was his answer.

The Opposition in Oz has used Bush's unpopularity there to score political points. Certainly, not the first time this has happened... I suppose they have served their interests well. Bush's answer was obviously his honest opinion, because as Howard said, it seems Bush didn't calculate the politics in Oz--or he wouldn't have thrust Howard into his unpopular lap before the OZ electorate re the Iraq issue.

However, the big news here is: Sidney Sidebottom.
<tee hee>
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 10:21 pm
Sofia wrote:
Bush was asked how he thought the Oz withdrawal would be-- It was his business to answer. "Disasterous" was his answer.

The Opposition in Oz has used Bush's unpopularity there to score political points. Certainly, not the first time this has happened... I suppose they have served their interests well. Bush's answer was obviously his honest opinion, because as Howard said, it seems Bush didn't calculate the politics in Oz--or he wouldn't have thrust Howard into his unpopular lap before the OZ electorate re the Iraq issue.

However, the big news here is: Sidney Sidebottom.
<tee hee>



Sofia

The only "disaster", if Oz withdrew from Iraq, would be for Bush in the lead up to the US election. Not because Australia is important in the scheme of the things in Iraq, but because it would be yet another of the "coalition of the willing" to withdraw from what is (& was) perceived to be a huge miscalculation. The Labor Party in Oz is merely stating what most Australians believe: We shouldn't have become involved in the first place & it has made Australia less safe as a result. Many of us wish that Labor had made a much bigger noise much earlier, in support of the majority of Australians who strongly opposed Australian involvement. If they had been stronger then we might have had a real debate about Oz involvement.

Bush had no place involving himself in internal Australian politics ... whether he was asked or not. If he'd had more integrity he would have gracefully declined to comment. There is a great deal of anger & resentment here about constant US intervention in OUR business.

Who is Sidney Sidebottom? Confused
0 Replies
 
melbournian cheese
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 04:15 am
yeh! what msolga said, but with more feeling and with more emphasis on the Sidebottom!
0 Replies
 
fortune
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 02:42 pm
Ooh, that sounds rather painful, mc!

I'm with Msolga on this one.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 03:47 pm
Hmm - I have no idea why Sofia mentioned Sidney Sidebottom - or why she found the mention amusing.

I am kind of wondering if Google has missed the reference she was making?????

Anywho - Sidney Sidebottom appears to be an alleged child rapist:

http://www.suntimes.co.za/1999/04/11/news/durban/ndbn08.htm

The article begins:

"This little boy has been sodomised, but his attacker still walks free
SANTOSH BEHARIE
THE four-year-old sex abuse victim at the centre of a court controversy last week said he wants to "chop off the head" of his tormentor. Sidney Sidebottom, 43, owner of the Louter Kabouter Crèche, was tried for abusing the child but was found not guilty in the Kempton Park Magistrate's Court after the magistrate questioned the credibility of the child as a witness. Medical evidence, however, proved the boy had been sodomised repeatedly. "

So - as I said, I remain puzzled by the reference.



Here is an oddity - when I googled the name - this thread was the number one result!!!!!

Man - does Craven know how to cook or not!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 03:48 pm
Sofia wrote:
Bush was asked how he thought the Oz withdrawal would be-- It was his business to answer. "Disasterous" was his answer.

The Opposition in Oz has used Bush's unpopularity there to score political points. Certainly, not the first time this has happened... I suppose they have served their interests well. Bush's answer was obviously his honest opinion, because as Howard said, it seems Bush didn't calculate the politics in Oz--or he wouldn't have thrust Howard into his unpopular lap before the OZ electorate re the Iraq issue.

However, the big news here is: Sidney Sidebottom.
<tee hee>


Hmmm - there is a lot of speculation that the question was a planted "Dorothy Dixer" as we call them....as a favour to Howard...
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 06:59 pm
dlowan wrote:
Anywho - Sidney Sidebottom appears to be an alleged child rapist:


Thanks, Deb. I've been wondering for weeks .... & how/why/when this person was relevant to this discussion. Confused
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 07:20 pm
I have no idea.

Perhaps Sofia will elucidate at some stage? I cannot imagine that she would find the stuff that I got from Google amusing.


Looks like there is going to be some very critical stuff from the Oz legal expert sent by the government to assess the justness of the kangaroo courts....er military tribunals... that will try the Guantanamo Bay accused.

The Feds are suddenly expressing concerns just before the opinion is due to be tabled - so they must feel it will be unhelpful for them electorally - since they have made no move to repatriate the Oz accused.

I will go looking for the reportage re this later - heard it on the radio this am.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 07:38 pm
dlowan wrote:
The Feds are suddenly expressing concerns just before the opinion is due to be tabled - so they must feel it will be unhelpful for them electorally - since they have made no move to repatriate the Oz accused.

I will go looking for the reportage re this later - heard it on the radio this am.


A little article on page 3 of my Age today, Deb. Not much. Maybe more to come? Apparently we're suddenly concerned about the US handling of the commission! Probably more to do with the election campaign than concern that Hicks gets a fair trial. Maybe the Libs are worried that the outcome will reflect badly on them? Maybe people will think they didn't care? Call me cynical ..... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 07:27 pm
mark
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 07:44 pm
msolga wrote:
dlowan wrote:
The Feds are suddenly expressing concerns just before the opinion is due to be tabled - so they must feel it will be unhelpful for them electorally - since they have made no move to repatriate the Oz accused.

I will go looking for the reportage re this later - heard it on the radio this am.


A little article on page 3 of my Age today, Deb. Not much. Maybe more to come? Apparently we're suddenly concerned about the US handling of the commission! Probably more to do with the election campaign than concern that Hicks gets a fair trial. Maybe the Libs are worried that the outcome will reflect badly on them? Maybe people will think they didn't care? Call me cynical ..... Rolling Eyes


Yeah - the Feds sent a QC to observe the Hicks prelim hearing, and the system generally.

His report is about to be made public - and it is said to be very damning of the processes and the likelihood for any kind of justice. (The Hicks' Australian lawyer, who was at the hearing, said he was rolling his eyes in horror and disbelief- the QC, I mean.)

Howard et al fear 'twill be an election issue - hence the sudden flurry of empty words.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 08:27 pm
That's interesting, Deb. The Libs bothered to send a QC?
But wait till this damning report comes out! Howard will have to perform yet another character assassination, on the QC, this time. Or the QC will have to hold a press conference saying that he got the facts wrong. Laughing

God these things are becoming a joke. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 06:16 pm
I found this article, by Richard woolcot, one of the 43 former service chiefs and senior diplomats who signed the August 9 "truth in government" statement, to be very intersting & thought provoking. And timely, given the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta yesterday:


Why we are a bigger target
By Richard Woolcott
September 10, 2004/the Age

"By deciding to join the invasion of Iraq, Howard raised our profile in the eyes of terrorists."

.."The US has made a major political and strategic blunder with which Australia is closely associated. The US and its handful of allies in this misadventure are likely to feel the effects of this blunder for years."

(complete article)
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/09/1094530764777.html?oneclick=true
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 09:14 am
msolga wrote:
bigger target


Indeed, now also as hostages :

Two Australians and two East Asians 'held' in Iraq

Quote:
TWO Australians and two East Asians have been kidnapped in Iraq, said a statement purportedly from the Islamic Secret Army handed out in the Sunni Muslim insurgent bastion of Samarra today.

The statement gave Canberra a 24-hour deadline to end its interests in Iraq or see the hostages executed, but there was no immediate confirmation of the ultimatum's authenticity.

"One of our brave brigades ambushed civilian cars belonging to the American army on the motorway from Baghdad to (the main northern city of) Mosul," said the statement dated today.

"It took four prisoners, two Australians and two East Asian nationals who were working as security contractors for important people," it said.

"We tell the infidels of Australia that they have 24 hours to leave Iraq or the two Australians will be killed without a second chance."

The Federal Government is investigating claims two Australians have been kidnapped in Iraq and will be killed if Australia doesn't pull out of the war zone in 24 hours.

The two Australians were seized along with two East Asians, according to a statement believed to have been issued by the Islamic Secret Army and quoted by the Agence France-Presse news agency.

The statement said the Australians would be executed if the Federal Government did not pull out of Iraq in 24 hours.

A spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) said the claims were being investigated.

"A claim has been made but we don't have anything more at this stage," he said.

"We are waiting for advice from Baghdad."

The spokesman was unable to say if those believed to have been kidnapped were soldiers or civilians.

A spokesman for Mr Downer said the Government was trying to confirm if any Australians had been kidnapped.

"We are moving heaven and earth to get as much information as we can," he told AAP.

"We have no more information (other than media reports).

"Obviously through the department (of Foreign Affairs) we are checking this out as a matter of priority. "We are in contact with our embassy in Baghdad and obviously other contacts in Iraq."

Australia still has about 850 troops in Iraq.

"The (Australian) Prime Minister (John Howard) must announce the withdrawal personally if he is concerned about his two citizens," the statement said.

A Secret Islamic Army unit calling itself the Black Banners division claimed the execution of two Pakistani hostages in late July.

But earlier this month the group also released three Indian, three Kenyan and an Egyptian truck driver six weeks after they were taken hostage.

The release of the drivers on September 1 offered a ray of hope to a dozen other foreigners still in captivity.

The kidnappers had demanded Kuwaiti company KGL, the drivers' employer, end its work in Iraq. The company complied with the demand.

The secret Islamic Army had also demanded that KGL pay compensation to families who had suffered in air strikes on the Iraqi city of Fallujah.

The drivers' release came a day after another militant group said it had slaughtered 12 Nepalis in the worst mass killing of captives in Iraq since a spate of kidnappings began in April.

Scores of nationals from more than two dozen countries have been kidnapped since April, when guerrillas embarked on new tactics to force foreign troops and firms to leave Iraq.

The strategy has heightened Iraq's image as one of the world's most dangerous countries and scared off investors.

About two dozen foreign hostages have been killed, some of them beheaded. The Nepalis were kidnapped last month when they entered Iraq to work as cooks and cleaners.



TA
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 03:16 pm
Tha was always gonna happen....if it has happened.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2004 05:00 am
...and if it didn't actually happen this time, it will, it will..... Sad
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 08:08 pm
A target for terrorists
The politics of national security just became a lot more complex, writes Michelle Grattan.

In Sunday's debate, Howard was asked first off to admit that Australia's role in Iraq had raised this country's profile as a target. He replied that Australia had been a target long before its Iraq involvement; that the idea we suddenly became target because of Iraq "is false"; and that "the day this country allows terrorists to determine things like that is the day we lose control over our future". The one thing he wouldn't say was the obvious - that participation in the Iraq war increased the risk for Australia.

... Howard also can't have it both ways. He can't say Latham's policy of withdrawing troops from Iraq by Christmas would encourage the terrorists, while insisting that Australia's involvement in the Iraq war is not likely to be a factor in the terrorists' targeting.


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/14/1094927579745.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 09:55 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,391656,00.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 10:38 pm
Hill defends Iraq war after death report
October 29, 2004 - 2:00PM


Defence Minister Robert Hill defended the Iraq war after a study found about 100,000 civilians had died as a result of the conflict.

A survey by Johns Hopkins University in the United States compared mortality rates in Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion.


It found violence was the leading cause of death of civilians in Iraq after the invasion.

Senator Hill said he did not know if the report was accurate but Australian forces in Iraq had done all they could to minimise civilian deaths.

"I think you might recall that just from an Australian perspective the extraordinary efforts that were taken by our air force when they were engaged in Iraq to avoid those civilian casualties," he told ABC Radio.

"But you will never have a conflict in which there won't be some (civilian deaths)."

Senator Hill said future generations of Iraqis would be better off because coalition forces had removed the regime of Saddam Hussein.

"The removal of Saddam Hussein, somebody who is attributed to have killed at least 300,000 innocent Iraqis, is something that will be of great benefit to future generations of the Iraqi people," he said.

© 2004 AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1098992288829.html?oneclick=true
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 06:02:53