Wonkette said it best:
Tony Blair Hates Our Freedoms, Pulling Troops From Iraq
Reaction to Blair’s announcement of a phased withdrawal of British troops exemplifies how illogical and surreal the “stay the course” side of the debate has become.
On one hand, Bush hails Blair’s move as a “sign of success”.
As recently as late last month, Blair rejected opposition calls to withdraw British troops by October, calling such a plan irresponsible.
“That would send the most disastrous signal to the people that we are fighting in Iraq. It’s a policy that, whatever its superficial attractions may be, is actually deeply irresponsible,” Blair said on Jan. 24 in the House of Commons.
On the other hand, Alexander Downer was still peddling that very line on Lateline last night.
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop declares that we are now at war with Great Britain.
I don’t need a plan – the Preznit has a plan!
Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/20/blair/index.html
You can hear Howard kicking the furniture from here can’t you?
Again, Britain is following in the Ukraine, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Japanese footsteps all of whom managed to extract their ground forces totallying several times our meagre deployment without significantly altering anything in the Shia dominated provinces they were based around. This is a grade-A non-issue and it always has been.
I remember when the support for the Vietnam war was nosediving faster than a Huey helicopter. Our government came up with the ‘Reds under the bed’ propaganda in which they told us that if we withdrew from the war, those nasty communists would sweep down through Asia and end up under our beds, listening to our conversations and generally causing mayhem. Have you checked under your bed lately ?
Things are moving very quickly now; Howard and Downer are starting to look very isolated.
The terms of the debate have been shifting, and just underwent a major upheaval.
Never mind the Brits, hasn’t anyone told Dolly about the Japanese? (link): “It’s not about pleasing the Americans and the British, remember what I just said about the British, don’t forget that, and the Japanese, of course, they’ve left predominantly left now, but the British and the Americans, not just the Americans. It’s about saying well, if it’s good enough for us just to quit Iraq and just to say, oh, well, we don’t really like it there and it’s not polling very well, so we’re going to get out, it must by definition be good enough for our allies to do the same thing. Now our argument is that it’s not good enough for the international community to abandon Iraq and in that context it’s not good enough for Australia to say to the Americans and the British and others, you do the job, we’re not going to do it because it’s not polling very well and we’ve got an election coming up at end of this year. I mean that is basically the Rudd proposition and I’ll be frank with you, that is a proposition that I would never support.”
The UK has assessed that the security situation has improved enough in Southern Iraq for a draw down in troops – an obvious sign that the long term strategy is working – and the Anti-everythings go off like firecrackers, saying it is “cut and run”. How is this any different form the fact that the Australian Battlegroup is now acting in an over-watch role in two provinces? This is an improvement to when they first arrived and were responsible for only one province – clear evidence that the long-term strategy is working.
This type of thing must really piss you Leftys off, because the Anti-everythings actually want the Coallition and in particular the US to lose and don’t actually give a flying rats arse about the plight of the average Iraqi.
And when the Australian Government say that want to provide further help to train Iraqis to take on the the fight themselves, which should improve the security situation further allowing greater draw down in Coalltion troops, this is also seen as being bad – another example of typical lefty hypocrisy.
You guys jsut want the US and the coalition to lose so badly it must make you ache.
I trust you have ignored the recent reports of familys returning to areas in Baghdad that they had previously left with the improvement in the security situation. That must really piss you off to see short term improvements in the situation. Don’t go visit “Iraq the Model” – it might upset you to read Iraqi optimism.
Razor,
What is your definition of ‘winning’ in Iraq, and how will we know when it happens?
I am no soft-headed pinko, I can assure you, matey. But Razor, where do YOU think our Diggers are? Overwatch Group West are in Tallil Airbase in Dhi Qar Governorate. Dhi Qar was the second Iraqi province to be handed over to the Iraqi Security Forces. It is a traditionally anti-Baath province. It has been under Iraqi control since Sept. 21 2006. All the fighting has been done, er, by the Italians who are now gone, mission accomplished.
Razor, our presence in Iraq is based on a lie. We are not needed in Dhi Qar but a deal was struck between Bush and Howard to find them a cosy hole because the Liberal government wants to be seen as a member of the Coalition of the Willing but is unwilling to wear the political cost of any casualties.
If you are such a defender of what is right, why not intercede on behalf of the Iraqi people with John Howard/Downer/Nelson to redeploy our troops in Baghdad’s zones 6N, 8S, 28, 33N, 35, 36NJ, 37N, and 46? Or at least argue for this on the blog, i.e. put your money where your mouth is.
Careful Raze, you’re hyperventilating.
As a Lefty, and as I said to another RWDB yesterday, I don’t want terrorists to win, and I don’t want religious nuts to win.
Why are RWDBs so impervious to appreciating this fact?
I do take a grim pleasure, however, from constantly being proven correct about the course of events in Iraq.
I most enjoy reading how unhinged Bush apologists become when they are forced to choose between resignation and denial.
But all isn’t lost. There are some wonderful opportunities to learn some important historical lessons: “Folks dislike missionaries with guns.”
This was first said of Napoleon’s troops in Spain. (Napoleon lost because he could not win a guerrilla war. That was the war that invented the word “guerrilla”, meaning “little war”). It was said of the US and its allies in Vietnam. And it will be said of the COW in Iraq.
On another thread, it is clear that US war planning assumed there’d be no serious insurgency. Why? Why?? Why???
The answer: Denial!
amused – there is unlikely to be a specific defining point, a gradual improvemement in the security situation is to be expected, with Iraqi forces able to effectively take on more and more of the burden of fighting the terrorists. As the security situation improves so the will the lot of the average Iraqi as government and commercial activites will increase, infrastructure will be repaired or created. Anybody who wants to set a timeline on this process doesn’t understand asymetric warfare and is helping the terrorists cause.
Funnily enough, if the various terrorsists groups called a halt to the killing, the coalition troops wouldn’t have any reason to be there. The question that antieverythings can’t answer is why don’t the terrorists just stop the killing and let the Coalition withdraw?? Obviously it isn’t in their best interest for this to happen. Why not?
No body ever promised a short war. Defeat of the Iraqi Army was a short battle and did deserved the Mission Accomplishd tag, as it is one of the greatest feat of arms in modern military history. The war against the Bathists, Islamists, Sunni/Shia seperatists, and thugs wasn’t anticipated, but that is not uncommon in human history. It ain’t going to be short unless the Coalition ups the ante to achieve decisive victory, which is unlikely, or the terrorists unilaterally stop the killings, which is unlikely.
Razor:
True up to a point: the UK and the other Coalition partners have had a much quieter time of it in the South, relatively speaking, than the US has in the ‘Sunni Triangle’ — but that isn’t news. The South was always much less turbulent because the various Shia militias and religious organisations filled the political vacuum; establishing their own fiefdoms and stacking the offices of the new Iraq govt. with their apparatchiks — while the British for their part were smart enough not to try and stop them.
The end result is that the British leave the South in the hands of al-Daawa, the Supreme Command for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Sadrists. That isn’t my definition of success but at this point Blair will take what he can get and damn the consequences.
Pissed off? I’m cacking myself. This should set of another round of contortions from our valiant Prime Minister, who must be at pains to avoid mention of the political situation in South Iraq and how the relative safety and security of the province squares with our absolutely crucial, critical, supremely important deployment of 500 trainers there.
Oh by the way Raze, what’s the name of the largest party in the Iraqi parliament?
Well Razor, that seems to have struck a nerve.
Given that it’s our gutsy fake war leader who has devoted so much time and energy equating the words “withdrawal” and “timetable” with the loaded concept of “cut and run”, what do you expect Mr and Mrs Punter to think?
You need to consult your copy of Howard’s Parliamentary Mathematics. To put the PM’s argument in simple terms even you could understand, we need to refer to the formula:
Withdrawal Timetable=Defeat
But unlike most mathematical formula, this one doesn’t have universal application. It only works in relation to Kevin Rudd and the US Democrats.
It is and always has been utter nonsense, as today’s announcement by Britain demonstrates.
Let Lord Downer explain:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Britain-not-cutting-and-running-Nelson/2007/02/21/1171733817258.html
See? In this case the maths are:
Withdrawal Timetable=Victory
In this case it only works when applied to Britain, Japan, Ukraine, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands etc.
Same formula, two different answers. It’s a bit tricky I know, but keep practising and I’m sure you’ll get the hang of it.
Or:
What Cadet Beigler said.
(If we were to contribute as much per capita as the US to this, the Defining Conflict of Our Civilisation/Epoch/Forever, that’d necessitate another 8,000 diggers on top, deployed in Al-Anbar, Diyala, Salahuddin, Baghdad etc. C’mon, Razor, get on this; Johnny’s letting Western Civilisation down!)
Christine – there is a complete difference between reducing troop numbers as and when the security situation improves and reducing troop numbers because a date has ben reached on the calendar. How hard is that to understand??
Leinad – I don’t give a tinker’s cuss what is largest party in the Iraqi parliament. If the people voted for them, then that is their democratic choice. Much the same as the elected government of the Palestinians -democratically chosen by the people, who knew the Hamas position on Israel and now have to live with the outcomes of their decisions.
If Iraq ends up with an elected government that guarantees the security of its people and doesn’t support terrorism but is not a close friend of the Coalition governments, so be it. As long as security and democracy are operating it will be better than life under Saddam.
Cadet Biegler – we do have troops operating in Baghdad in various roles. The significant combat operations taken on by the SASR against the Iraqi army during the liberation of Iraq and the heavy combat by SASR and 4 RAR in Afghanistan clearly demonstrate that we aren’t scared to fight. Just because we don’t take many casualties doesn’t mean we aren’t carrying an adequate burden – it just means we are very skilled fighters. I am quite comfortable with the role currently being undertaken in Southern Iraq and don’t think we have anything to prove or be gained by requesting a change in mission.
Oh and Katz -
“As a Lefty, and as I said to another RWDB yesterday, I don’t want terrorists to win, and I don’t want religious nuts to win.
Why are RWDBs so impervious to appreciating this fact?”
Because it is not a fact due to your hypocrisy – withdrawal of coalition troops before Iraqi forces are fully effective supports the terrorists’ mission. It is in the terrorists’ best interest to have weak Iraqi government forces as an enemy.
If you don’t want terrorists to win – exactly how do you propose they lose against poorly trained, equipped and led Iraqi forces unsupported by Coalition troops?
Razor; The war that is being fought in Iraq is not against Islamists. In fact the government is headed up by the Dawa party that is the Iraqi equivalent to Hezbollah. What the war is about is the empowerment of Islamists against fascists. It is important to follow this up so you can grasp why the pseudo left just donât have a left view of the world at all. Read at least the first post by Arthur and the last one in page 2.
It is quite apparent that even the senior military planners were not clear on what the political goal for Iraq really was. It appears, they thought that they would be just installing a government (put together by the State Dept), in a country where the armed forces, for enforcing government authority would be left in place. This was not possible as those forces were overwhelmingly Sunni Baathists and their job had always been to suppress the remaining 80% of the Iraqi peoples.
The Shia and Kurds would not have been liberated if their Sunni masters had been left damaged but still armed to the teeth as an organized and effective force for suppressing them.
Shia and Kurdish collaborators with the viciously oppressive (racist) Sunni Baathists were the first casualties and the first refugees to be expected out of liberated regions. These people could not be put back into the areas that they had been doing their repulsive work in; nor would they be acceptable internal refugees, resettled happily in the Sunni regions and suburbs. The Sunni Baathists and the Al Qaeda types would not want them, nor trust them, so the only place left for them was as international refugees. We saw similar refugees from Lebanon when the Israeli armed forces lost their 18year long war and ended that occupation.
The US military thought it was just business as usual and that all the talk of democracy was just the usual cover for installing âour guyâ? in the standard way that they had operated since WW2. But the political leadership, who had not forgotten how to do the old policies, had junked them instead.
It was those old rotten policies had created the autocratic âalliesâ of the US Saudi Arabia and Egypt that had bred the Jihadists and thus produced the disaster of 9/11. With the possibility of these enemies eventually getting hold of a nuclear bomb, things could get even worse; so the 180 switch in policies was required and implemented. Tony Blair got it! Far from being a poodle he has his own interests as this stand demonstrates. He is I think siding with the Baker report. Either way this war is not something that can be lost
The target was not just a simple regime change in Iraq but the far bigger task of region change. The whole region is producing enemies of modernity as we now see daily (terrorist bombing from Thailand to India to Bali Madrid etc).
Like the vast majority of the worlds left, liberal and pseudo-left the US military did not realize that the game plan was genuine democracy and that this would bring to power political forces that were similar to Hezbollah. Genuine though mistaken leftists are correcting their views now that the election process in 2005 destroyed the former views that it was about US control of oil and that they wanted their own guy in place etc. The left stands with the oppressed and fights university, market and train bombers. The left is for modernity and development. The lot you are refering to is further to the right than John Howard. Their ‘left’ language is what marks them as the pseudo-left.
Pamela Bone, Hichens, Lastsuperpower etc thats where the left is.
Aww. You should’ve played at that one Razor, a lovely lounge suite was on offer. I take it if you’re down with the Supreme Command for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Hamas you’d be favor of immediate free and fair elections in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi and Pakistan?
What you don’t seem to grasp is that none of the parties, bar a few tiny ones without any guns, give an aeronautical copulation about freedom, democracy and the ‘Iraqi people’. These are sectarian, factional parties who look after their own, devil take the rest. Their definition of security is driving out the Sunni/Shia/Kurdish scum from their turf, and grabbing as much power over as many branches of the government as they can. If one group triumphs be they Sadrist, Khomeinite or Baathist they’ll go right back to the same old formula: “one man, one vote, one time”.
This isn’t democracy, this is Lebanon in the 80s, played out with ten times the population on the world’s second largest oil concentrations amongst the discarded equipment of two armies.
Isn’t that what Blair’s doing?
Would you mind explaining what you understand the word “hypocrisy” to mean?
Whatever you reckon Razor.
In light of the impending British announcement, I eagerly await the narrative from our fearless war leaders advising us that up is down, and black is white.
That may be so, but what exactly ARE our troops doing in southern Iraq?
If 500 Australians can cover two fairly quiet provinces as claimed by Nelson, and the Poms can muster enough properly trained Iraqi security forces to hand over in their area of responsibility, then why is it exactly that WE can’t hand over responsibility to a meagre number of Iraqis?
Katz
No.
And, this is a pretty good defintion:
hypocrisy
noun
1. an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
2. insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have
By claiming not to want terrorists to win and yet calling for actions, the outcome of which will be beneficial for terrorists is hypocritical.
Prince Harry has alledgedly threatened to resign his commission if he is held back from active duty in Iraq. I suspect this is the main driver behind Blair’s decision.
I claim copyright on this mindblowing piece of analysis.
Razor re victory:
Awesome.
Translation:
Forever, or whenever it’s politically convenient for me to declare victory and leave, whichever arrives sooner.
Razor lives in that RWDB fantasy world where desires can be turned into reality, so long as you apply sufficient military force.
If I’d called for the end of tyranny in Iraq and then supported the invasion and then withdrew my support, then I could be called a hypocrite.
What I knew, however, is what RWDBs, it seems, can never learn: wishing doesn’t make it so.
Razor, deployment for the invasion aside.
You say, by way of counter-argument to the sham being perpetrated by Howard that “we do have troops operating in Baghdad in various roles”.
The 67 strong SECDET to protect Australian official representatives in Baghdad? This is our contribution to the people of Iraq?
“Just because we don’t take many casualties doesn’t mean we aren’t carrying an adequate burden – it just means we are very skilled fighters.”
But it helps to be out of harm’s way in a pacified and handed over province doesn’t it, while others in the Coalition take the hot lead.
Breakdown: Australia 2 (accidental). Bulgaria 13. Denmark 6. El Salvador 5. Estonia 2. Hungary 1. Italy 33. Kazakhstan 1. Latvia 3. Netherlands 2. Poland 24 (5 friendly fire). Romania 2. Slovakia 4. Spain 11. Thailand 2. Ukraine 18. United Kingdom 130. As of January 28, 2007.
Christine – do you want me te get the OPORD and fully explain the role of a Cavalry Regiment Battlegroup in providing area security in a low-level conflict scenario?
The UK are reducing troop numbers – not completely leaving.
Bill – have you been prosecuted yet?
Free David Hicks . . . with every purchase over $50. (Reminds me of the old Free Norm Gallahger days – lefties supporting criminals).
Please do Razor. You haven’t answered the other part of my question.
Razor:
The Guardian:
Cadet Biegler – Why doesn’t the opening high risk mission count?
So, the over-watch role for the Australian BattleGroup isn’t part of helping the Iraqi people??
I think it is only 1 for Australia – the guy who shot himself. Who was the other?
test
Bill – while the Guardian is saying it has learned of a complete withdrawal, The Times isn’t sayng that and until I see an official announcement by the UK Government I will stick with a reduction in troop numbers.
Well whether it’s partial or complete, for the past two weeks the government has been hammering us about the head with the idea that ANYTHING with the whiff of withdrawal or a timetable is tantamount to surrender and a ‘victory for the terrorists’.
Poor old Johnny. It’s been another terrible week, and Australia’s position in Iraq is exposed for the sham it always has been. The ground’s falling away from under the old coot and he knows it.
I keep wondering if Downer knew this was coming from the way that he kept blathering on about “don’t forget Britain”, and “Britain’s there too, Tony” last night. But then his whole line of argument makes no sense whatsoever. I guess that should be no surprise. Dolly is “old and incomprehensible”.
“A flying rats arse”? That, I must say, is a new one Razor.
“No body ever promised a short war” is also a novel statement, probably because of it’s obvious counter-factual properties. I seem to remember one John Winston Howard talking about “months not years.”
Patrickm I have said it before and I will say it again. Better to be right than Left.
“I’m a stepping razor,
Don’t you touch mt sides,
I’m dangerous”
Sung Peter Tosh on his album, “Equal Rights”.
Hey Raze, what’s this I hear about you trying to usurp my hero, Baghdad Bob?
“No body ever promised a short war. Defeat of the Iraqi Army was a short battle and did deserved the Mission Accomplishd tag, as it is one of the greatest feat of arms in modern military history.”
Perhaps they could go with ‘Muhommeds in the Cupboards’ this time?
If we withdraw to soon, maybe all the Moslems will sweep down and steal the sheets and towels from the Linen shelves to adorn their heads and torso’s?
You just never know.
I love you Sublime Cowgirl
Captain Razor:
In answer to your question, an Australian Special Air Service (SASR) soldier was killed in a vehicle training accident in Kuwait. He was due to be deployed in Iraq. I am not allowed to give you his name.
The invasion of Iraq does not count because we are discussing IN THIS THREAD the withdrawal of troop deployed in Iraq currently. Furthermore, the mission is different with its own, rather bizzare rationale and this is what we are talking about here. Please pay attention.
The Baghdad deployment as security guards of Australian soldiers is debasing their combat role. This is of particular chagrin to me. Even the Americans employ private contractors for that. BTW I can arrange for you to become one should you be desirous of helping the Iraqi people.
As for “training” Iraqis this is a laughable issue as Iraqis have manyof trained personnel, especially when it comes to security. What are we talking about? Weapons training in a country where every household has at least one Kalashnikov and half a dozen Makarovs? Get real. Our role is total bullshit.
In any case, if the Yanks weren’t so keen on mindless de-Baathification there wouldn’t now be any need for training peasant boys.
As a final aside, our safe personal weapons handling is hardly exemplary, if you get my drift.
[King Arthur music; clop clop clop]
RWDB: Aaaagh! Eeeergh! Yaahh!!! [Parry, thrust]
SIR WEAK LEFTY APPEASER STRAWMAN: Ooh! Groan. Ugh… [dies]
RWDB: Ah-hah! Hee-yahh! [Slice, stab]
SIR OBJECTIVELY PRO-SADDAM TERRST LOVER STRAWMAN: Oh! Eek. Erk. [dies]
[King Arthur music, clop clop clop]
RWDB: Heh-yarr! Ahharrr! [Smack, smite]
SIR OSAMA BIN ALP VOTER STRAWMAN: Ooh! Uuh. [dies]
RWDB: Aaaagh! [thrust, twist]
SIR CUT-&-RUN TRAITOR STRAWMAN: Agh! erkk!. [dies]
RWDB: Verily shall thee eat my cold steel, thou pack of floppy lefty strawmen…now, where cowers Sir Chamberlain…
[clop clop clop; King Arthur music stops]
SIR FACT & LOGIC: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Knight.
I am Sir Fact & Logic, King of the Enlightened. I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in my court in debate. You have proved yourself worthy. Will you join me? [Unintelligible mutter, hiss, fart from 'neath RWDB visor] You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy.
RWDB: None shall pass.
SIR FACT & LOGIC: What?
RWDB: None shall pass.
SIR FACT & LOGIC: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
RWDB: Then you shall die.
SIR FACT & LOGIC: I command you, as King of the Sane, to stand aside!
RWDB: I move for no man.
SIR F& L: So be it! [RWDB and FACT & LOGIC join battle]: Aaah! hiyaah!, etc. [F & L chops RWDB's left arm off]
F & L: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
RWDB: ‘Tis but a scratch.
F & L: A scratch? Your arm’s off!
RWDB: No, it isn’t.
F & L: Well, what’s that, then?
RWDB: I’ve had worse.
F & L: You liar!
RWDB: Come on, you pansy!
[clang] Huyah! [clang] Hiyaah! [clang] Aaaaaaaah! [F & L chops RWDB's right arm off]
F & L: Victory is mine! [kneeling] We thank our ancestors, that in thy Enlighten–
RWDB: Hah! [kick] Come on, then.
F & L: What?
RWDB: Have at you! [kick]
F & L: Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
RWDB: Oh, had enough, eh?
F & L: Look, you stupid bastard. You’ve got no arms left.
RWDB: Yes, I have.
F & L: Look!
RWDB: Just a flesh wound. [kick]
F & L: Look, stop that.
RWDB: Chicken! [kick] Chickennn!
F & L: Look, I’ll have your leg. [kick] Right! [Whop - F & L chops RWDB's right leg off]
RWDB: Right. I’ll do you for that!
F & L: You’ll what?
RWDB: Come here!
F & L: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
RWDB: I’m invincible!
F & L: You’re a looney.
RWDB: The RWDB always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then. [Whop - SIR F& L chops RWDB's last leg off]
RWDB: All right, we’ll call it a draw.
F & L: Come, Patsy.
[SIR F & L rides discretely over the bridge and away, slightly embarrassed]
RWDB: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastard! Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off…
Katz said – “If I’d called for the end of tyranny in Iraq and then supported the invasion and then withdrew my support, then I could be called a hypocrite.”
There you would be refering to the US Democrats, who have form based on their Kyoto position – they’ve made an art of voting for something befor evoting against it.
Chris – in regards to the short war – I was referring to the war against islamic terrorism, not the Liberation of iraq, which was a quick war.
Cadet Biegler – tough titties if you don’t like the use of soldiers to defend key points and conduct convoy and route security – all roles they are trained for. And thanks for the offer but I could have been in Baghdad a week after the fall of the regime if I wanted and still have plenty of offers of that sort of work. The chickenhawk meme is getting a bit old.
Patrickm – Hitchens and Bone aren’t very popular among the dyed in the wool lefties and aniteverythings, are they.
Cadet Biegler – I forgot about the SASR guy. Absolute shame that one.
Not sure conflating the writings of Bone & Hitchens with some “anti-left” collective is going to work Razor.
They’re both terrific writers, I’ve read them through their various shifts of view. But what I admire about them is their conviction when they write – they present arguments to support their view, but they have a dignity that enables one to disagree with them.
And I think you’ll find as the Iraqi Misadventure continues to unravel, neither of them are going to be particularly impressed. John McCain has described the tenure of SecDef Rumsfeld as a disaster fer heaven’s sake. The architects are looking shakier by the day, and one doubts that the hysterical gibberings of Lord Downer, Man of Steel, and the Fighting Keyboard 101st are going to be a whole lot of comfort in the months ahead.
That’s enough fun for one day.
So? I’m not a Democrat. I’m not even a US citizen. Anything you say about them is irrelevant to my position.
I was antiwar in the “good times” when it was solemnly intoned: “We’re all neocons now.”
(Ah, memories…)
Sez Chris; âA flying rats arseâ?? That, I must say, is a new one Razor.
Iraq, Wednesday:
Breaking news from Reuters mentions unconfirmed reports of a squadron of tight formation R-22 Rats’ Arseholes patrolling Baghdad Green Zone air space.
Perhaps Razor is right again, Chris.
Tony Blair is capitulating to the gutless elemements of thr British Labour party (typical). Now we will be the ones to take up the slack ad put our lives on the line.
Noting some of the comments here it will be a very short while before our goverment is inundated with ‘anti-war’ hysteria and pro-terrorist nonsense about ‘peace’ and ‘understanding.’
Wow. The majority of the British people (not to mention the Australian and American people) want out of Iraq but Andrew doesn’t give a flying rats arse about that, it is all the work of appeasers in the Labour Party.
Razor you wont find me suggesting that the war on terror will be anything but long. As to your suggestion that the first phase of the Iraq war was a short war I don’t think we should separate the initial invasion from the subsequent insurgency to neatly, simply because certain screw-ups relatively early in the occupation (over-zealous debaathification, demilitarization) contributed to the development of the insurgency. This however is beside the point. Howard said the troops would be home in months not years. They were not.
Chris talks about the majority of people as if that means something.
These days people are weakling fools unable, it seems, to understand the slightest issue. The war in Iraq is symptomatic of the general geopolitical spread. There is a global conflict from which we cannot walk away. The Labour party in Britain has proved the weak link as we know it would. Due to the unfortunate ‘opinion’ of the public the Conservative Party cannot re-engage in the conflict at least until after they’re elected. I sincerely hope they do so.
The pattern is the same here with Mr. Rutt who is pandering to the popular cowardice by promising withdrawal from Iraq. He knows, or is to stupid to realise, that if we withdraw from the war we will have to fight it again in the future at some point.
Unfortunately people like Chris et al simply live in a dreamworld where nothing bad every happens. Continue dreaming Chris one day you will be rudely awoken.
This is the problem with a universal suffrage. A citizen should have to earn the right to vote. That way it wouldn’t be necessary for honourable men like John Howard to lie. The rabble who come out of their holes in their rainbow t-shirt waving placards would just be ignored.
All this whinging and only a few thosand troops killed!!!
God’s teeth!!!
The world has surely declined since the great days of World War 2. Maybe we deserve to be conquered. The bones are rotten.
“The war in Iraq is symptomatic of the general geopolitical spread”
Chris, have you cast an eye on the Afghanistan borders with Pakistan of late? As a fan of the geopolitical type, it might be worth examining that part of the world. Something about a resurgent Taleban, and free passes from some sections of local state govts. Kinda puts my mind into a July/August 2001 state of mind.
What’s that?
You’re busy fighting in Iraq? Hokay, good luck with that soldier. Give ‘em hell.
RAZOR:
So America is fighting representitive groups from about 80% of the Iraqi population…and it wasn’t anticipated? Wow!
Perhaps if the American occupiers would stop slaughtering the Iraqis, as well as facillitating ethnic cleansing, that would help too?
Of course the insurgency against the forced occupation by America and its supporters was always going to be. The sacking of the Iraqi army was meant to do what it did. It was done at the urging of Chalabi. And at that time Chalabi was hooked up to the Pentagon network. Rumsfeld fought tooth and nail to keep troops in Iraq. The insugency from both sides, both the sunni and shia will not stop until they drive out the occupiers. I am saying this from looking at the past history of the place. The occupiers for their part will try to divide them at each turn. Once again, looking back at history, I would say they will fail.
Further thoughts please on ‘earning’ the right to vote. Also, Howard ‘honourable’. Please explain.
And yet what did Bush, Blair and Howard do? they took great pots of purple dye to Iraq and let anyone vote who’d stick their fingers in the dye.
Call that “earning the right to vote”? Gimme a break.
And who did these ragheads vote for? Nice Mr Chalabi? Oh no! They voted for Muslims!
Why didn’t anyone tell Bush, Blair and Howard that Muslims live in Iraq?
Someone must have tampered with the intel.
It’s a scandal.
Let’s invade Iran.
“Nobody ever promised a short war”? Purleeze…
Promises of “home by Chistmas”: Lloyd George, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, LBJ, Nixon and GWB. To name a few.
It is a peculiar sort of delight reading the reactions of the wingnutocray to this latest bit of news. It is a delight for obvious reasons. But the dish is savoured with a pungent sauce that is difficult for a delicate pallete.
Listening to the delicious and delusional ravings of those who manage to believe the spin that Blair is withdrawing his troops (though, as our Foreign Minister, Billy Bunter, cautioned the media tonight, Blair is not withdrawing troops, merely “reducing their numbers”) because they have won, is a bit like eating durian. The taste is sweet, but the whiff of decay is almost palpable.
Gramsci put it best:
“When the old world is dying and the new is yet to be born, many morbid symptoms prevail.”
I understand your laughter Robert but for me, the demented maunderings of Razor et al have truly crossed the line from farce to tragedy.
If I could ever develop the stomach required for visiting the place, I would be most interested to see how Tim Blair and his syphlitic goon squad rationalise this one.
Also, I have feelings of intense delight seeing Howard wedge himself. The man is a walking dingleberry, sans the hair.
It’s been a long, long, time since any of the RWDB blogs have uttered as much as a peep on Iraq. They cut and ran ages ago.
Surrender monkeys!
A hundred years ago the British nation would have stayed put. They don’t have the stomach for it any more. Imperialism isn’t new to the America. But it seems to be getting old for them really quickly. Its not the racket it used to be.
Raed has just leaked the latest draft of the oil legislation.
http://www.al-ghad.org/2007/02/14/exclusive-the-official-draft-of-the-oil-and-gas-law-of-the-iraq-republic-15-jan-2007/
Funny. Just this evening JHo was claiming the British withdrawal/partial withdrawal/de-augmentation was entirely consistent with the policy of the Australian govt.
Razor:
Christine, I’ll see your Defeatist Andrew quote, and raise you a Victory Razor one.
So, Razor thinks we won the Iraq war:
To quote: “Defeat of the Iraqi Army is one of the greatest feats of arms in modern military history”
Oh Puhleeese.
It was as one-sided a contest as was the Battle of Ombdurman: The modern equivalent of Machine guns aganist sword-wielding tribesmen. The US with its stealth aircraft, Apache gunships, M1 Abrams and DU rounds, on the one side, pitted against ageing Soviet-era junk on the other.
It would have been surprising if it wasn’t a rout.
The real feat, Razor, lay not in the US winning that short one-sided fight, but in it comprehensively losing the “peace” afterwards.
Having “won”, the US Army had absolutely no plan, no idea what to do.
Having taken the place by storm, as it were, it sat on its collective behind while the country fell apart around it, descending into an anarchy of warring religious factions.
I wouldn’t call this a success.
If it is, I’d be interested to see what a failure would resemble.
I’m weeping into my Victory Gin as I type.
OMG! The tobacco just fell out of my cigarette!
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/baddi_99/1984movie_chess.jpg"
Tom Vilsack is running for President. At least he’s upfront about his policy of mindless enslavement:
http://www.tomvilsack08.com/
Bill Richardson is running for Preznit too. I enjoyed this column from Matthew Yglesias:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12502
“You can hear Howard kicking the furniture from here canât you?” Leinad
I wondered what that faint splintering sound, with lashings of dark mutterings, was all about. Could have sworn I heard the cat being kicked repeatedly all over Kiribilli as well.
“No body ever promised a short war.” Razor
“I seem to remember one John Winston Howard talking about âmonths not years.â?” Chris
That’s certainly my memory of it. And I made a mental note of as he said it, as a ‘benchmark reference’ for future, umm, reviews of his progress. (Did I say that in a neutral tone?)
And I don’t know your details, Cadet Biegler, and I don’t want to. But keep that good inside info flowing this way. I am on a learning curve, and I like it.
Sorry for the ââ¬Â?.
How do I prevent it?
Well let’s map this out a bit. The 520 Australian troops in Operation Catalyst are based in Dhi Qar province.
The US DOD quarterly security report for September 2006 http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Iraq_Reports/Index.html described the situation in the province thus:
It goes on to say:
On 21 September 2006 the US ambassador to Iraq issued a press-release http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=September&x=20060921162244idybeekcm0.8472101 stating boldly that Iraqi Military Takes Charge of Dhi Qar Province
The ADF is now in something somewhat nebulously described as an “overwatch” role http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMinTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6102:
So basically they’re training people, are available (definitely, maybe, possibly not) if there’s a crisis, and probably playing a lot of desert cricket.
What an incredible waste of resources. If they’re training people why don’t they do it somewhere where they don’t need all the extra kit?
It gets worse … now the Lithuanians are
reducingwithdrawing. If it’s all right for Lithuania to withdraw why isn’t it all right for the USA to withdraw?Sometimes all you can do is laugh. Andrew is keen on democracy, but only for Iraqis.
Oh-Oh! 500 Danes are gonna bolt pronto too.
Dolly will no doubt attempt to spin the Danish withdrawal as another “strategic drawdown” in the COW’s swift march to victory in Iraq.
Moir’s smh cartoon today captures the Howard govt.’s, specifically Dolly’s, posture on the Mesopotamian Fiasco rather well, I thought. Only The Man From Mayo could abase himself so appropriately on behalf of all Australians.
Biggus Dickus swings in tonight.
So, Princess Mary is now officially a surrender monkey! No more Danish ham or Lithuanian liverwurst for Iraq. Are the Poles still there, or is there now a kransky drought as well?
The slogan of the insurgency must surely be: “We will fight till the last alien sausage is withdrawn!”
The Coalition of the Willing should now be called the Coalition of the Increasingly Less Willing. The next step will be the Coalition of the Despondent, followed by the Coalition of the Dejected and finally the Coalition that Hired Keith Windschuttle to Do His Revisionist Schtick.
Yes Christine, Cadet Biegler (Google) and I have been as one (he he)on various threads here and elsewhere about the main Australian deployment in Iraq. All the information we have posted is available on the internet – here is one of the many rundowns link .
Finally someone woke up to the con, namely the Ruddster’s minders:
See full transcript here.
BTW I thought Kev was coming on bit too unctuous in this newfound role. Memo to Kevvie minders: pull back on the tumescent earnestness a touch.
Yes Sir Henry, I was quite surprised when I saw the fullsome presser from the US Embassy. You’d think from all the praise we would have been flooded with footage of handover ceremonies, much handshaking, slapping of backs and whatnot.
But nothing. Complete conspiracy of silence at this end.
The ADF website is almost delphic in its description of our activities, and the media has done an absolutely hopeless job in conveying information about what the lads/ladettes are actually doing there. Jeebus, you’d think all these highly paid hacks would have figured out how to use Google by now.
The mindlessness of the replies is indicitive of the sloppy and slave like thinking of so many participating in this forum.
I have been asked to explin how John Howard can be considered an honourable man. Unfortunately honour is a sublime concept like justice or beauty and it cannot be explained to those who do not understand it.
Some other misguided person wanted to know why Howard would state that the British Labour Party’s neferarious withdrawl from the Iraqi theatre is part of the plan. Well he lied. He needed to lie because of the shameful lack of political knowledge on behalf of an electorate for whom citizenship is a gift too easily granted and half-resented. Like children they simply throw a tantrum every time the going gets tough.
As for the universal citizenship betsowed upon the Iraqis well that’s unfortunate but understandable considering the pressures already on the government due to a lugheaded public mislead by a self-indulgent and decandet media who are populated by persons holding shallow, trendy ‘beliefs’ in various silly leftist notions of social good.
How someone asked do we accomplish a test for citizen ship. We simply make citizenship a privilage to be earned not a right bestowed willy-nilly.In order to earn it I feel that three things must be demonstrated:
1. A thorough working knowledge of the political-economy of the country. Therefore leaders will not have to lie about the necessity for belt-tightening, they will also not be elected by bribing the electorate with sweeteners.
2. A demonstrated good character: clean credit history, no criminal record and five references by persons of high standing within the following occupations: police, military, clergy, medical, banking, agriculture.
3. The fulfilment of a term of service in the defence forces.
Institute that and watch the world improve.
Thnak yuo for explining Mr Hrowad to us Adnew and sharing your htouts.
I am with you abaord the good ship citizen with our shipmeats Willy and Nilly. (Qiuck, which one is the cbain boy?)
By all maens les’t imperve the wrold. I corncur. See me in my offeci…link
Well that’s good then. We’ve established that the lying is all down to proposition that we’re all too dumb and untrustworthy to be told the truth.
It’s a good thing that it’s not down to the needs of our war leaders to paper over the gaping holes in contradictory policy positions, square the circles of previous dissimulations and misstatements, or draw a curtain of silken words around the rotting corpses of their own hypocrisy.
You really are a bit of a twat, aren’t you Andrew?
Andrew,
“Service Guarantees Citizenship”
Now where have I heard that before?
Got it: that Paul Verhoeven film: Starship Troopers aka Nazis in Space.
Even their uniforms were remininscent of those of the Third Reich. And they were supposed to be “the Good-Guys”.
The baddies, of course, weren’t even human. A bit like terrists eh Andrew?
Andrew:
But Andrew,
why should we be held up to an infinitely higher standard than the scurvy lot we elect. I can’t see the point?
Howard is a backstabbing racist xenophobic midget. And thats his good points.
I’m sorry Andrew, but if you think I’m going to pay back that deliquent loan and quit shopliftting, just so I can vote for a person like “Iron bar” Tuckey, you can jolly well have another think.
I think Andrew is taking the piss.
“You really are a bit of a twat, aren’t you Andrew?”
Ah, but which bit?
My money’s on the mair that gets caught in your teeth.
make that hair.
curses!
“Well that’s good then. We’ve established that the lying is all down to proposition that we’re all too dumb and untrustworthy to be told the truth.”
Actually yes.
Interesting the ‘quality’ of retorts. I’m a twat says Christine? Oh that’s witty and incisive. Evan recalls the film based on Starship Troopers and makes the same dumb link between Heinlen’s novel and Nazism. Nazis were anti-democratic, Heinlen was a libertarian. The world as portrayed in Starship Troopers is a democracy populated by citizens for whom participation in that democracy is an honour and a duty won by risking one’s life for the body politic. This is of the essence of democracy as it was originally concieved by the ancients.
The fact that you have no substantial argument against the idea is telling. It seems to me to indicate the idea that not everyone is entitled to citizenship is solidly based.
Finally this from Brendan who takes the cake for being the least thoughtful”
“why should we be held up to an infinitely higher standard than the scurvy lot we elect. I can’t see the point?”
If the citizenry is of a high standard, then the ledership will be also.
Incidentally I shouldn’t, any of you, worry about paying back your delinquent loans. None of you would make the grade anyway.
Shorter Andrew: I’m beyond caricature.
And now for even less intelligent replies. The hair between my teeth. What is that supposed to be? Incredibly witty? Or are you trying for entry into the literati as the low brow answer to absurdist theatre? Simply make no sense and that’s my angle.
Katz wants shorter because he’s beyond character. Oh caricature.
Freudian slip.
Whoa. Serious case of J. Ignatius Reilly right there…
I’m with Andrew on using this: Starship Troopers really is the best educational documentary film we have for teaching us how to establish a democratic citizenry and to rid the universe of giant, bomb-farting bugs.
Sorry Andrew, having a bit of trouble trying to figure out where you’re coming from. Is it Fourth Reich, Louis XIV, or Tiberius Caesar Augustus?
Keep that rapier-like wit coming. It’s time the Three Stooges had a revival. You’re Larry, right?
Andrew:
Example?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushphoneupsidedown.htm
Christine naturally you do have a hard time trying to figure out where I’m coming from. Why would that be different from any other issue.
The fourth reich by which I suppose you mean either West Germany or East Germany. Well one was a democracy the other wasn’t. And my advocacy of restricted citizenship based on earned suffrage is drawn from neither. The Sun King was an absolute monarch hence that doesn’t fit does it. And as for Tiberius he was what was known as the princeps read Roman emporer, hardly democratic. Did you go searching through MacDuff’s remedial world history for elementary level students in search of those names? Maybe you need an asprin. Lie down. The headache will pass eventually.
My thesis comes from ancient Greece and republican Rome. You disagree with it I suppose. I have to guess because you have not supplied one single substantive argument contradicting it. You simply resort to the witless insults of a resentful 9th grader who has come to realise that her limited intelligence qualifies her for a lifetime of cleaning toilets.
You’re question re. early twentieth century comedians is this: I’m Groucho. You are a Frankenstein’s monster hybrid of Curly and Moe. You have Moe’s arms and Curly’s head. That’s why you keep bashing yourself about the skull.
Oh Brendon
You are…how can I come up with an appropriate descriptive phrase that will not violate the rules of civilized discourse?
Well let’s just say you are a dolt. George W. Bush is not my idea of a noble leader. The US does not have the model of earnt suffrage of which I am an advocate. As you are incapable of making the distinction I shall not tax you further with ellucidations of my conceptual projections, I will simply ask you to lie down and take an asprin. Perhaps Christine can lend you one.
And good luck with the interview for that cleaner’s job. I’m almost sure you’ve got everything it takes.
Well actually that’s not true. But good luck anyway.
Cleaner’s job?
I wish. *sigh*
But anyway, I don’t know how that link got there. It just slipped in somehow. My appy pollie loggies on that one.
Andrew, I’m still looking forward to the example you were going to provide. Thanks in advance.
I’m sorry Brendon.
I’m not sure which example of what I said I was going to provide when?
I’m sorry also re. the cleaner’s job. Don’t worry it’s a seller’s market. You’ll be able to get something.
Both of which had … slaves! Please, do tell us more about this perfect society of yours. Who are the lucky ones who get to cater to your every whim as your giant brain pulsates with ‘theories’?
Mmm. Maybe because like the flat-earth, creationism, and scientology it’s so obviously crap.
Personally I think after we’ve done with Iraq it’s time we gave those Carthaginians a bit of stick myself.
Andrew:
It would be a full time job just cleaning up after you. Christ! you are full of it. LOL
The other guy must be right. You are taking the piss. Well done!
Bored now.
I know a few gun-totin’ drug dealers who’d pass every qualification there, Andrew. ‘Specially the agriculture bit.
But what about polytheism? The ‘ancients’ were also pretty keen on having a whole pantheon of contactable, interventionist Gods in competition with each other, and mixing up the whole notion of natural and supernatural.
Also, the institutionalised arse-fucking of subordinates across the Mare Nostrum. Your thoughts?
I’m always keen, by the way, always up for an intervention, in the Nick Cave fashion. As I always say, you know my number.
Oh the illogic!!
The ancients worshipped many Gods hence any ideas that might stem from them are rubbish. Like architecture, clean running water, science, law?
Then we have Ms. Keeler who must contribute all ten of her IQ points to generate brilliant observations like they had slaves.
Yes. So what. The principle I am advocating isn’t slavery. It is that a democratic polity would function more effectively with a citizenry that had to earn that distinction, had to make an effort and prove they actually know enough to make an informed decision vis a vis suitable leadership for said polity.
Instead of ANY sensible, thoughtful rebuttal of this idea Ms. Keeler comes up with:
Well if it’s so obvious perhaps you like to demolish it with your brilliantine intellect. If you drink your wheatgrass juice I’m sure you can get that brain of yours to muster a
dim light in a tiny bulbfew thoughts at least.I’m sorry I would rather conduct this discussion in a civilized manner but if you insist on jibes then so be it.
The citizenry would not be restricted in any way save that persons undertaking to attain it meet the standards.
As for drug dealers meeting the criteria. Under a restricted citizenship democracy I should think law enforcement would be superior and criminals would not operate free for long. Also I have no objection to guns or drugs, used responsibly.
Starship Troopers is fabulous, I think Andrew’s riffing from the 1956 educational movie classic “So, You’d Like a Bank Loan“
OK, then we’re agreed. Needs must when the Devil jibes.
Personally I like the sound of your Brave Old World, it’s got the ring of a fine little distopia. After all, for everyone who doesn’t shape up, what social duties are owed to a society that doesn’t want ‘em? Nothing! With no power comes no responsibility, baby. (Sorry, Kevin Smith).
I’m curious to know exactly why you think cozzers would work harder under your system than any other, or why crooks would be any easier to catch.
Or, for that matter, why they wouldn’t be able to pass through your qualifications and remain, as now, amongst the leading citizens of society.
Al Capone would’ve done.
What we have here folks is the left over thought process of the “Third Riech” still Andrew does have some good points, under his vision for the world, John Howard would have been my cleaner. I know this because I would have paid Howard an extra ten cents on the fifty cents an hour Andrew would’ve paid him.
No. Andrew has completely won me over. He wants us all to get into this sort of gear:
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=fe8597a5e3a8b0930befb9570ea57adc.601163&vback=Profile&vdone=http://video.yahoo.com/video/profile?ei=UTF-8&yid=bigyella35
Yes gentlemen you’ve really proved
yourselves to be total twitsyour point.I have never said anything about an implied class system. It would be entirely possible for a poor person to be a citizen and rich person not be. Rights as we know them we would still be universal it’s just that voting would be restricted to those who have earned the privalege. That’s all.
I have never made any economic point regarding pay-rates or any such a thing. The system I’m proposing would make it difficult for people without character to obtain political power and therefore the system would be less likely to become corrupted.
We know your form, Andrew. Before moving up-market, Miss Keeler dealt with bus loads of out of town ink-spilling Johns, like your good self, sir. You want her to hurt you real bad don’t you, Andrew? I’ll wager you’re “accidentally” stumbling into uncapped quartloads of Quink as we blog, making a frightful mess in the desperate hope that she’ll notice what an awfully naughty boy you really are.
Tease time’s over, Andy, here on in, the folding stuff goes on the mantlepiece BEFORE you get to whiff burning leather. Besides Miss Keeler could be tied up for a few days entertaining Torture Dick and his entourage.
Little league shit-kickers are going to have to wait their turn, I’m afraid.
Mr. Combatant,
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Do you? But I have tried to engage in civilized discussion and failed due to the immaturity and intellectual limits of other participants. If you are inferring some kind of censorship because of my aggressive language toward Ms. Keeler then I must protest. She started with the insults calling me a twat before I even was aware of her existence. I simply returned what I recieved.
I have no interestt in her or you whatsoever. If someone would be willing to debate me on my points raised in a serious and civilized manner I shall engage them thus. But there seems to be little point in that.
Oh that naught Mr Enemy Combatant, he is a known troublemaker.
But if I may interpret his somewhat cryptic feuilleton you will find that he was concerned about your welfare and tried to acclimatise you to the rough company of backbiters here on Larvatus Prodeo (prodding larvae in Latin).
Ms Keeler is a professional courtesan whose clients obtain sexual pleasure from pain, and consequently pay her to administer faux punishment.
Mr Combatant (not his real name) was alluding to the somewhat one-sided encounter between your good self and the fearsome lady in question and noted that because you kept coming back for more he drew the conclusion that you too were, as it were, seeking punishment by way of gratification.
As regards Mr Combatant’s cultural allusion to ink, (Quink is a proprietary brand of fountain-pen ink), it references as scene in a film called The Adventures of Barry McKenzie (and also a comic strip by Barry Humphries which appeared in the satirical magazine Private Eye in the 70s) which has a Mr Gort (played by Dennis Price) deliberately spill ink in order to be punished. Mr Gort, a man in his 50s was wearing a school uniform at the time.
I do hope this clarifies things for you.
Now Andrew
How do you ensure that such a system as a restricted democracy would not lead to an hereditary aristocracy that systematically oppresses a permanent underclass?
Thank you Sir Henry
However I believe Ms. Keeler got more than she gave. Her wit has not yet graduated from high school.
As to Cassandra’s question:
I cannot. Although I believe citizenship should be more highly valued and that citizenships should perhaps have to acquire certain competancies in order to wield it a system based on restricted citizenship would develove into a rigid class system.
I simply wanted to see if people could engage with an idea that affronted them intelligently without resorting to abuse.
Bill Posters was right.
“As for the universal citizenship betsowed upon the Iraqis well that’s unfortunate but understandable considering the pressures already on the government due to a lugheaded public mislead by a self-indulgent and decandet media who are populated by persons holding shallow, trendy ‘beliefs’ in various silly leftist notions of social good.”
“The system I’m proposing would make it difficult for people without character to obtain political power and therefore the system would be less likely to become corrupted.”
Of course there is nothing implied,your self contradictory statements make it all so plain,even to a trendy lefty dodering fuck wit like me.
What you are really saying Andrew is,if all the trendy left wing lugheaded tools with grand notions of what is good for the planet,could be silenced, we right wing intellectuals can get on and fuck the planet up at our pleasure.
But hey,take a moment to look around you,sustitute decadent left wing media, for lying right wing corrupt toe rags, and you would be a lot closer to the truth.
Why is Cassandra talking to herself? Or is she channeling Andrew? Or does Andrew like commenting in drag?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Looks like Andrew’s flicked the switch to vaudeville: It was all a big prank to test the abusive Leftys.
So, Andrew when you say “I believe” what you mean is . . .?
Thanks Nabs and Ag, for a moment there Cassandrew was making my brain hurt.
Nice elitist fantasy about objectively demonstrable superior beings, who would of course altruistically run society for the overall good. But how do you decide who is eligible? And who decides? Obviously you would put yourself forward in answer to both those questions.
But really it is just a recipe for serious social division, nepotism, and corruption, which would never work out well in the real world.
And John Howard is an honourable man? Puhleese. (Reaches for the extra large, industrial strength vomit bucket.)
apropos your comment on the Punditariat thread skepticlawyer, you are right: there is no difference between the right and the actually existing left when it comes to polemic and hypocrisy. So what is new?
Hang on. Which one’s the sockpuppet? Andrew or Cassandra? Doesn’t that mean s/he’s lost the argument by default?
What say you citoyens?
Faarrrk
Andrew was fair-dinkum.
Democracy is reserved for those that deserve it, he and his mates, of course, being the arbiters of the Worthy.
I guess that makes me a “D” class citizen, worthy only of slaveing-away cleaning their jack-boots and donating my organs, whenever one of the f**k-knuckles needs a brain or liver transplant.
Champion, mate.
Your’re a true democrat.
I think I’m going with the ‘no taxation without representation’ rule.
Christine Keeler, here’s my educated guess about what heppened -
Cassandra I = not Andrew, because of the lack of Andrew-esque grammar and spelling mistakes.
Cassandra II = Andrew in drag, or Cassandrew as Enemy Combatant names him/her.
Cassandrew’s obsession with you and mangled syntax seem characteristic of Andrew.
I’d recommend Cassandrew be (citizen-)shipped immediately to the Julie Bishop/ Kevin Donelly re-education course in traditional grammar.
Thanks Ag. I must say it’s all quite confusing in this new democracy, but I suppose the Top People know what they’re doing.
How’s that hot new job emptying pig-slops BTW? I’m still struggling along with the fu*&ing goat herd.
I blame Zeus of course. He gets right on my tit sometimes.
Emptying the pig-slops has become tres difficult since both my arms got stuck in the bog searching for a discarded carrot – leprosy. I went to see the doctor but was told my Sparta-healthcare card was no good, anymore. Apparently I have to go and fight first. Present arms.
Bugger!
Andrew. I hope you are still with us. You are barking up the wrong distopia. Your ubermensch citzenry concept isn’t going to happen any time soon even if your argument made internal sense.
You don’t have to go back to antiquity to find such models either. The Aboriginal people prior to 1944 had to have special permits to enter towns to obtain employment. In 1944 Natives (Citizenship Rights) Act gave limited rights to the Aboriginals who could prove, among other things, that they has adopted a “civilised life” and did not associate with other Aboriginal people who did not have citizenship rights. This “citizenship” could be withdrawn at any time. It wasn’t until 1967 that they got full citzenship rights, including the right to vote – after a referendum.
Now you would like to go back to a graduated system of citizenship? Who’d cop that? What a lot of bollocks. How do you reckon a referendum putting up your model would go?
Andrew, are you a member of Young Liberals by any chance? Just askin’…
Oh wow! This new democracy with the vulturous harpies really rocks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj-D1nOVBbo
Something Kellog Brown Rooty going on here, Miss Keeler.
Having dispatched the vile and vicious “Vulturous Harpies” and a troop of Combat Skeletons who fight real good (hut, hut, hut, hut) but can’t swim (that Jason is so cunning), Big J finally gets to claim The Prize which is suspiciously named after a former retail petroleum outlet.
Dealing with a Seven Headed Hydra is one thing, escaping the all pervading influence of The Seven Sisters is another thing entirely.
Mind you, I find Dimitrios and his gladdies far more butch.
All the Murkan pro war mongers like Andrew and Cassandra should be collected up and sent to a concentration camp called “DEMOCRACY-LAND”.
There they will be bombed tortured and terrified 6 days of the week. On the seventh day they will be force-marched, dodging sniper bullets, to vote for expatriates they have never heard of and lectured via loudspeakers on their way back home that they are now liberated. They will also be advised to hurry up home because the bombing will start up at 6 pm, sharp.
They are to live on meagre rations, no electricity and barely any water. They will recieve bulletins every ten minutes telling them they never had it so good. When things go wrong they will be blamed for everything.
No, Sir Henry,
Not a Young Lib….Hitler Yourh, for sure.
Sorry, my error…They’re the same thing: Boy Scouts, with attitude.
Silly, me.
Andrew reminds me of a very, very, very stupid libertarian I once knew by email. From axiomatic principles, he deducted that (a) anyone should do anything that caused no harm; (b) this included selling oneself to others for life; so ( c ) slavery would be ok in a libertarian society. I simplify the argument, but you get the idea. Reason unlimited by common sense or any idea of history tends to go off the rails.
Then again, Andrew is hardly reasonable. I translate:
As “Just Becaz”.
Precisely. That’s how we end up with Quizmania.
Having just spent the last few hours successfully bedded down my lovely new iMac (I call her Charlotte and later on tonight I will dress her up real nice) so she’s purring like a sated raptor, I’m feeling unusually benign and so willing to respond to Andrew (or is it Cassandra?) or his or her own terms.
Look, Andrew or Cassandra, your proposal for restricting the franchise because it will lead to a stronger, more stable and more informed polity is based on an unproven assumption.
All you’ve provided here by way of proof is a glancing mention of ancient Greek and republican Rome, two societies frequently wracked by intercine strife, civil war and corruption and with no shortage of men of bad character lying their heads off in fora, agora and governing bodies to provoke uncessary wars. And Greece riddled, raddled and broke after some very nasty internal wars was picked like a ripe olive by the Romans who then saw their precious republic steadily emasculated by a series of dictators and then dynasties.
Whereas in the Western world, life became steadily better for most people as the franchise was extended over the past 100 years or so. Of course there is a “does cause really equal correalation?” thang going on here but I suspect my point here is based on firmer ground than that in which you’ve planted your pale and shivering proposal.
So under what name do you plan to return to the fray next Andrew or Cassandra? I was gonna suggest Hercules Grytpype-Thynne but I then realised you don’t really seem to have the chops to carry off a real character piece.
And Andrew or Cassandra’s views would undoubtedly get him or her blackballed by the Reform Club, thus blowing his or her’s best comfort stop opportunity on Pall Mall. Though I’ve heard the Atheneum’s loos are very nice too.
(An apocryphal story here, Apparently some bloke would stop in at the Atheneum for his morning george (rhymes with the ‘Third’) every morning while walking to work through St James. After a couple of years of this, the Head Porter finally took decisive action.
“Excuse me sir, are you a member of this club?”
“You mean it’s a club too?”
Also I do hope Andrew or Cassandra does return to advance his or her’s point about limiting the franchise around the Aus blogosphere, mainly because I want see what happens when him or her starts explaining to Birdy why he shouldn’t be allowed within ten kilometres of a ballot box.
Andrew on 21 February 2007 at 7:30 pm
No, “rabble” is a problem for any kind of franchise where the cultural elites do not have the stomach or nous to grasp Howard’s Machiavellian modus.
Universal suffrage is the liberal philosophy of autonomous individual choice taken to the public sphere. It is a form of mass sampling that is, not by accident, also the method of science.
Most cultural elites naively analyse Howard’s Iraq policies at face value ie WMD-hunts, terror-curbs and democracy-promotion/nation-building. They notice that Iraq did not do much good in these respects and triumphantly cry “gotcha”. It is the Howard-hating elites who have been an ideological rabble, so to speak.
Interestingly the political populus do seem to get Howard’s devious ways. Which is why they regularly vote him tops in the areas where he lies or dog whistles most (national security and cultural identity). “If there is hope it lies with the proles.”
Howard’s Iraq policy was always a symbolic gesture of solidarity with the US, as a token of our esteem for their helping us deal with rogue elements of the TNI in Timor (a problem that will not go away). I made this point numerous times since 2002. Howard now justifies the ADF’s presence in Iraq on the true grounds of “not ratting on ones [great and powerful] mates”
Most of the ADF’s serious military contacts have been in Afghanistan which is much more like a real war and one that is winnable.
Iraq is now just a particularly toxic social experiment proving the impossibility of seriously multicultural democracy.
Greg Sheridan’s love life looks to be on the up and up if his recent date with Dick Cheney is any guide.
Writing what is described as an “exclusive interview” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21276730-25377,00.html with the Veep, Greg was yesterday engaged as the great man’s temp. No doubt there was much cooing, batting of eyelids, and footsies under the table as the foreign policy paramour for the National People’s Daily dutifully transcribed the Thoughts of Big Dick.
And the good news? He believes a military confrontation with Iran would be a lesser evil than an Iran with nuclear weapons.
So pack up your troubles folks! We’re going to war with Iran:
Honestly, if we’d had visionaries like this around during the Cuban Missile Crisis we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.
Chirsting:
True,
but the
CheneysMorlocks would be getting a taste for us about now.I have just looked at an associated article by GS, “Hicks case could be a travesty of justice”, bemoaning the fact that “politics” may prevent David Hicks “getting justice” he so richly deserves.
Now class, parse this sentence for errors in logic:
The logic is quite clear, Sir Henry:
Tony Jones, like the Indian soldiers, has probably been killed by David Hicks.
It follows that Tony Jones, like David Hicks, hates us because he hates our freedoms.
And the upshot is that Gerard Henderson should host Media Watch.
God you people are dumb.
I mean DUMB.
If you actually could read you know like properly you would have seen the following response to my own question re. justifying my idea about restricted citizenship. I admitted that:
Actually I could but I wanted to demonstrate what a rational argument might look like. Giving up the jig I then explained that I:
What Bill Posters said was:
Hah. I mean sorry about the spelling errors etc. I was a little drunk. But reading what was passing for “intelligent discussion” I just thought I’d introduce a concept that came from a science fiction novel (well done Evan) and see how people reacted to it.
Your reaction demonstrates full well your:
- Inability to reason deductively.
- tendency not to comprehend subtle distinctions.
- Knee-jerk reactionism.
I’ve been compared both to the young Liberals and the Nazis. Christine brought in the Fourth reich??? (hahaha). Then the somewhat pompous and over-rated by self Mr. Strocchi goes on a diatribe about John Howard and how Iraq proves multiculturalism doesn’t work.
In many cases the reaction to my suggestion of restricted citizenship was that I was advocating some kind of rigid class rule despite my categorical declarations to the contrary.
Mr. Strocchi seemed to believe, for example, that I was campaigning for the exclusive suffrage of the ‘urbane elites’. Evan seemed to believe that it would be restricted to myself and my mates. What I actually said was:
Therefore my proposed system would restrict citizenship not to those with property, a notion that conceivably a particularly idealistic and reactionary young Lib might fantastically entertain; nor would it deprive people generally of their rights as the Nazis certainly did. I did not suggest the dismantling of the seperation of powers, the parliament, the rule of law nor the market economy.
In short I was not talking about an end to democracy.
I simply proposed a situation in which citizenship must be acquired meritoriously. The number of citizens is not restricted. Citizenship under the system could be universal provided that everyone earned the right.
Gettit??!!!!!!
Not one of you seemed to comprehend that. Not one of you retorted with an intelligent reply, nor a question that would force me to justify my proposals. There was no discussion regarding the reasons that a scenario in which citizenship must be earned would be a bad thing, there was no challenge either to my proposals regarding the criteria for citizenship.
No.
You simply piled in with the usual pack mentality. Let’s all have a go at the loon. Ha. You people are an argument for restricted citizenship. You demonstrate so well why democracy falls far short of its promise.
From your tone many of you consider yourselves intelligent and politically literate but you are incapable of understanding the particulars of an argument. You simply slot it into whatever pre-arranged box you find convenient. Most of you regard me as a member of the far-right, Mr. Strocchi thinks I’m a member of the latte left (I gather). My proposal is associated with neither.
Even if you could be excused for not understanding the argument you cannot for failing to understand me when I plainly stated I was taking the piss out of you.
!!!!!!!!
Well may you say that I’m playing unfair and wasting everyone’s time. But my madness had method. How are we supposed to generate new ideas in a political culture which insists on treating anything and everything “unacceptable” (whether or not it truly is) according to a pre-arranged ideological category? What virtue in a culture that teaches people that the correct response to a posited notion to which one disagrees strongly is to call the advocate of said notion, a twat????
Idiotopia is not a place in the future. It’s here and now.
And this intellectual wank of yours proves what exactly?
Cassandrandrew:
You introduce an viewpoint (“restricted citizenship”) that everyone find objectionable. When pressed to justify it, you admit that you cannot (or will not). Now you want us to do the heavy lifting to hold up your end of the argument. Can you understand why we find this sort of thing contemptible?
BTW: Nabakov demolished your argument (at 12:58 am, to be precise).
I think Cassandrew is a genius who has proved that some people occasionally write their thoughts on blogs.
And you’re sober now?
Down and out – it was 12:24 am to be precise.
No he didn’t demolish my argument. My argument suggested that citizenship should be earned rather than bestowed automatically. Nabakov, admittedly attempting to argue a point as opposed to spinning abuse, undermines the concept by attacking Greece and Rome upon which I supposedly based my suggestion.
His attack is ill-placed. Greece was a democracy restricted to men, mostly to men of property. Roman republicanism had certain ‘democratic’ features but it was never a democracy. My idea came from a Robert Heinlen novel which used certain ancient concepts as a starting point to science fiction.
If Nabakov knew what he was talking about he would’ve simply called me up on my bullshit history. Needless to say the ‘proof’ of an idea is in it’s success upon execution. The validity of an idea is in no way justified by recourse to ancient precedent.
Yes Nabakov has at least tried to play the ball and not the wo/man but he fumbled. The rest of you simply put the boot in.
I don’t want you to do any heavy lifting to justify my end of the argument. I actually don’t advocate restricted citizenship I simply advocate a better style of citizenship. Answering Steve’s question, I’ve deployed this little ‘intellectual wank’ to demonstrate the non-capacity to understand the precise nature of an idea and the actual argument of an opponent in addition to the tendency to respond to that which is unacceptable with emotionally based ridicule rather than reason.
Of course I don’t expect you to grasp the point. I expect Mr. Strocchi will be back any minute to use this thing as springboard to wax lyrical about the wet’s plans to demolish Western Civ. And you can all join in a nice little game of ideological
footsiefootball.I think you have just defeated your own nonsensical claim as to the wank you were perpetrating. But the question remains why do it here? Why not write in a space devoted to testing how ideas are communicated and modified.
You know as well as I do that if you are going to play this sort of a game in the public domain then the players have a right to know what the game is and the rules that apply.
To accuse people of being dumb when they face an unannounced secret agenda is no credit to you at all.
Cassandrandrew on 24 February 2007 at 1:43 pm
No, I don’t know or care what your ideological valency is. I just think you are wrong.
You complain that universal suffrage lets dumb, wicked or otherwise unworthy people have the vote. This allegedly leads to devious political moves (John Howard lying) and poor policy outcomes (abandoning Iraq).
But you are wrong on both counts. The universally suffraged populus “got” the fact that Howard was lying from the beginning because it instinctively knew that AUS’s participation in Iraq-attack was all about bolstering the US-AUS alliance – still strategically important in our somewhat turbulent neigbourhood.
Whether the ADF stays the course or cuts and runs is irrelevant to any substantive policy outcomes. Its presence there is purely symbolic and its role is probably mostly own-force protection.
It is the political and cultural elites who have got their ideological knickers in a twist over the ADF’s role in Iraq-attack. These are the kind of educated and public-spirited people who would surely get the vote in Cass/Andrew’s constitutional scheme of things.
It is the populus, not the elites, who have backed the right horse. You are barking up the wrong tree.
Sure to be a few regrets when it eventually happens though but that is the price to be paid.
I think I’ve come across Cassandrandrew before. He was the bloke who, after boring everybody in the pub senseless with his ‘ideas’, then moved across the road to the chip shop to so the same thing.
After being escorted home by the police he jumped on the computer and, well, here we are.
Who are you really? Nikki Osborne, Amy Parks, Brodie Young, Katrina Conder or Suze Raymond? http://channelnine.ninemsn.com.au/section.aspx?sectionid=2681§ionname=quizmania
Steve, Yes I’m sober now and regret nothing but my spelling errors.
Mr. Strocchi if as you claim:
Why all the horsehit re. WMDs etc? Why the need to lie? I think, considering public opinion re. the war has changed from a roughly 50/50 divide either way to the majority being firmly against, you are sorely mistaken. People expect their leaders to be truthful. At least they take a dim view when they’re exposed as otherwise.
And as for:
You are surely implying something about my views despite your claims to the contrary. However you are proving me right sir. First you persist in failing to understand that ” I actually donât advocate restricted citizenship” but merely “wanted to see if people could engage with an idea that affronted them intelligently without resorting to abuse.” Then you miss the criteria by which I aim to test for citizenship qualification:
And then finally you miss the point that I’m taking the piss in order to:
What say you sir?
Ms. Keeler if you wish to engage me with your usual
abusive rantsdebating style be prepared to accept return fire.I’m much better than you have demonstrated to be thus far at least.
Good god. What are you on?
I like this bit Cass. And, yes, you creamed them. Still are.
Aspergers?
Steve -
In answer to your more serious questions:
Precisely because this is where ideas are expressed hence tested and modified assuming that there is a reliable transferral of ideas. There seems not to be.
The game is political debate. There is a post re. an issue posited from a particular point of view and punters egg in with their two cents worth. Free speech is the rule. And mutual respect and courtesy is the understood lubricant for the media. You are supposed to state ideas/opinions in earnest but in no way are you restrained from playing with them. I merely toyed with an idea. The essence of creativity is to toy with an idea.
Actually I toyed with two.
One: The concept of restricted citizenship. Whilst I don’t advocate it I do believe the problem which it would attempt to solve is real and serious. That is that the citizenry (ie we) lack compatence.
Two: Connected to said lack of compatence is the capacity to deal rationally with ideas especially those which challenge acceptable norms.
In order to toy thus I am no more obliged to announce my intentions than anyone else is to declare their voting patterns. If my assertions were false you would not have been caught out by my subterfuge.
But the point behind my insult was not that they failed to catch on to my secret agenda. It was that they failed to deal adequately with what I was suggesting. There was almost nothing by way of actual rebuttal and even when I announced my ruse the lynch mob persisted in trying to rope my neck.
They didn’t get it even as it was spelled out to them!!
I seek not to credit myself. It’s simply the deployment of a minor hoax in furtherance of establishing a lack of rigour. In this I suppose I am inspired by Dr. Sokal.
Andrew Andrew Andrew
You can hardly suggest that people don’t have an automatic right to vote and then expect an automatic right to be taken seriously.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’ve just spotted someone I have to go and say hello to.
…of course the right to vote being the very litmus test and hawtness of bourgeois democracy.
How easily satisfied some are.
And how does one account for all those Americans, a majority of the population, in the world’s greatest democracy, who choose not to exercise that token democratic right.
Andrew: free speech supposes that anyone can make an argument, and anyone else can ridicule them.
However, this space isn’t exactly “free”; it exists on a domain and computer space bought and paid for by Mark (and anyone else who wants to chip in). Our posts exist on his sufferance.
If you are really looking for “free speech”, why not get your own blog?
Cassandrandrew on 24 February 2007 at 2:47 pm
You are missing the point. Neither Howard or the Australian populus cares all that much about what happens in Iraq per se, whether there are WMDs, or terrorists harbours or effective democratic nation building democracy promotion going on there.
The people care that Howard appears to know what he is doing and gets the national security job done. The job is to re-inforce the US-AUS military alliance and not get Australian soldiers hurt or provoke terrorist blow-back. These conditions have been achieved. And, contrary to your assertion, the voters are more or less satisfied. The Age reports an acceptable public opinion of Howard’s martial laws:
Howard is the only politician, apart from Sadr, who can look at Iraq-attack and say “Mission Accomplished”.
Cassandrew says:
Not necessarily. The Australian populus expect their leaders to deliver good results. If they lie in the process then the populus are prepared to overlook this so long as the job gets done properly. Australians are very pragmatic.
If, on the other hand, the lying politician fails to deliver good results then the populus will punish him doubly. Howard is in trouble if a suicide bomber attacks an ADF convoy.
First you persist in failing to understand that â? I actually donât advocate restricted citizenshipâ? but merely âwanted to see if people could engage with an idea that affronted them intelligently without resorting to abuse.â? Then you miss the criteria by which I aim to test for citizenship qualification:
I have not abused you. Merely pointed out the errors of your ways.
I have not failed to understand you. You suggest certain “citizenship qualifications” relating to civic knowledge. This is a restriction of the franchise from universal to partial suffrage.
Finally, I demonstrated that your particular grounds for dissatisfaction with Australia’s demos – public disssatisfaction with the Iraq war and Howard – was based on a mis-construction of the public and Howard.
That is what I say, sir.
Webmaster could you place blockquote and em tags, as shown below, on the following quote which I inserted but failed to stylise in comment 153 above:
Cassandrew says:
Much obliged.
Anthony – is this:
…what you use instead of wit?
I have not suggested that people don’t have an automatic right to vote I’ve stated that they do, but shouldn’t. I’ve then suggested that if citizenship was earned rather than automatically bestowed then said citizens would function better as such.
I’ve then said that this is a ruse designed to demonstrate how poor the citizenry is as demonstrated here. You dolt!!
Forgive me my outrage but if you wish to deploy a facsimile of cocktail party condescention the least you could do was comprehend and respond coherantly instead of a trippin over your virtual tongue.
Incidentally there’s more to citizenship than voting.
Cassandrew
Unfortunately, all this is couched in terms of a joke until the alcohol begins to wear off and the nastiness begins. It really does seem that you really have got a bad case of the ‘Born to rule mentality’ are are testing how far people are prepared to tolerate this (alcohol fuelled) form of insanity but it’s not the alcohol induced thinking that concerns me as much as the underlying philosophy which is not a joke in any sense.
Nor do people on this blog need to be subjected to your little games which you couch in terms of political debate. May I suggest that the academic year is beginning right now and if you have a genuine interest in this area that you sign up at your local university which will have a school of political sciences, where they will help you to understand these things.
Mr. Strocchi
I must concede your point:
You are correct. The Aus. population is pragmatic and, moreover, cynical re. the character of politicians, true. And what you say above is defensible. You are also indeed correct re. Howard’s play in Iraq he has managed to profit greatly with very little cost. Very wiley of him.
However I think you’re a little rubbery with the figures you cite. Just because the electorate believe that the Libs are better at defence than the ALP does not mean they think the war’s a goer anymore. They were, we were, quite divided about it from the start. Now it seems most of us are over it. It just hasn’t been much an issue electorally because as you say the Aus. population doesn’t care what goes on over there and is unlikely to unless we start sustaining casualties.
As for the other point I think you may concede that you’ve failed to understand me:
But as you yourself quote me:
Emphasis added
I did not suggest that you had abused me merely that I wished to see if I could posit a confronting notion and receive reason rather than vilification in return. I’ve explained myself too often re. this point already to labour it further.
Your rebuttal:
..is a philisophical statement rather than a retort. And my posited restricted citizenship notion does not necessarilly put an end to universal suffrage, suffrage would be universal if everyone made the grade.
Your post then meandred into a defence of Howard’s tactics and an assault on the urbane elites. I must concede you didn’t fly into lynch mob mode but you used my provocation as a platform from which to project your agenda.
Steve
I’ve said nothing that indicates a belief that I was born to rule. What I’ve said suggests that we might be better equipped to rule as a people, demos kratos.
You have said nothing to contradict this.
Now you are getting touchy but my game as you call it has been declared. My point made. You have no retort and defensively seek to salvage face. The better play is to take the matter to consideration.
Good one Mark! This will go down as one of the great classics, up there with Ern Malley and Alan Sokal’s Social Text item. You overdid it with the dyslexia (you must admit) at first but it’s percolating nicely now.
I’m not Mark
I know ! I know!
You’re the black swan of trespass?
Seriously, Andrew -
what competencies are you talking about? Who would test and how would such competencies be tested? Who would be the gatekeepers beating back the incompetent multitudes? How would you go about ensuring that the denizens and aliens of your project had a fair right to these competencies?
\”You have no retort and defensively seek to salvage face.\”
Sounds a bit like every comment you\’ve made here Andrew or Cassandra since you were caught out as too dumb to manage your sock puppets properly.
Here\’s an interesting selection of quotes taken from your comments over the life of this thread.
\”This is the problem with a universal suffrage. A citizen should have to earn the right to vote.\”
\”I actually don’t advocate restricted citizenship\”
My thesis comes from ancient Greece and republican Rome.\”
\”…undermines the concept by attacking Greece and Rome upon which I supposedly based my suggestion.\”
\”These days people are weakling fools unable, it seems, to understand the slightest issue.\”
\”the Aus. population is pragmatic and, moreover, cynical re. the character of politicians, true.\”
And I\’m sure others can find other examples of you contradicting yourself as you struggle to spin your little escapade here now, that like Iraq, it\’s just not working out as planned.
Ever thought about running for office yourself? You and Birdy would make a great double bill.
Tony BlairAndrewCassandraCassandrew surrenders to terroristsCan someone explain to me how all this stuff about “restricted citizenship” constitutes being on topic?
I’d also remind people that both sockpuppetry and abuse of other commenters are against the comments policy.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/about-larvatus-prodeo/comments-policy/
Mark
Mark,
if this thread was a litre of milk, it could be said that it has been left out in the sun 48 hours too long.
However, having said that, Iraq is totally about “restricted citizenship” at the moment. So maybe that isn’t so off topic after all.
If any thread I create starts to meander, I don’t mind…. if I’m winning the argument! LOL
Be fair Mark. I at least had a crack at getting things back on track http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/02/21/tony-blair-surrenders-to-terrsts/#comment-349693 Then it all got crazy and weird again after Cassandrew The Sock Puppet got thrown out of the pub and returned to inflict his thoughts on the rest of us.
Well, I think we’ll close this one down. Anyone interested in discussing Iraq can do so here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/02/24/spin-this-one-howard/
Anyone interested in discussing “restricted citizenship” can do so on the open thread politely and without using sockpuppets.