Sam said:
Regardless of whether or not Australia recognises her as the 'Queen of Australia' Australia is still a sovereign state and in reality neither her nor the royal family can do anything without being asked too. Basically, ceremonies, law-making and her title is used to represent the state in criminal cases.
I am well aware of this and I already said that the Prime Minister actually excercised those powers. Whether her role is ceremonial or not is not the issue, the issue is your lack of knowlege of australian constitution and system of governance.
Who said this?
Originally Posted by sam04u
Why are you such a retard? The only link Australia has to Great Britain is with the Attorney General. She isn't our queen you retard, you seriously don't know anything and continue spitting out this garbage which is illogical and wrong.
Calling other people retard while you cant even differentiate Attorney General and Governor-General. While the Australian Consitution clearly said she is the Queen of Australia regardless of her rubber stamp power, saying she is not our Queen is just sheer ignorance, I believe a failure of the education system.
There are infinite reports, the happening of Abu Ghraib are not Isolated events
what are those infinite reports? So infinite that theres no evidence to back it up?
Almost daily something happens which is a breach of the Geneva convention and proof that the American government has failled Iraq. All they really are doing is trying to rebuilt and export Oil from Iraq. And protecting Israel from a future attack.
What happenned there daily which breached Geneva Convention? Have you read geneva convention and what clause, section or articles are breached daily by US soldiers? Is rebuilding Iraq bad for Iraq? Is exporting oil bad for Iraq? Since when development and trade is bad for a country? Is protecting Israel bad for Iraq? I do not see any reason why anyone would oppose rebuilding of their country. I do not see a problem with gunning down prisoner trying to escape, if they don't want to be killed then they should not try to escape from prison. That is NOT prison abuse. The guards did exactly what a responsible prison guard should do.
I know more people who celebrated then you do. I also have arabic sources of media so I know people are happy with him being taken out of power. But, that doesn't justify what that scum of a military did to the Iraqi people. They've been put through a Civil war and the truth is the U.S government could care less about the Iraqi people.
Exactly, they are happy Saddam's gone. The US military abuse in Abu Gharib was not acceptable that was why they were prosecuted and jailed for their crime and abuses. However, you are not satisfied with that and what else do you want? stone them to death or behead them under Islamic Sharia Law? The US admin wants to avoid civil war at all cost however there are many people who are determined to see US fail in iraq. The US admin did not tell Sunni insurgents to blow up Shiite Mosque or market in baghdad . The US admin did not tell Shiite militia to burn sunni muslims alive. It has a lot to do with their religious differences and centuries of rivalry between the two islamic sects.
1. They need to properly train the military to protect the country.
The US, Britain and Australian soldiers trained tens of thousands of iraqis and recruit many soldiers so Iraqis can defen themselves, there are many terrorists who dont want to see strong iraqi military and there has been many instances in which young men lining up for recruitments were targets of suicide bombers2
. They need to devote more troops and help people understand and see the freedom which they now have.
I thought you wanted US troops OUT, now you want more US troops so that iraqis can enjoy their freedom?
3. They need to end the sectarian violence by helping to rebuild damaged mosques and uniting people in festivals and such. (people are simple, celebrating makes people happy.)
Sounds easy huh? If rebuilding a mosque will help end sectarian violence they would have done so. A rebuilt mosque will probably be a target of terrorist bombing again.
4. They need to better explain what they have done, what this means. Then, explain that Iraq will now become a more prosperous country now that Iraq is open to the outside world.
Iraqis already knew that, that was why they celebrated on the street when US invaded Iraq, celebrated when they had their first ever democratic elections in over 30 years, they celebrated when Saddam was sentenced to death. The problem is there are thousands of islamic extremist who want to see blood flow, blow up Mosques to start as many violence as they can.
onebytwo said:
no lies that ever sent the most powerful military to war and killed tens of thousands of civilians
tens of thousands of civilians killed by muslim terrorist such as al qaeda, in iraq headed by deceased al zarqawi you mean that?
Bruce said:
Yeah that's why I said Bush is ultimately responsible. Although Rumsfeld had more direct control and so Bush isn't really responsible for Rumsfled so much as he is responsible for the campaign in general.
Random sidenote: The Queen is not the CinC of Australian Armed Forces, it's the Governor General
Thats more acceptable, yes Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for Iraq war, but they are not responsible for crime committed by troops unless they ordered it or have a knowlege of it and never tried to mitigate or stop. Similarly , I do not think the Governor General of Australia is responsible for a soldier who sodomised another soldier with sex toys.