Better option: proportional representation instead of this silly 2party preferred nonsense. At least then they'd have to work together to govern the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryO
Btw in the 2party preferred system no one said the 2 parties have to be labor or the coalition (thats 3 parties anyway)
Sent from my GT-I9505 using AULRO mobile app
well I'm doubly confused now...
Morrison is sending Iraqi assylum seekers back to Iraq....right now.
He said he will start bringing in Iraqis as migrants.
The fact that we have the assylum seekers here that could/should now be treated as migrants doesn't seem to mean anything except boosting his ego by sending them home at ours, the taxpayers cost.
We are sending troops over to fight Iraquis again
so we send some home, invite some others over and go over there and kill some others.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by HJF
Pickles.
We already have proportional representation and look at the collective bunch of clowns that now hold power in the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex 110
Proportional representation is the government you have when you don't want anyone to have to take responsibility for anything they decide or do.
Remember the old saying about a camel being an animal designed by a committee? Well that is the type of government that proportional representation gives you.
Would you really like the lower house to be like the Senate?
It is basicaly a tribal fight, Sunni's V Sheite' they have been warring for centurys,Europe and England sent Crusades there in the 12century.
I actually think Abbott is a very effective speaker because he slows down, has a clear message, stays on message and repeats important points to make sure his listeners get him.
My problem is I often don't like his message, but that's another story.
Something certainly needs to be done about IS, but the point is it is a Middle Eastern problem and, rather than outsiders rushing in (which is how we got into this mess under Bush), the heavy lifting will have to be done by the Middle Eastern countries themselves. They are the ones who are most in danger from IS.
If our role is confined to insisting the countries of the region to combat IS, well that could be OK, but these things inevitably spiral outside their original plan, as happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq the first time.
Watch Iran carefully. The Iranian regime has stayed out of the coalition of the willing that Obama has assembled. They fought a war against Saddam and have interfered in Syria and Lebanon. Will they regard IS as a threat to be countered or as a potential ally to be fostered?
They are currently quietly helping to fight IS in northern Iraq with the Iraqs and Kurds.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
At the risk of repeating the mantra, It's all about oil. Iran & the US are supporting the Kurds because they have the most productive oil fields in northern Iraq. Not theirs to control, yet. Also, we have to ask ourselves, why did ISIS draw the Worlds attention by public beheadings. General thinking is that the English speaking " john" was just a TV front man, because he spoke good English, came from a major Western country, and would provoke the exact response from western leaders that has happened.
He didn't do the beheadings, a more sinister & dangerous group did.
These people have been planning this for a long time, to think it is some mindless radical religious rabble clamouring for a Caliphate, is naïve, to me. The mindless radical rat bags , cannon fodder , if you will, could be the unwitting tools of a group of religious lunatics, whose agenda is no more different than the Nazis, 1932 to 1940. Bob
Rubbish, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob10
Are you seeing what is going on over there?
These "people", if you can call them that that, need to be stopped, FULL STOP,....Don't care how it is done, they need to be "eliminated".
That is what I think,..."ELIMINATED",....can't be any plainer than than that.
What do you say, Pickles.
So you want to see another holocaust Pickles?