HC is reported to have said "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president…(and they ) might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Ok, we know that politicians give all sorts of undertakings that they have no intention of keeping . ( & we should note she says “we would be ABLE” rather than simply “we would” ) but this was a bit of a –wild pitch. Especially when set against the more reserved response of Obama.

What are we to suppose that HC would do if that red phone rang in the middle of the night with the news that Ahmadinejad had scored a homer by taking out Tel Aviv.
1) Nuke Teheran ? .
Not likely .Since Dresden , Nagasaki & Hiroshima the West has painted itself into a corner .“Collective punishment’ is now considered fowl play –especially amongst HCs reference groups .
2) Forcibly remove the ruling strata of mullahs ?
After the outcome in Iraq ,not likely.

She would most likely bomb a few military installations –and make a lot of moralistic noises –and that would be full extent of her retribution ( ala Bills attempt to hit Osama with a rocket attack on his camp in Afghanistan)

Which just might make it an attractive proposition for an overly pious Ahmadinajad .
Who sees himself batting for team Islam . And who would know that any such act he committed, even if it results in sizable Palestinian ‘ collateral damage’, would have him written up in the history books, of at least in a third of the world, as a modern day Saladin .

HC should not be pitcher for the Democrat because she hasn’t got the balls to strike out Ahmadinajad–and she hasn’t the skills to control her own bellicosity.

I can relate to your analysis of Hilary Clinton. I understand why you might think that she is all bark and no bite.

I think she has far more “balls” than the spineless husband.

I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t nuke Tehran, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they tactically nuked all of Iran’s military infrastructure and carpet bombed the presidential palace.

I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be the best way to go. Unfortunately its looking like an Obama-Clinton ticket at the moment. Anyway, my point is that Obama is bound to be worse than Clinton.

He just is not the person to hand the commander in chiefs hat when America is fighting on two fronts. His relationship with Jeremiah Wright is a pointer to the type of man he is. His immaturity and inexperience in dealing with matter of state was highlighted by the Canadian debacle.

And his position on Iraq is just crazy. After all the hard work that has been done, the moment he is elected, Iraq will be on the path to a failed state. nd worse, A failed state where enemies of the west can train to kill innocent civilians without fear of retribution.

Anyone who thinks that the war in Iraq is purely a local issue is deluded. A loss in Iraq will encourage every single Islamic resistance movement that you don’t need to beat America, you only need to outlast it. The defeat will come from within. This will undoubtedly embolden those fundamentalists who see great possibilities through armed action. We’ll see more fighting, not less.

Have a read of Mark Steyn. He may not always be right but he’s almost always funny.
http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogcategory/34/110/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/09/19/do1902.xml

I think the Americans will decide for themselves who their next President will be.

It is not for us to criticise the nominees / contenders for the role any more than it is up to the YAnks tro decide the PRime Minister of Australia.

However, if you think HC "has far more “balls” than the spineless husband."

Then it would not be a bad thing...

A reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, I am almost salavating at the thought...

Paul.L: << A loss in Iraq will encourage every single Islamic resistance movement that you don’t need to beat America, you only need to outlast it. >>

Which is precisely what some of us were saying five years ago when America and its toadies were preparing to invade Iraq on the pretext of fictitious "weapons of mass destruction". The war was based on a lie, and has succeeded only in replacing an odious regime with almost complete civil disorder - not to mention the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Col Rouge: << A reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, I am almost salavating (sic) at the thought... >>

I think I'm going to be sick. Hang on, does that mean she's dead?

Col, you dirty old man you!

CJ, I get so sick of this "fictitious weapons of mass distruction" bit.

Saddam was pushing the WMD bit, & managed to fool everybody, the US, & particularly Iran. He was terrified of Iran, after loosing most of his military capicity, & his WMD myth was his last line of defense.

I can't believe that the US is left with such a lousy lot to choose from, & I mean all three.

Still, if you look around here, both Oz, & NZ have managed to do even worse.

Hilary Rodham Clinton came of age during a time of tumultuous social and political change in America. As I wrote in another post, like many women of her generation, she grew up with choices and opportunities unknown to her mother or grandmother. She charted her own course through unexplored terrain - responding to the changing times and her own internal compass - and became an emblem for some and a lightning tod for others. Wife, mother, lawyer, advocate, and international icon, she has lived through America's great political wars, from Watergate to Whitewater.

She is the only First Lady to play a major role in shaping domestic legislation: she traveled tirelessly around the country to champion health care, expand economic opportunity and promote the needs of children and families, and she criss-crossed the globe on behalf of human rights and democracy. She redefined the position of First Lady, and helped save the presidency from an unconstitutional, politically motivated impeachment.

To me she's one of the most remarkable women of our time , and a formidable figure in American politics.

However, I do agree in part that she should now resign and exit gracefully because I don't think that she will win the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. I'm still hopeful that she may accept the Vice-Presidency (if offered it). But I feel that her run for the Presidency is all but over. Not because she doesn't deserve it, but because her opponent has proven to be a better "People's choice."

Hasbeen,
The intelligence on Iraq was dubious to say the least and based on out of date reports and hearsay. It was obvious there was a wide gulf between the rhetoric and reality in the lead up to the war and at face value little evidence suggested that Saddam was a threat to any of its neighbors, to the contrary, considerable steps had been taken to improve ties with former foes in the region. Deterrence had continued to be the most successful strategy against Saddam, but to define the war in terms of security and regional stability is much too narrow.

It was the ideologues in Washington (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al.) that believed forcing freedom, democracy and free enterprise onto Iraq changing the status quo in the region would subsequently create political reform in neighboring states which had been the goal of the ideologues long before 9/11. What an utter and complete cock-up, from the word go they just made matters worse, lie after lie.

GO OBAMA!

CJ,

I won’t argue the toss over whether the original invasion of Iraq was justified. It is surely now largely irrelevant in terms of what should be our current policy concerning Iraq. I am not suggesting we forget the lesson, merely that we need to move on.

5 years ago all we heard from the soft-left was “No blood for oil”. Furthermore, many from the left have tried very hard to ensure that we lose in Iraq. Continually rabbiting on about “exit strategies” when they should be focusing on helping the Iraqi gov’t win. The US troop surge showed that military power has a role in the outcome of this conflict. There is no doubt that the political and humanitarian/developmental aspects are vital. But without the guns on the ground, without security, there is no political solution

Hasbeen is right about the WMD. Saddam did at one stage have them. They were not fictitious. What I accept is that by the time we got around to invading, they had either all been destroyed by the Iraqis and the inspectors, or they had been shipped to Syria or somewhere else.

Civil disorder is not almost complete, that is entirely fictitious. There are many regions in Iraq which are functioning well and are free from violence. The Kurdish regions and those regions involved in the Sunni awakening are relatively secure and rebuilding is being undertaken. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/02/2007-12-02_what_i_see_every_day_in_iraq_locals_turn.html?print=1&page=all
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001514.html

Iraq has a government that was elected by its people. One of the minority in the region. Do you honestly think Iraq can survive as a country if we just got up and left?

What is your solution? How do we best help Iraqis to drive out AlQaeda and Hezbollah and the IRGC and rebuild their country?

Peachy,

The Iraqis showed by their brave turnout during the elections process what they think about freedom and democracy. And I don’t think they needed any convincing on free enterprise.

Foxy

I agree with your post 100%.

As much as I would like to see a female president - I don't believe that Hilary is the right choice, right now. Although she would be a formidable vice-president. My hope is that she will join Obama, together they can move America into the 21st century.

Obama continues to impress me and if the USA really wants a change towards a fairer nation, then I would like to see him elected as president. Of course, it matters not, what we here in Australia think. The USA will decide and the rest of the world can only watch.

Paul.L
Reasons for occupying aside, the management of this war has been extremely amateurish which shows the future is far more unpredictable and the process of change far more complex as any ideologue in Washington would like to think.

"Saddam was pushing the WMD bit, & managed to fool everybody, the US, & particularly Iran. He was terrified of Iran, after loosing most of his military capicity, & his WMD myth was his last line of defense."

You say that, Hasbeen, as if the only available source of information on Iraq's WMD was Saddam Hussein. In actuality, the Israeli, US and Saudi intelligence agencies had been all over Iraq for decades, and Hans Blix's weapon inspection team had come up empty handed time and time again. Even as the case for war was being made, members of the intelligence services were protesting that it was a load of bollocks which made a mockery of their hard work.

No, Presidents Rumsfeld and Cheney (and that sock puppet they use - "Bush", isn't it?) knew full well that Iraq was toothless. In fact, it was a precondition of the invasion. You don't think they'd get stuck into North Korea, do you?

And there's only one "o" in "losing".

Can't say I am wildly enthusiastic about any of the nominees but it is up to the Americans.
What we should be looking at is the problems involved in such elections. They are far from democratic and the cost involved makes it even more so.
Australians could learn something from this but it is unlikely they will.

No joy for me but she waited too long to go, her output this week helps only the Republicans.
No joy but Obama will not get over the line in November.
Big call? yep but while it would be so great to see him win it is very much up in the air.
My bet is a Republican win my wish is that I am wrong.

Hillary is not coming across as the genuine article to me.She seems manipulative and lacking in a real ethical compass.Power seems to be the central theme. Person's lust for power is inversely proportional to their own insecurity and ignorance.She disappoints me.Obama is too young and lacks experience.

While it is the business of the USA to decide their candidates.. it is our business to put straight this odious lie which has been now accepted as Leftist orthodoxy, and which has clearly snared CJ Morgan in its tentacles.

It surprises me that CJ. who is some kind of UNI lecturer could have been so duped by this "If you say a lie long enough it becomes truth" silliness that is regularly trotted out by all those 'against the invasion'.

There is ample evidence that Sadaam DID have WMD's and that they were transported to Syria, prior to the close inspections.

We ALL know he had them because he USED them against the Kurds.

Where the USA went wrong, was suggesting that the 'REAL' wmd's might be used against the West with little evidence of that becoming a reality, at least from Iraq.

As for Al Qaeda..now that's a different story. We don't know what goes on behind Saddaams closed doors or in his mind.. and what he might decide.. he might have decided to connect with Al Qaeda to punish the West.. who knows..we sure don't....

The thing is.. making a judgement call about when to 'go in' against a potential enemy is a decision which will never please every1.

When you combine this with the strategic nature of Oil.. well.. all the guests have arrived and now the party can begin... the Left will rave on about "It blood for oil" and the 'Right' will foam at the mouth about 'Imminent threats' and so it goes on.

Perhaps it's better, with out limited information to just butt OUT of taking sides on this ?

Horus,

"Nuke Teheran?. Not likely. Since Dresden , Nagasaki & Hiroshima the West has painted itself into a corner .'Collective punishment' "

Dresden was bombed in response to the [accidental] bombing of working class surburbs in London, it esculated the war, new valid targets.

Nagasaki was bombed, as a demonstration to Soviets, who wanted a warm water port and divide Japan like Germany. Hiroshima was bombed (a) to win the war and (b) to test the bomb on an area not damaged by conventional bombs.

The US wanted to use Hirohito, as a puppet to develop capitalism. Because of the region Hirohito was born and his dynasty and Japanese being animist, he was regarded divine [That is why he wasn't killed after Pearl Harbor by our side].

Neither Douuglas McArthur nor Senator Joseph Grew wanted him tried and prably executed as a War Criminal. A wise choice to same him. Else, the Japanese would worked to ensure their own genocide.

In the early 1950s Hirohito gave up his divinity pleaded to progress capitalism, and MITI took over running Japan Inc. Herein, the Kietsu of today are the Zaibatsu of yesteryear. So, the Japanese power structure stayed in place, but democracy defeated militarism.

The US could have quarantined [naval] and bombed it out of existence over the next three or four years. They chose a stalward agaainst communism instead.

Assassination would prove more successful against terrorist.

There was a Roman general Decius [I don't know if he was the Emperor of the same name]. Well... To stop all the fighting c.third century CE, hr simply killed off all the politicians and church leaders. Believe it worked! Not sure my source [books in storage]; Arnold Toynbee or H.G. Wells, perhaps

Did you know what David Boaz,since you have left Jesus out of the equation,your logic brings you closer to your God than all the prayers in the universe.

I agree with Communicat's comments about the election process itself in the US. I know it's a big country but what a drawn out circus these Primaries are. There sure is a lot of money gets sunk into US style democracy. Let's hope when we become a republic we don't go down this same path to elect our president.

I would prefer to see Barak Obama run for president instead of Hillary. She has some good qualities but she still represents the same old establishment. Obama at least gives hope of real change. Whether he would be able to deliver of course is another thing. Entrenched vested interests would pull out all stops to see he didn't I would think.

Don't remember where, but I read or heard recently that there's still a slim chance of a Gore/Obama ticket. Or Obama/Gore, it wouldn't matter. What a dream team. Yes, I guess I can dream!

This might be an election for the Americans and not for us as others have pointed out. But, as the future direction of both Australia and the world will be hugely effected by its outcome, we have every right to be watching its progress closely.

Arjay
I agree with you about Clinton but ..not about Obama.
USA have many problems internal and external, about 50% of taxpayers money go for current or former wars, the health system is very bad, social programs do not exist, 1% of their population is in prisons, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost very much, only for Iraq the cost will be more than 3 trillion dollars. John McCain is better from Bush but generally he will continue Bush's policy.
USA need deep changes and ONLY Obama can make the necessary changes and put the country on the right direction.
Bronwyn
forget Obama/Gore, probably Obama/John Edwards, former Democratic presidential candidate. We have the right not only to watch but to ...support Obama! "Please make a donation of $25 right now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/results

peachy
You have right, Bush administration was full of lies after lies, GO OBAMA!

Paul.L
"his position on Iraq is just crazy" What do you say Paul.L?If Obama's position for Iraq is crazy then what is Bush's position?
Hundreds thousands of dead, wasted trillion of dollars, huge training camp for alqaeda , huge problems to USA aliens in the region, and ..Iraq transfer from Arab world to Iran, the number ONE enemy of USA.
Even the worst enemy of USA could not damage so much USA as have done Bush.
Obana wants to close this wound!

Col Rouge
Margaret Thatcher? Col Rouge we need sensitive leaders who understand and support their people not a lady without heart!
BOAZ_David
"There is ample evidence that Sadaam DID have WMD's and that they were transported to Syria, prior to the close inspections"
I did not know that Saddam used nuclear weapons against Kurds! He used chemical weapons but he did not have any more of them as USA and other western Countries stopped to supply him with materials and components!
BOAZ_David how many times we have to tell you that this war was full of lies. LIES, FULL OF LIES!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

Please make a donation of $25 right now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/results
I wrote it only for American citizens who live in Australia. Non American citizens can support Obama mainly from various forum, especially American forums.
PLEASE VISIT AMERICAN FORUM AND SUPPORT OBAMA.
Start with the following
http://www.politicsforumpoliticalworld.com/index.php
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has overtaken his rival Hillary Clinton for the first time in endorsements from super-delegates.

Four super-delegates - party and elected officials - pledged to support Mr Obama, including two who previously supported Mrs Clinton.
BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7394311.stm
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis “Margaret Thatcher? Col Rouge we need sensitive leaders who understand and support their people not a lady without heart!”

Margaret Thatcher has no heart?

Why do you make that presumption:

Because she was business like and efficient?

Because she dealt with the reality and not the sentimentality?

Margaret Thatcher supported the people who elected her and she protected their interests in a way the socialist swill of the UK labour party had betrayed.

When it came to dealing with Argentina and their invasion of the Falklands she did not hesitate to support the British subjects (the Falkland Islanders) and authorise the liberation force.

Some whimp around here recently, commented on her authorizing the sinking of the Admiral Belgrano. She did it. An Argentine navy battle ship, lurking around a battle front is a valid target of war and in a war your destroy the enemy and their means of attack. She did it without hesitation. The UK Labour party during this time, were mincing around like a pack of queers wanting to cry to the UN, finding excuses to vacillate.

You are wrong. Margaret Thatcher has heart and she saw her duty clearly, without sentimentality or the emotion which it engenders.

You will find real statesmen and stateswomen are like that, non-sentimental. They separate the reality from the mere appearance and deal with that reality where lesser politicians, often of the left, focus on the emotional trappings and sentimental appeal of slick weasel words and populism. Some may have more public speaking skills but that is just salesmanship, not leadership.

As far as the upcoming US presidential elections are concerned, I trust the American people will elect a leader who has the strength of statesmanship qualities like Thatcher and her US colleague Reagan, who turn away from sentimentality and lead properly, with the clarity needed for the job, the ability to calculate the risks and consequences and the courage to take or face them.

be that elected leader white, black, male or female.

A Symeonakis,

You say >>” huge training camp for alqaeda”

For starters that just isn’t true anymore. Secondly how will leaving before we defeat them help? The US was already hated in the region, Remember it wasn’t Europeans who came through the windows of the WTC at 800Km/h strapped to a half a million pounds of jet fuel.

Iran has involved itself directly in the insurgency in Iraq by providing training and weapons to Shiite terrorists. The explosively formed projectiles are coming directly from Iran’s revolutionary guard corps.

Since the awakening in the Sunni areas Al Qaeda operations have almost entirely stopped. Iraq has improved significantly since the surge and the military forces on the ground are allowing breathing room for reconstruction and political settlement. All wars are “wounds” and what Obama wants to do is pretend that he can make it better by waving his magic wand. The wound will not go away with retreat of America.

It should be obvious even to the most rabid anti-war protesters that the majority of violence in Iraq is sunni-shia low grade civil war. What on earth makes you think that retreat will heal this.

Wkipedia >>”The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. The US withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Obama won’t beat McCain anyway so it is irrelevant who wins the democratic nomination.

Col Rouge,
Margaret Thacher supported the Falkland Islanders, who are less than the workers of a small fabric in London but she attacked the Union movement, she ignored the interests from labors, children, women, pensioners, students etc.
I do not ignore her deep interests and support for the big companies, corporations but when I say she was without heart I mean she did care for low to middle income people. She was not with Britain labors but Britain employers!
I think you like Margaret Thacher for what she did for the Falkland Islands than for she did for Britain, except if you are a millionaire and you was benefited from her policy.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis “Margaret Thacher . . etc.”

That you see Falkland islanders as “less”, describes a callous view which is contemptible.

I lived near London when she led the conservative party to power, supported by my my vote.

The UK union forced me to study by kerosene lamp because the miners were on strike, dictating to the rest of Britain.

The UK labour party had run the economy into the ground by asinine decisions and kow-towing to the corrupt union movement.

Margaret Tatchers predecessor, Heath did not have the backbone to stand up to the unions but Margaret Thatcher did.

1979 Michael Foote was leader of the UK Labour party, he was a sentimental git with the political skill of an ameoba. labour manifesto was considered more left wing than the Italian communists.

Margaret Thatcher saved BRitain from the pernicious evils of the extended union power incorporated in the labour party manifesto, as well as having positive ideas on how to improve the lot of most Britains.

She prevailed over the removal of many government controlled monopolies to the benefit of all.

She sought and oversaw the mass sell off of public housing to sitting tenants, freeing up resources to be put to better use than in providing long term secure housing to people who could afford (and did) to buy the houses in their own name for their own capital benefit.

As education secretary she defined and oversaw significant improvements to UK education system, both secondary and tertiary.

She remains the pre-eminent icon of what women can achieve if they set their mind to things.

And she scared the crap out of the evil empire.

You suggest she ignored labor, children, women, pensioners students etc. is clearly based on your own ignorance to her achievements both before and when she became the first female Prime Minister of UK and the most powerful woman in the world, at that time.

I suggest you confine your comments to matters you can support with reason and example before go slagging off a someone you are not fit to walk in the shadow of.

Col Rouge
Here Here. Very well spoken and thank you. Pity there were not a few like her here right now.

No he is not fit to walk her shadow and his comments are offesiv

YOU HAVE TO SEE.....THIS :)

"The power of youtube"...

I'd hate to be a political candidate these days.. when you see what can be done with a bit of cutting and pasting.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=attlFcUWapU&feature=related

Note.. MA15+ rating.

Poor Hillary.

Col Rouge: << And she scared the crap out of the evil empire >>

Not so sure about "the evil empire", but she certainly "scared the crap" out of more than a few of us here in Oz - as does Hillary, for much the same reasons.

Great vid Boazy :)

Col Rouge
Thatcher was a class warrior, not an economic libertarian. Where market reforms benefited the rich or bribed floating voters , she supported them. Where market reforms could have helped the poor, she did nothing.
Margaret Thatcher was number one enemy of the trade union movement.During her period, union membership has declined over 20 percent.
Margaret Thatcher damaged women's place in the workplace, undermined families and communities, and did nothing for women in public life. It was a wasted opportunity on a gargantuan scale.
The poll tax was probably one of the most unpopular taxes ever introduced. It was widely condemned as being unfair and inequitable. Its unpopularity contributed to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher

The value of the war for Falkland islands was ONLY SYMBOLIC, the British empire was dead and it did not support any important British goal. The war for Falklands was a waste of money and nothing else.
Of cause the Falklands she became dangerous for international security, peace and cooperation, threatening to use nuclear bombs against Argentina.
Col Rouge
We both know that we can not agree as I stand by working and meddle class people and you by big corporations as I am an internationalist and you are Nationalist as I look forward to the future and you to the past, as I put human over the properties and the money.

For me Margaret Thacher as John Howard WAS THE WORST PRIME MINISTERS.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Paul.L
You are a smart man, you know the truth. I want to hear from you the truth about Iraq and ONLY THE TRUTH!
Did Bush, Howard, Blair, lie the International community about the war in Iraq? What was not lies for this war?
Do you believe we can export democracy by guns and deaths?
Do you think the new Iraq could become a democracy as we mean it or it will depend and follow Iran's Theocratic system?
What is the role of sharia law in the new constitution of Iraq?
Do you think this war with so big costs was a success or one from the biggest mistakes of USA foreign policy?
What is the contribution of this war on America's fast decline?

What PROVES did they have about the chemical weapons, about the biological weapons, about the nuclear weapons, about the import of uranium from Niger, about Saddam's cooperation with ALQEADA, about more safety world, about the Iraq's ability to lance its weapons in few minutes and hit any part of the world?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

ASymeonakis if you insist on digging your own “credibility grave", let me not dissuade you.

Your venomous anti-Margaret rhetoric is veering on the hysterical.

“Thatcher was a class warrior, not an economic libertarian. Where market reforms benefited the rich or bribed floating voters , she supported them. Where market reforms could have helped the poor, she did nothing.”

Substantiate that claim with examples. I have examples to the contrary but I want to see you put the noose around your own neck before I release the trap door.

“During her period, union membership has declined over 20 percent.”
Maybe the credibility and ethicacy of the union movement had something to do with that.

Reason would suggest, if she were so damning an influence, the backlash would have seen union membership escalate in protest against her.

“and did nothing for women in public life.” - except be one and in her day, the leading one.

We have commented on the poll tax earlier in the thread and I stand by what I wrote there. You bringing it up again is repetition, try to progress the debate instead of repeating it.

The Falklands war was a FACT and extremely important to the Falkland islanders, who were British citizens of predominant British descent.

Your opinion on the fiscal merits of the Falkland war is not shared by the tax payers of the UK who re-elected MT into the Prime Ministers office repeatedly following its successful conclusion.

“We both know that we can not agree as I stand by working and meddle class people and you by big corporations as I am an internationalist and you are Nationalist as I look forward to the future and you to the past, as I put human over the properties and the money.”

Your mis-categorization of me is as inaccurate of your reading of Margaret Thatchers roll in history.
But being an “Internationalist” explains why you are so frightened of people like Margaret Thatcher, she stomped your communist system into the dust.

Now provide some substance to your criticism of MT as requested above.

Col Rouge

“We both know that we can not agree as I stand by working and meddle class people and you by big corporations as I am an internationalist and you are Nationalist as I look forward to the future and you to the past, as I put human over the properties and the money.”

"Your mis-categorization of me is as inaccurate of your reading of Margaret Thatchers roll in history."

We've all read enough of your posts, Col, to know that Antonios' summation of you is spot-on.

We're probably a little less clear though about Margaret Thatcher's "roll" in history!

Gawd Bronwyn - if Col was "almost salavating" earlier in the thread, just imagine what effect the prospect of a "roll" with Maggie will do to him!

Bronwyn “We've all read enough of your posts, Col, to know that Antonios' summation of you is spot-on.”

To support your summation you need to –

Identify, through quotations of me, where I favour to big corporations over individuals
Identify, through quotations of me, what shows I put property and money before humans

I am prepared to accept the idea that I am not an internationalist but to suggest I am a “nationalist” is equally erroneous, let me quote to you dearest Margaret Thatcher on the matter

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

If being an ardent and vocal supporter of individual rights and the idea that government is the servant (and not the master) of the individuals who elect it, makes me more of a nationalist than an internationalist, then so be it.

As for “internationalists”, I have an idea it might be a personality problem. Maybe simply people who are emotionally incapable of identifying, in any real sense, with people they know and who know them, so seek some larger group to identify with and possibly hide within.

Certainly, the way the “internationalists” feel compelled to order the rest of us on how we should feel and act and how they seek to control our every action, alludes to someone trying to compensate for a dissociative disorder.

By the way, if you think you have any idea to who I am from these posts, the collection of a few words on these threads, comes nowhere near to who I am but I will not bore you on that, just leave you to your ignorance.

Now I suggest you run away and find the quotes you need.

Happy hunting, no playing “flat cat and friends” in the car.

Paul L.>"Iran has involved itself directly in the insurgency in Iraq by providing training and weapons to Shiite terrorists. The explosively formed projectiles are coming directly from Iran’s revolutionary guard corps."

This is Propaganda. Shame you still believe everything that comes out the mouths of the US government (and Australian government which merely regurgitates the same press statements as fact)....despite the lies over the Iraq war...that must take some kind of blind faith or...partisan bigotry.

-=-=-=-=-=
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19908.htm

12/05/08 "ICH" -- - In a sharp reversal of its longstanding accusations against Iran arming militants in Iraq , the US military has made an unprecedented albeit quiet confession: the weapons they had recently found in Iraq were not made in Iran at all.
-==-=-=-=-

CJ Morgan

"Gawd Bronwyn - if Col was 'almost salavating' earlier in the thread, just imagine what effect the prospect of a 'roll' with Maggie will do to him!"

LOL!

Col Rouge

"Now I suggest you run away and find the quotes you need."

I'll pass, thanks Col. Reading your posts once is more than enough!

Ah Bronwyn “I'll pass, thanks Col. Reading your posts once is more than enough!”

So should I assume you are intellectually incapable of backing up your throwaway claim that “Antonios' summation of ME is spot-on.”

That is typical of the motor mouth complex. You come along, shout your mouth off and make claims to my character and when challenged, just run away, sniveling about being incapable or reading, that must be in an “intellectual” sense, because all the posts are there for you to review.

I am sure we will be come across one another in the future, Bronwyn, and trust me, I will look forward to reminding you of your spineless hurling next time and every time we meet.

From your posts on other threads I assumed you to be all opinion and no substance. You have just proved it. Have a nice day, I suggest you go shopping for a back-brace before you bother to return.

I further note ASymeonakis has not had the courage to post in response to my challenge (“Now provide some substance to your criticism of MT as requested above.”) either.

Obviously he is suffering a dose of “all mouth and trousers”.

Col

"That is typical of the motor mouth complex. You come along, shout your mouth off and make claims to my character and when challenged, just run away, sniveling about being incapable or reading, that must be in an “intellectual” sense, because all the posts are there for you to review."

Call me shallow, spineless or whatever, I don't mind. Occasionally I just like the quick quip as opposed to the all-in discussion. That's my perogative.

I'm not interested in an in-depth analysis of your character or your political position. I'd much prefer to debate the issues and I'm sure we will on other threads.

Bronwyn “I'm not interested in an in-depth analysis of your character or your political position. I'd much prefer to debate the issues and I'm sure we will on other threads.”

Then why make comments to my character in the first place?

As for my political position, that is here for all to see anyway.

Re “Call me shallow, spineless or whatever, I don't mind. Occasionally I just like the quick quip as opposed to the all-in discussion. That's my perogative.”

Yes, it is your prerogative to be shallow and spineless. You are entitled to make a quick quip and all these things, you are achieving admirably.

Although I do not think it is anything I would be proud of. But then, it is your character we are talking about now and one which I do not have to wake up with every morning (thank God).

I would suggest ( regarding analyzing me), you do not start something (albeit with a quick quip) which you do not have the intellectual stamina to finish, it just makes you appear feeble minded.