As we all know people are inclined to stick with a government in the event of war, it seems Abbott is desperate to get on board with any conflict or tragic event around the world to get some traction with the Australian people and do some more grandstanding . How long before he deploys our troops and where, will this coincide with a DD. He knows LNP are doomed and we know a dog act like this isn't beyond him.

what utter creeps the left are... sick and pathetic.

you lost get over it.

whatever Abbott does its far far better than waving the white flag.

Where the US goes in the Middle East, we will follow

    Greg Sheridan, comment
    The Australian
    August 11, 2014


IF the US sends troops into Iraq — very unlikely at the moment but by no means inconceivable — Australian troops are overwhelmingly likely to go with them.

If Barack Obama sustains airstrikes against the Islamic State extremists who are butchering and terrifying the population of northern Iraq, and decides he needs something like a coalition of the willing to share the burden and spread political ownership of the intervention, then Australian planes are overwhelmingly likely to fly as part of the action.

And if Washington just maintains its humanitarian air drops to beleaguered Yazidis and others sheltering in terror on the mountain tops, destined to be slaughtered by Islamic State because they adhere to the wrong religion, then Australian military cargo planes will participate in that too, as Tony Abbott has already authorised.

Wherever Washington goes on this, Canberra is overwhelmingly likely to follow.

The Prime Minister virtually made this commitment when he saw Obama in the White House in June. It was one reason why, contrary to many mistaken media reports, the meeting between the two men was so warm and productive.

Abbott, unlike most visitors to the White House, was not asking for something; he was offering something. He specifically told Obama that if the US needed to go back into Iraq, Australia would help.

However, this is not a case of Australia blindly doing Washington’s bidding.

There is a deep strategic purpose to Abbott’s offer, and his likely future action, and it rests on a sober analysis of current geo-strategic dynamics, which is shared in London, Tokyo, Paris and other Western capitals.

In the first instance, the proposed limited intervention in Iraq is just and necessary, entirely in its own terms, to avert another humanitarian catastrophe along Syrian lines, and to prevent Islamic State, the most sadistic and vicious terrorist group in the world today, from setting up a permanent terror state.

The situation itself provides ample moral, political and strategic justification for US-led intervention.

But Abbott has a broader purpose as well, and that is to stiffen the spine of American leadership.

Canberra sees this as being in the direct national security interests of Australia.

Ever since Obama promised to bomb Syria if it used chemical weapons against its own citizens, and then reneged on the promise, there has been a steady deterioration in the observance of basic international norms on security.

US allies in Europe and Asia are deeply, if generally privately, concerned about the erosion of US strategic credibility and the reluctance of the US to exercise leadership.

In Washington there is naturally some cynicism and skepticism about this allied concern. As one Washington insider put it to me recently: “What the Europeans would really like is for Americans to put a division or two in Ukraine to guarantee its security against Russia.

“The Europeans could then sit back and criticise the operation from the sidelines. But the US doesn’t do that any more.”

Governments in Canberra, Tokyo, London and other Western capitals instead are trying to provide concrete assistance to the Americans wherever they can in security matters, to share some of the American burden and to encourage the Americans to exercise leadership in the knowledge that they will not be alone.

In terms of physical capability, the Americans could easily undertake any of the actions proposed for Iraq on their own, just as they could have done in Libya when the Europeans notionally took the lead, though in fact American cruise missiles and American munitions fired by European planes did much of the work.

But US public opinion is firmly against any further entanglement in the Middle East.

A persuasive, committed president, however, could lead public opinion, especially for the extremely limited actions proposed for Iraq. A president is more likely to do this if he has allies standing shoulder to shoulder with him.

Canberra believes US credibility in the Middle East flows directly into US credibility in Asia.

And US credibility in Asia is critical to Australian security.

So Abbott will walk a long mile with Obama, if needs be. But he will be making the trek for Australia’s sake, and in Australia’s interests.

Its time wrote on Aug 11^th, 2014 at 7:34am:


I didn't notice this thread earlier, but said the same thing somewhere else. This is how Abbott will get re-elected. Get ready for the invasion of ISIS or as Abbott's parrot (Alan Jones) screeched this morning - they might blow up the Harbour Bridge.

Quote:


All the way will good old USA, not bloody likely says New Zealand!

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan



    Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
    The Guardian, Thursday 16 September 2004      

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.      

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."    

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."      

Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.

Mr Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.

His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control over the country.

They also come as Mr Blair is trying to put the controversy over the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.

The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".

Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.

No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.

However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.

Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

Mr Annan's UNSC didn't think so Crook.  Where's the UNSC resolution condemning the action or demanding withdrawal etc etc?  There are none Crook.

George_Orhell wrote on Aug 11^th, 2014 at 9:07am:



Do you have a brain defect, you coming back to that you hate!