Oz Loves Cheney?

by Ryan on February 23, 2007

in Politics

According to an AP link from Drudge anyway.

AP picture.

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Chris February 23, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Because I was president of College Republicans at my school back in 2000, I had the pleasure of meeting the greatest Vice-President America has ever seen. He states it like it is and I love it!!! Both Lynn and Dick Cheney have ‘layethed the smacketh down’ to Wolf Blitzer and was priceless…they will not let the libs control the premace of the interview and it’s quite refreshing!!!

Reply

rightonoz February 24, 2007 at 10:01 pm

Sorry guys but the vast majority of Australians are strongly against Cheney. Personally I believe him to be suspect.

Leaving out the Iraq debacle, there is a strong suspicion of a guy who has such strong ties to companies who have profited obscenely from the Iraq war. I could go on at some length.

His visit here has also strengthened the Hicks debate. Try to gloss it any way you like the truth remains that Hicks has not had the treatment he is entitled to under international law. Not US interpretation of International law, but international interpretation, including amongst your friends. You can try all you like to make new unilateral laws and attempt to subvert the Geneva Convention, the fact remains under international law, he has been illegally treated. Most of the world don’t give a rats.. about laws made in America to withhold basic rights to prisoners. You may convince your own courts, but you’ll never convince an international court, or for that matter an Australian court.

Wait until the first time an American soldier/combatant gets held by another country and they unilaterally decide they don’t have to offer basic international rights. The US indignation will be extreme.
Cheney spoke of the need for Hicks to face justice. The hypocrisy of it all is highlighted by the 100 year sentence handed down for rape and murder of the young Iraqi girl. Unlike some Americans. I won’t call for the death penalty considering that a barbaric form of punishment (the US is the only ‘civilized’ country that insists on executing it’s own citizens, including children). However a 100 year penalty with parole rights at 10 years totally undercuts any claims to moral leadership the US may make. This was a particularly barbaric crime and deserved significant non parole time, guilty plea or not. Justice was missing entirely from that sentence.

Going back to Hicks, there is no doubt he was in Afghanistan initially working for then fighting alongside the Taliban, who like it or not, were the government of the country. Recognise them or not, they were they government and he had the right under international law to be there. The have been instances in history where governments, including the US have looked the other way while their citizens fought in wars, either for a recognised government or for factions opposed to a recognised government. The difference here, the Taliban gave shelter to B.L. who had it in for the US. The retrospective law introduced in the US does not change the facts. I totally supported the international coalition to remove the Taliban and support our guys who continue to serve there. Now personally I think Hicks was a deluded idiot, shouldn’t have been there, should have his bum kicked up and down every main street in Australia, but as nothing under our law said it was illegal to be there, that should be the end of it. I don’t give any weight to a US law seeking to apply in a foreign country to one of our citizens.

Almost without exception international law experts (outside of the US) agree that the US has overstepped the boundaries here. The British insisted on their nationals being returned, why Howard has not done so is beyond me.

I hate to say it, but we are staring down the barrel of a left wing win at our elections this year, almost entirely caused by Iraq and Hicks. Our booming economy will turn to Sh.. again, we’ll have trendy handout government again and for the next 10 years those with their hands out will vote Labor back in until the economy is so bad that even they desert Labor. (See the Hawke/Keating years for the last time this happened. 18% home loan interest, the ‘recession we had to have’ – according to Keating). As Cheney well knows from his trip down here, there will be an immediate withdrawl of our troops from Iraq when Labor wins and a demand for Hicks return.

Strangely enough the vast majority of Australians support our involvement in Afghanistan. If Howard had the sense to pull our guys out if Iraq in an orderly phased process, demand Hicks be sent home, the Right could win the election. We could even send more Special Forces to Afghanistan without any backlash. Our population is even prepared for us to spend large amounts training Iraqi forces, as long as it is outside of Iraq. The problem, as I have said several times is that apart from those in government in the Coalition countries, the VAST majority, even of America’s friends believe Iraq was fought for the wrong reasons with justification based on deliberately falsified information. I know you do not agree with that, however the rest of the world (sweeping statement) has an entirely different interpretation of the facts. Now, with us already being in Iraq, I would rather see an orderly withdrawl of our guys during this year and a commitment to training. Then we just MAY retain government and the US would have a friend it may well need to call on if IRAN/N.K. get worse. Labor would be too spineless to make that commitment.

I make these comments as a friend. You should hear what those on the left are screaming to all who will listen! The NSW Police had to use force to prevent lefties from invading Cheney’s hotel.

Reply

Ryan February 25, 2007 at 8:33 am

The international interpretation of the Geneva convention dealing with certain types is quite off-base. Needing only name, rank, serial number of captured soldiers insures a number of things necessary for Geneva protections: a state, an organized chain of command, and a distinguishable uniform along with a visible firearm in combat… none of which applies to terrorists. So in my opinion let them rot, let them suffer to the point where it becomes a deterrant so that people will think twice about joining terrorist groups fearing the consequences if caught. The framers of the Geneva protocals wanted to encourage organized combatants with equal protection standards and discourage terrorism. I love how people scream more about American treatment of enemy combatants than they do of the car-bombers, suicide bombers and beheaders out there ignoring every rule of war and civilization– I’m not a fan of this widely held international double standard.

On the Hicks issue: if he was Taliban and met the above criteria then I agree he needs to be treated as a POW not an enemy combatant. Still, POWs are characteristically held for the duration of the conflict, which is truthfully murky since there will be no signing ceremony on the USS Missouri at the end of this war.

Too bad about the domestic political situation down under. Arguing about how we entered Iraq does nothing to promote victory, of course, but the international left seems convinced that moaning and complaining is an end unto itself, not offering solutions, rather demagoguing the issue for short-term political points at the expense of a true security solution for Iraq. However, I like Howard and hope his party keeps power. He’s a real ally who can see the true threat of radical Islam taking hold in the Mideast and all that oil, especially when the UN and other 3rd world dictatorships pounce and cater to our collective defeat whenever they get the chance.

Reply

qivtew September 10, 2008 at 1:33 am

The force of the warmth hot teen squirt of the smacks around inside, found her clit.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: