Quote:
Originally Posted by KenLay";p="
That's exactly what I am talking about - not a word about Kerry's sister campaigning against Howard. That's a lie my politically correct conservative friend.
|
Please don't tell me that it didn't happen if there isn't a direct quote from Kerry's sister saying "Howard is a bad man don't vote for him." I think you're smarter than that. The first line in the article states it simply: "JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists."
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenLay";p="
Regarding the australian participation in the coalition I stated undeniable facts - relatively small number of non-combat troops, almost no casualties, negligible cost and therefore not an issue in their election. And I could not care less about your political correctness - only shows what a hypocrit you are.
|
Wrong my friend. In stating the numbers you thought reflected Australia's total commitment to the war you were stating "facts." In calling that effort "ridiculously small, token participation" you are demeaning the sacrifice being made by Australia. I have no problem with you taking a position that Australia was not as dedicated to the war effort as the US, but you can make the case without belittling what they've done.
Australia sent 2,000 troops in the initial invasion. While small in relation to Britain's 45,000 and our 214,000, it is their largest deployment since Vietnam. Australia was one of only two countries other than the US to send combat troops. This was not a mere "token" but a group of their most highly trained and effective elite forces. Most were sent home after the end of major combat operations, leaving 850 to help in rebuilding.