Danish troops in Iraq to stay on

[BlackCat]

Try http://www.ordbogen.com/ they only allow two pr day, but it's quite effective

a translation could be :

It's hard to predict, especially about the future

[Winston]

There is no doubt that both the government and opposition would prefer to reach a broad agreement, especially since they both agree that the troops need to stay in Iraq for the time being.

But, when push comes to shove, the issue of whether to set a fixed exit date is actually more important that it may seem at first. Basically, the opposition's main concern is getting the Hell out of there, while the government is more concerned about not leaving before the job is done.

So I don't see a broad agreement as being very likely. I think the government will go with the recommendations of the report and extend for 8 months - and no fixed date for leaving. Which I would also regard as the only responsible step to take with the knowledge that we have now about the situation on the ground in Iraq.

Oh, predict, foretell

[Qilue]

http://translation.langenberg.com/

spå = predict, forecast, augur, prophesy, foretell

Usual transtator butchery - However that you known ; It is difficult that predict , for the most part about the future

[Winston]

BlackCat's translation is a good one.

But do you know who said it, who coined the phrase?

[BlackCat]

If I'm not wrong, then it's one of the drunkards drawn by what the hell is it his name is ????

[ahasverus]

And we should. We joined the coalition albeit for the wrong reason IMHO. There most have been a 1000 reasons to go to war with Saddam, but GWB chooses the one that isn't true and his allies chooses to use the same argument. But we here now and we can only leave when Iraq is secure. Anything else would be a betrayal of the iraqis and of the peoples who voted in the governments that now forms the coalition.

[BlackCat]

Nah, the world aren't prepared to go to war of noble reasons. Until that happens, we have to live with "possible ownership of WMD's" and try to squeeze in the advantages of liberating a people from a dictator.

[Winston]

I agree completely with the last two posts.

Well, almost... I personally don't think that Anders Fogh put very much emphasis on the WMD issue when making the decision to join in. He was much more concerned with the golden opportunity of establishing a foothold for regime change, development and modernization of the entire region - thereby advancing not only the conditions the local people face there, but also our own long term security.

BlackCat, you're right, it was Storm P. who came up with it.

[BlackCat]

Despite I don't vote for your avatar, I agree with you that the liberation of the Iraqui people was the most valuable reason for the war.

I know that most people are more interested in wether someone may have said something that was not the perfect truth and actually gives a sh!t about what happens to the Iraqui people - our own Helveg is a perfect example - I really was angry when he claimed that our support of the liberation put blod on our hands, totally ignoring the fact that his "do nothing against Saddam" policy actually approved whatever Saddam did.

Dammit, spelling sucks, opinions harsh, and I forget Storm P can't figure out if it's the late coffe or the first part of the second bottle of red wine.

[Winston]

Not to worry, there are a couple of other options apart from my avatar that are pretty darn close to being sensible on most issues.

You're right, if there's one thing you'd never want to entrust Radikale Venstre with, it's foreign policy matters. It sometimes seems even most of SF is more in touch with reality than Radikale on foreign policy.

Ah, the red wine. That could actually explain a few things... Odd coincidence, I'm also sipping a glass of red wine following a late night meal. Although it's very rare for me to drink alcohol, I felt like it tonight.

Cheers BlackCat!

[Winston]

It is now apparent that also the two biggest opposition parties to the left of the government, Social Democrats and Radikale Venstre will support an unconditional extension for 8 months for the Danish troops, that is, without setting a fixed date for ending the troops' presence in Iraq.

This is contrary to the two parties' first signals a couple of days ago, and this means that the Danish engagement still has the full support of more than 90% of Parliament, in this case at least 158 of 175 seats.

So (as would also have been the case without the two parties' about-turn) we will continue to help get the job done at least until February 2006, but probably longer, depending on the situation at that time.

[Verto]

I like this Denmark you speak of.

[Solomwi]

Denmark

[Winston]

Parliament today voted to extend the ~500 troops' presence in Iraq until the end of February 2006, and no fixed date has been set for ending Denmark's participation in the coalition.

The votes were 96 in favour, 16 opposed, 0 undecided, 67 absent. The parties behind the extension represent 159 of the 179 members in Parliament, ~89%.

[lord of the mark]

Not surprising, from Denmark.

http://www.auschwitz.dk/docu/