I wasn't denigrating anything. It was Stonewall that was denigrating the Australian effort. I am glad the people of Portugal protested, who knows to what extent that changed UN or Indonesian policy, but it couldn't have hurt.
But to imply that striding around with a placard in the safety of Portugal is somewhere in the same stratosphere as actually putting troops on the ground in Timor, or is more of a sacrifice than actually being the troops on the ground who put their lives on the line for these principles - is utter nonsense.
That was what the Bar nomination was for, it had nothing to do with any criticism of the protestors.
Thats actually the first acceptance speech of a candidate I have ever seen,although I havent been keeping up to date.
Seriously, crazy people arent crazy, its everyone else around them thatis bonkers
I will not get into the discussion on who made the best or greatest effort regarding troops deployment. It's not even comparable the ability Australia had/has to deploy reaction forces in that area (or any other for that matter) to that of Portugal. I agree that deploying troops and manifestating are not the same effort: but to talk about that we would have to analise the whole political history of these events in the UN.
I understood your remark as an effort of denigrating that popular movement - if i understood it uncorrectly, i apologise. I also understood ngati's first assessment likewise (at the end of his initial post)
And, as lancero said it, we too had/have men on the ground. I'm in a position to debate with real and up to date info on this matter (wich i would rather not...).