What still gets me is the bigger picture here. Firstly you invade your neighbours inflicting pain on them. Easy, been done before. No big deal. But to not have a contingency plan is the remarkable thing. To not consider that your neighbour is going to be a little bit peeved missing out on the Bunnings barbecue and will cause even more anguish is the own goal of own goals. What were the leaders of this group thinking and who is to blame for the human collateral damage not withstanding the fact that the same people voted in their leaders? It's a mess but you really have to wonder if the leaders sitting in their mansions eating caviar and smoking Monte Christo Number twos really care about the real people on the street ? This is the real conundrum in this tit for tat saga. Did the leaders' mates suddenly crap their pants after initially saying they might back up their mates? I just dunno but i reckon Confuscious would have a very powerful message to them.
