Re: Aus Federal Politics thread (III)

by Paul Keating Thu 21 Jul 2011, 09:45

But 0.000004% of one percent is more than absolutely sweet fark all. So you are wrong.

by skully Thu 21 Jul 2011, 09:46

Only if all other countries stay static, Ponts, which they won't. Sorry, ol' bean - you are wrong. cheers

by Hass Thu 21 Jul 2011, 09:51

skully wrote:Pity h doesn't seem to be capable of it, Ponts.

And no, IMHO the Coalition didn't fark it up. I've said it before and I'll say it again, us supporting the US is a given any time they ask. In return we get a guarantee of assistance if ever we are in the miltary sh!t.

Ooh look, a straight answer.

Further to Skully's point.

I think it makes sense for Australia to support America as a matter of course. It would only be prudent to withdraw that support if the US was embarking on something morally repugnant.

I know there are many who see the Iraq war as a clear cut case of immorality on the part of the US and its allies. I don't see it that way at all, which I suppose brings us back to square one.

In the meantime, as the debate rages on, Australia has only consolidated its relationship with the US for limited military cost (I know you can say any soldier's death/injury/trauma is too high a price to pay etc. but Australia has barely got its nose bloody in this war).

by Big Dog Thu 21 Jul 2011, 09:53

JGK wrote:
skully wrote:Deary me, I can't quite believe the pinkos the way they trot out the Iraq War as some sort of defence against the absolutely sh!thouse performance of the current government. It's like saying "Ponting is not so bad, look at how crap Yallop was."

I'm living in the present, boys. You might try it sometime.
.

Again, making statements like "sh!thouse performance" of the current government without anything to actually show that that's the case.

Erm...you might try opening your eyes?

by skully Thu 21 Jul 2011, 09:54

Cheers Hass. I was actually half-expecting one of the pink punters to come back with "Oh, so if Obama said he was gonna nuke Pyongyang but needed one of our planes and crews to do it, you'd be alright with that?" Cool

by lardbucket Thu 21 Jul 2011, 09:56

it would put Kim Il Sook out of his ronery misery

by Zat Thu 21 Jul 2011, 12:13

ronery?

The feeling of being a bit like president Reagan?

by skully Thu 21 Jul 2011, 12:47

"Lonely" in North Korean. [language advisory]

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Jul 2011, 13:19

embee wrote:...and you ignored the Libyan alternative

Saddam was a bad man. Gadaffi was a bad man. Iraq was invaded by westerners and tens of thousands die. Libya has a civil war........... complete the story for me A.

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Jul 2011, 13:26

I know there are many who see the Iraq war as a clear cut case of immorality on the part of the US and its allies. I don't see it that way at all, which I suppose brings us back to square one.

It would only be prudent to withdraw that support if the US was embarking on something morally repugnant.

So firing cruise missiles & dropping thousands of tonnes of bombs on a city full of innocents is morally neutral? Talk me through that Hass, would you?

Australia has only consolidated its relationship with the US for limited military cost

So therefore the Canadians have jeopardised their relationships with the US?

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Jul 2011, 13:33

but the decision would have been the same if the ALP were in power ... THAT is why it's ridiculous to pillory Howard for that decision.

pieman, printing stuff in bold letters doesn't make it so. Frankly, neither of us know what the opposition may have done if it were in government.

by lardbucket Thu 21 Jul 2011, 13:37

Mick ... you believe Latham and you also believe he would have withstood pressure from the Defence Department heads?

Reality check.

As I wrote earlier, believing Latham's promise at that time is akin to believing Julia's promise before the election; or (to make the point that I am not being partisan ... believing 'never, never, never'.

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Jul 2011, 13:40

lardbucket wrote:Mick ... you believe Latham and you also believe he would have withstood pressure from the Defence Department heads?

Reality check.

As I wrote earlier, believing Latham's promise at that time is akin to believing Julia's promise before the election; or (to make the point that I am not being partisan ... believing 'never, never, never'.

My memory is that Crean was Opposition leader at the time.

by lardbucket Thu 21 Jul 2011, 13:42

AS I recall Crean was for it, Beasley was supportive, and it was Latham (later) that stated that it was all wrong ...

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Jul 2011, 13:46

lardbucket wrote:AS I recall Crean was for it, Beasley was supportive, and it was Latham (later) that stated that it was all wrong ...

Crean was fiercely against it. Beasley was supportive.

by lardbucket Thu 21 Jul 2011, 13:51

Well, if so I've forgotten that. Was that a consistent stance or a pre-election point of difference? If it had remained his policy in power, how well would he have stood up to the Defence Department heads?

Iraq was a poor decision. Was it a party political decision, or a decision made in the prevailing geopolitical climate? I think it was the latter.

by embee Thu 21 Jul 2011, 14:35

Well the Poms jumped and Tony Blair is a lefty ...of the same persuasion as Geoff Gallop ...Gallop is a Rhodes Scholar who met up with Blair at Uni and got him into politics ....they were Best Man at each others weddings ...so I doubt the Oz lefties would have backed out of Iraq

by embee Thu 21 Jul 2011, 14:39

Mick Sawyer wrote:
embee wrote:...and you ignored the Libyan alternative

Saddam was a bad man. Gadaffi was a bad man. Iraq was invaded by westerners and tens of thousands die. Libya has a civil war........... complete the story for me A.

The blame is put on the Western invasion for the civil war killings in Iraq ...I'm saying that eventually the Iraqis would have tried to overthrow Saddam (like the Libyans are trying with Godaffy) ...and all that has happened is the process has been sped up

by embee Thu 21 Jul 2011, 14:55

"So firing cruise missiles & dropping thousands of tonnes of bombs on a city full of innocents is morally neutral? Talk me through that Hass, would you?"

The cruise missiles use GPS and other guidance systems to hit the targets they are aimed at

The SAS were running around Iraq pointing out targets for the Seppoes to obliterate

Long gone are the days of dropping a sh!t load of bombs "near" a target in the hope of hitting "something" ....the bombs are too expensive and the bad press from blowing up "innocents" or "innocent targets" takes away any possible gains

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Jul 2011, 21:30

lardbucket wrote:Well, if so I've forgotten that. Was that a consistent stance or a pre-election point of difference? If it had remained his policy in power, how well would he have stood up to the Defence Department heads?

Iraq was a poor decision. Was it a party political decision, or a decision made in the prevailing geopolitical climate? I think it was the latter.

Was it consistent? Well it didn't change through the whole period the invasion was on the agenda. Would he have held the same stance if PM? Wtf knows?

fwiw my criticism has always been of the decision & the man that made the decision. I can tell you this with certainty, my view would not have changed if he had of been leader of the ALP.

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Jul 2011, 21:36

embee wrote:"So firing cruise missiles & dropping thousands of tonnes of bombs on a city full of innocents is morally neutral? Talk me through that Hass, would you?"

The cruise missiles use GPS and other guidance systems to hit the targets they are aimed at

The SAS were running around Iraq pointing out targets for the Seppoes to obliterate

Long gone are the days of dropping a sh!t load of bombs "near" a target in the hope of hitting "something" ....the bombs are too expensive and the bad press from blowing up "innocents" or "innocent targets" takes away any possible gains

Well done A. You swallowed it all in one gulp. All those targets that all those thousands of very clever bombs hit only ever contained very bad people, and the shock waves from the explosive never ever effected neighbouring properties. All the tens of thousands that died before George declared the war to be won were really really bad people.

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Jul 2011, 21:52

The blame is put on the Western invasion for the civil war killings in Iraq ...

By some, yes. There are still plenty who by some means believe it was vindicated.

I'm saying that eventually the Iraqis would have tried to overthrow Saddam (like the Libyans are trying with Godaffy) ...

Yes.

and all that has happened is the process has been sped up

The invasion was never justifiable on any grounds. Saddam was the Iraqis own problem to sort out.

the bad press from blowing up "innocents" or "innocent targets" takes away any possible gains .

The numbers of innocents killed were put out to the world in publications such as The Lancet. Mainstream media once again failed and largely ignored the "uncomfortable truth".

by Zat Thu 21 Jul 2011, 23:20

Try telling me Malcolm Turnbull isn't laying the foundation to get Abbott arseholed...

Herald Sun...

BELIEVING in taking action against climate change isn't a sign of "incipient Bolshevism", former Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull says.
The opposition's communications spokesman was delivering the inaugural address to the Virginia Chadwick Memorial Foundation in Sydney, in which he referred to both the radical socialist movement and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

He said Baroness Thatcher had been a proponent of action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and her words remained wise and relevant today.

"So much for those who suggest that people in the Liberal Party or on the centre-right of politics ... who support effective action on global warming are somehow or other from the left," he said.

"If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed we should take action ... then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of incipient Bolshevism."

ABC Online

Former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull has urged his party to stop listening to climate change deniers, calling on members to defend the science of climate change and pledge to reduce Australia's emissions.

Mr Turnbull lost the leadership to current Opposition Leader Tony Abbott over the issue of climate change.

Delivering the Virginia Chadwick memorial lecture in Sydney last night, he said a war was being waged on scientists by "those opposed to taking action to cut emissions, many because it does not suit their own financial interests".

He said those parties currently attacking the Labor Party for its carbon tax would also attack the Coalition if it tried to implement its plan to reduce emissions.

"If we form a government and then seek to meet that 5 per cent target [by 2020] through purchases of carbon offsets from farmers and payments to polluting industry to cut their emissions, the opponents of the science of climate change will be criticising that expenditure as pointless and wasteful with as much vehemence as they are currently denouncing Julia Gillard's carbon tax," he said.

Mr Turnbull said parties with vested interests were trying to muddy the waters on climate science to prolong the export of coal, comparing their actions to tobacco companies discrediting the connection between smoking and lung cancer.

If the sky doesn't fall in once the Carbon tax is in place (and it will be brought in, Gillard has the numbers) Abbott and many of his cronies are going to look like utter dickwads. Turnbull will get the top job in the blue seats by about mid 2013, and the top job in the country at the federal election in October 2013.

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Jul 2011, 23:39

Turnbull will get the top job in the blue seats by about mid 2013, and the top job in the country at the federal election in October 2013.

...... and is on track to get my support.

by Zat Fri 22 Jul 2011, 00:00

I've said it many times before Mick, I'd vote for the Libs if Turnbull was in charge.

by Sponsored content