Cave Dweller
Eats Squid
Can i come too????johnny said:
At least most european nations have the balls to tell america to fuck off.
The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
At least most european nations have the balls to tell america to fuck off.
danv
Likes Dirt
Hell yeah! This is where we need the old Latham back - new billboard:johnny said:
Fuck the economy!
Vote Mark Latham and Labour.
Also, regarding your whole post, I would be interested to hear from experts who support claims from the opposite side, such as 'Invading Iraq makes us safer' 'Iraq had WMDs' 'The invasion of Iraq was justified' or the real doosy 'the invasion of Iraq was a success'.
Cave Dweller
Eats Squid
Either Iraq didn't have any WMD's and the invasion was a lie or they did have them and passed them onto terrorist groups to piss of the americans.
Either way, is the world any safer? The answer is NO.
Either way, is the world any safer? The answer is NO.
road warrior
Likes Dirt
I'm voting liberal
Cave Dweller
Eats Squid
I was doing a serach on google the other day for "Adaptive Cruise Control" for some research i am doing and this site came up
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/
How to make a cruise missle for less than $5000US. By an inventor in New Zealand who also makes pulse rockets as a hobby, did it to prove how easy it would be for terrorist groups who really want to make weapons to get a hold of this kind of stuff.
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/
How to make a cruise missle for less than $5000US. By an inventor in New Zealand who also makes pulse rockets as a hobby, did it to prove how easy it would be for terrorist groups who really want to make weapons to get a hold of this kind of stuff.
danv
Likes Dirt
Well I do, but I wasn't making a point with my post, I was just interested to hear from experts who supported any of those contentions. If an expert comes out critisizing the goverment's Iraq policy, then they get alot of attention. I wanted to hear from experts who support the government, and the reasoning behind it.toodles said:
RCOH
Eats Squid
From a purely australian-centric POV, things would have been much better if we hadn't invaded Iraq. I daresay Bali Bombing (maybe) & Australian Embassy Bombing would not have happened because those events are seen to be a direct retaliation on behalf of the Militant muslim fundamentalists for Australia's involvement in war in Iraq.toodles said:
Disclaimer: I said maybe when referring to Bali bombing because there is no evidence it was directed purely at Australians, just at 'Westerners' in general. But given the close proximity of Australia to Indo, the popularity of Bali as a holiday spot for Australians & the popularity of the 2 bars which got destroyed by the bomb I would hazard a guess that the killing of Australians came up more than once during the planning of the bombing.
First off, if you think things are better off due to the invasion, please state why (abuse will not be sent anyones way, but a healthy discussion is sure to arise) but judging from Toodles' previous posts, I'm tipping he would opine alike.danv said:
I don't think that there are any experts that think the invasion was a good idea, by experts I don't necessarilly mean the likes of Harlan Uhlman, Gerad Henderson, Paul Dibb, Newt Gingrich or any other academic involved with geopolitics and writers for think tanks. The only difference between them and I is that they are more experienced academics than I, simply educated opinions. The experts I refer to are the type of David Kay (ex-head of the Iraqi survey group who were searching for WMD's in Iraq who now says there weren't any: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html ) or Hans Blix (the head on UNMOVIC who were searching for the weapons before the war: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/ExecChair/ExeChBi.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html
Andrew Wilkie, the senior intel analyst that resigned in protest of the gov'ts misinformation on WMD's: http://abc.net.au/am/content/s804540.htm
Mohomad El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and also part of the UNMOVIC inspection team: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/16553.htm
and the plethora of others who have actual hands on and technological knowledge of the systems Saddam supposedly had or people such as Rohan Gunaratna, Chalmers Johnson, Richard Woolcot and many other diplomats and carreer inteligence officers that ARE THE people who give the politicians the info that they make their decisions on.
Howard knew all this info, but was happy to ignore it so he could endear himself to the US admin. This has been a standard procedure for many Liberal and some Labor Gov'ts in the past, a complete and utter sicophantic reliance on our great and powerful friends instead of regional multilateralism based on trade and mutual prosperity.
road warrior wrote:
Can I ask why? Not to start an argument or even imply that you don't have a good reason. I am simply interested in how educated people are of the political process when they make defining decisions as you have. I promise that no arrogant, condescending or abusive answers will come from me :wink:
RCOH
Eats Squid
"Is it best to remain silent & be thought a fool than to post on a forum without checking facts & remove all doubt"
While I DID specifically say Australia's involvement in the War In Iraq,I meant to say Australia's non-hesitation in supporting USA led attacks on predominantly Muslim countries. phew.
While I DID specifically say Australia's involvement in the War In Iraq,I meant to say Australia's non-hesitation in supporting USA led attacks on predominantly Muslim countries. phew.
danv
Likes Dirt
Well after looking up 'opine' i'm still a little confused, but if you had the idea I thought things were better off because of the invasion, that is wrong. Check my post again.johnny said:
I was just interested to see the expert reasoning behind the contentions (not my contentions)I mentioned, and also perhaps what 'experts' the Howard government listened to in making its decision (if any).
Sorry mate. I dribble a bit after a bit of herbalizing!danv said:
I'm aware of your opinions of which I mostly agree. I was actually asking Toodles whether he thought it was a good idea to invade. As I said, I'm tipping that his opinion is the same as ours. Also as I said, I don't think that you will find any expert counter opinions, for I think that they are as rare as rocking horse poo!
National News
Abbott denies urging Pell to criticise Labor
© ABC 2004
Abbott denies urging Pell to criticise Labor
6:05 AM October 1
Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has revealed he met the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, days before prominent churchmen spoke out against Labor's schools policy.
But Mr Abbott said he did not discuss Labor's schools plan during the meeting.
On the ABC's Lateline program, Mr Abbott was questioned over whether he had met Cardinal Pell in the days before a number of Catholic and Anglican archbishops, including Cardinal Pell, issued a statement condemning Labor's schools plan.
Mr Abbott immediately said he had not seen Cardinal Pell during the election campaign, but was then quick to clarify. [The question was "Did you meet with George Pell before he made these statements criticising Labor"? Abbot: "Not to my recollection". He was then reminded that the day before Pell made the statements that he actually did meet with Archbishop Pell. He then went on to say....] "Actually now you mention it I did meet with Cardinal Pell - so what, why shouldn't I meet with Cardinal Pell?" he said.
"Cardinal Pell is a fine man, he made a very good statement the other day about the Labor party's education policy." But Mr Abbott says he did not discuss Labor's schools policy with the Archbishop.
"That's a bizarre suggestion," he said.
"I may well have been going to confession to Cardinal Pell - I may well have been seeking pastoral counselling," he said.
Source: ABC
First off, how about some goddamn honesty and accountability? Isn't telling lies against god's teachings? Wasn't Tony Abbot the bloke who started up "Citizens for honest politics" (or something to that effect)?
Secondly, where's the separation between church and state? It's all well and good for the church to air their opinions publicaly, but to take their cue from a minister of cabinet! That's a breach of ministerial conduct, and Pell, who is a tool IMO anyway, should go read his bible and the constitution and count the ways in which he has erred. How can you ever tell when this government is telling the truth........"No I didn't see him". "Yes you did". "Oh yeah, sorry I forgot" Isn't that line reserved for the PM!
Abbott denies urging Pell to criticise Labor
© ABC 2004
Abbott denies urging Pell to criticise Labor
6:05 AM October 1
Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has revealed he met the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, days before prominent churchmen spoke out against Labor's schools policy.
But Mr Abbott said he did not discuss Labor's schools plan during the meeting.
On the ABC's Lateline program, Mr Abbott was questioned over whether he had met Cardinal Pell in the days before a number of Catholic and Anglican archbishops, including Cardinal Pell, issued a statement condemning Labor's schools plan.
Mr Abbott immediately said he had not seen Cardinal Pell during the election campaign, but was then quick to clarify. [The question was "Did you meet with George Pell before he made these statements criticising Labor"? Abbot: "Not to my recollection". He was then reminded that the day before Pell made the statements that he actually did meet with Archbishop Pell. He then went on to say....] "Actually now you mention it I did meet with Cardinal Pell - so what, why shouldn't I meet with Cardinal Pell?" he said.
"Cardinal Pell is a fine man, he made a very good statement the other day about the Labor party's education policy." But Mr Abbott says he did not discuss Labor's schools policy with the Archbishop.
"That's a bizarre suggestion," he said.
"I may well have been going to confession to Cardinal Pell - I may well have been seeking pastoral counselling," he said.
Source: ABC
First off, how about some goddamn honesty and accountability? Isn't telling lies against god's teachings? Wasn't Tony Abbot the bloke who started up "Citizens for honest politics" (or something to that effect)?
Secondly, where's the separation between church and state? It's all well and good for the church to air their opinions publicaly, but to take their cue from a minister of cabinet! That's a breach of ministerial conduct, and Pell, who is a tool IMO anyway, should go read his bible and the constitution and count the ways in which he has erred. How can you ever tell when this government is telling the truth........"No I didn't see him". "Yes you did". "Oh yeah, sorry I forgot" Isn't that line reserved for the PM!
An interesting point I do believe......
Church head attacks morals
By Sarah Price
October 3, 2004
The Sun-Herald
Australia is "hell-bent on a course of disturbingly questionable morality", the outgoing head of the Australian Anglican Church said yesterday.
In what many will see as an intervention in the last week of the election campaign, church head Peter Carnley made a scathing attack on the "so-called war against terrorism" and the Government's treatment of asylum seekers.
In his opening address to the General Synod in Fremantle, Dr Carnley questioned what the war had done to diminish the threat of terrorism. He said the possible long-term damage done in terms of "entrenched hatred" of the US and its allies meant Australians were among those who rightly feared for their children's children and what they might reap in the generation to come.
"Originally our politicians told us that the removal of Saddam Hussein had made the world a safer place," he said.
"Today those same politicians are telling us that the world has become more dangerous and that we need to elect them, and only them, to protect us."
He also questioned whether the end result of the war in Iraq - the removal of a "cruel dictator", while a relief - justified the "horrible means".
"Inevitably, there were the botched bombings of civilian targets ... add to this the many tragic deaths by friendly fire, the wiping out of whole families ... the inevitable mistakes of nervous troops firing upon the wrong target, the horrible maiming of little children by relentless bombing and the loss of innocent human lives by the mass use of weapons of conventional destruction and we are left shaking our heads.
"This is surely not a morally acceptable maxim for civilised people to live by."
Church head attacks morals
By Sarah Price
October 3, 2004
The Sun-Herald
Australia is "hell-bent on a course of disturbingly questionable morality", the outgoing head of the Australian Anglican Church said yesterday.
In what many will see as an intervention in the last week of the election campaign, church head Peter Carnley made a scathing attack on the "so-called war against terrorism" and the Government's treatment of asylum seekers.
In his opening address to the General Synod in Fremantle, Dr Carnley questioned what the war had done to diminish the threat of terrorism. He said the possible long-term damage done in terms of "entrenched hatred" of the US and its allies meant Australians were among those who rightly feared for their children's children and what they might reap in the generation to come.
"Originally our politicians told us that the removal of Saddam Hussein had made the world a safer place," he said.
"Today those same politicians are telling us that the world has become more dangerous and that we need to elect them, and only them, to protect us."
He also questioned whether the end result of the war in Iraq - the removal of a "cruel dictator", while a relief - justified the "horrible means".
"Inevitably, there were the botched bombings of civilian targets ... add to this the many tragic deaths by friendly fire, the wiping out of whole families ... the inevitable mistakes of nervous troops firing upon the wrong target, the horrible maiming of little children by relentless bombing and the loss of innocent human lives by the mass use of weapons of conventional destruction and we are left shaking our heads.
"This is surely not a morally acceptable maxim for civilised people to live by."
Yeah, I'm thinking about moving to NZ if the Mr. Sheen gets back into power. The fact that he is leading the polls now is almost motivation enough.johnny said:
Too right, fuck the economy. Who cares about the economy when you are dying and can't pay for health bills, or can't get into uni because you don't want to burden yourself with a loan that will take the best part of your life ot pay off, or when your environment is so fucked it can't support itself....I'd rather be poor with some dignity than die rich, and knowing that I lived a life of lies.
If i could vote i'd be leaning towards Labor and greens. I think Latham mentioned something about a decrease in HECS fees or something and thats gonna matter to me in a few years time. besides that i'm sick and tired of little Johnny doing al ot of talk and not a lot of doing, mind you i dont think it would be any different with any other party in his place, they are, afterall, still politicians. The greens would be pretty good too. I'm all for the boost in renewable energy, more bike lanes and what not. It's time Australia started doing something real for our environment before it's too late..,
Yeah by the way - i'm not a hippie chick, i'm just sick and tired of watching old people getting excited on telly by listening to a stupid fat guy with man boobs(no, i mean john howard)
Peace out yo 8) :wink: :shock: :mrgreen:
Yeah by the way - i'm not a hippie chick, i'm just sick and tired of watching old people getting excited on telly by listening to a stupid fat guy with man boobs(no, i mean john howard)
Peace out yo 8) :wink: :shock: :mrgreen:
Commander Dilsnikk
Likes Dirt
Voted today...
...ahh the wonders of pre-polling.
...ahh the wonders of pre-polling.