Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[dfcatch]

How can anyone think that Howard handled the Iraq situation well? There was no reason at all to invade Iraq. Howard and bush were too busy having a blind love in to even look for basic proof of WMDs.

Then of course there is David Hicks and our total disregard for basic human rights. The UK govt had the balls to get their citizens out of Gitmo. Johnny couldn't give a flog.

Then of course there is Johnny's inability and stubbornness to say Sorry.

Oh and of course work choices........

No govt in our history has ever been perfect, whilst there is no question that the liberal party has both a better track record of financial management and better fiscal policy, their track record in other areas makes Julila look like an angel.

The blind faith many here show in Tony is amazing, I too very much dislike Julia and Wayne, but you are all backing the wrong horse in Tony, IMHO he's going to stuff up and it's going to be a doozy of epic train wreck proportions.

It's interesting how these issues grate so passionately with some people.

Thanks for posting your views - my comments in reply are not personalized to you - just general observations.

1/ The ALP at the time supported the Intel on WMDs. There was no question at the time of WMDs. The difference at the time was the question of waiting for UN approval before invading or not.

2/ David Hicks is not a hero, like all citizens if you go overseas and get in trouble - the government will not bail you out. He wasn't a tourist sightseeing and getting accidentally caught up in things. He actively decided to fight against us and our allies in armed conflict. Before you get up the US or other western countries on "human rights" - how bout directing those concerns to Africa, South America, China or any number of non-democracies that permeate the UN.

3/ Sorry...... This was more about keeping Chardonnay socialists in Melbourne and Sydney appeased than actually improving the lives, rights or education of a single Aborigine.
If you want to help Aborigines improve their quality of life - come up here or to the Territory and see what destruction has been wrought by generations of welfare-dependency and symbolic gestures by do-gooders in Sydney and Melbourne.
Noel Pearson and Andrew Forrest have done much more for Aboriginal rights, living standards and provision of hope than any "apology" ever will.

4/ I always wonder what "work choices" actually means to people.

I mean it has become such an evil-clad term that I doubt anyone in the electorate actually understands what Work Choices was (besides inaccurate union tv portrayals).

No doubt the Howard government botched its IR legislation, no doubt they should not have removed the no-disadvantage-test, no doubt they shouldn't have extended the unfair-dismissal exclusions from 20 workers to 100 (given they campaigned on 20).

But there was nothing wrong with freeing employers up from the standover tactics of unions, and there's nothing wrong with allowing workplace agreements to being more flexible.

At the end of the day - if it is too regulated, too inflexible, and too costly to put employees on - then employers simply won't.

No point having the best protections in the world but not having a job.

And this - is the point that unions will never understand.

I find it fascinating the polarity that Abbott brings to the present situation.

I think he'll be a decisive PM whose decisions will upset all who support the ALP.

I think he'll also upset many on the Liberal side for not being conservative enough on many issues.

Clearly when you are being attacked on both the left and the right - it means you are probably in the correct spot

 

[ReLoad]

It's interesting how these issues grate so passionately with some people.

Thanks for posting your views - my comments in reply are not personalized to you - just general observations.

1/ The ALP at the time supported the Intel on WMDs. There was no question at the time of WMDs. The difference at the time was the question of waiting for UN approval before invading or not.

2/ David Hicks is not a hero, like all citizens if you go overseas and get in trouble - the government will not bail you out. He wasn't a tourist sightseeing and getting accidentally caught up in things. He actively decided to fight against us and our allies in armed conflict. Before you get up the US or other western countries on "human rights" - how bout directing those concerns to Africa, South America, China or any number of non-democracies that permeate the UN.

3/ Sorry...... This was more about keeping Chardonnay socialists in Melbourne and Sydney appeased than actually improving the lives, rights or education of a single Aborigine.
If you want to help Aborigines improve their quality of life - come up here or to the Territory and see what destruction has been wrought by generations of welfare-dependency and symbolic gestures by do-gooders in Sydney and Melbourne.
Noel Pearson and Andrew Forrest have done much more for Aboriginal rights, living standards and provision of hope than any "apology" ever will.

4/ I always wonder what "work choices" actually means to people.

I mean it has become such an evil-clad term that I doubt anyone in the electorate actually understands what Work Choices was (besides inaccurate union tv portrayals).

No doubt the Howard government botched its IR legislation, no doubt they should not have removed the no-disadvantage-test, no doubt they shouldn't have extended the unfair-dismissal exclusions from 20 workers to 100 (given they campaigned on 20).

But there was nothing wrong with freeing employers up from the standover tactics of unions, and there's nothing wrong with allowing workplace agreements to being more flexible.

At the end of the day - if it is too regulated, too inflexible, and too costly to put employees on - then employers simply won't.

No point having the best protections in the world but not having a job.

And this - is the point that unions will never understand.

I find it fascinating the polarity that Abbott brings to the present situation.

I think he'll be a decisive PM whose decisions will upset all who support the ALP.

I think he'll also upset many on the Liberal side for not being conservative enough on many issues.

Clearly when you are being attacked on both the left and the right - it means you are probably in the correct spot

Reference post about blind faith right here.

 

[amaroo]

Wayne Swan and the ALP could tax Australians 100% and still not manage a budget surplus.

Big Fat + 1 :!:

Hopefully, we're going to get at least a decade or more before these union clowns get another go at sitting in the grown up chairs.

 

[dfcatch]

Reference post about blind faith right here.

Pot - Kettle


Not that I disagree - but I do try to be objective in my analysis - and I make a point of being transparent in regards to biases and beliefs.

Blind faith - no - just correcting an inaccurate portrayal of historical facts. As far as my predictions go - I'm happy to put money on it.....

Ultimately the electorate decides - and the electorate tends to get it right. Howard lost in 2007 because of the exact reasons as I outlined above. And Gillard will be decimated in September because of the exact reasons outlined in the 203 pages of this thread.

Depending on your own views - you were either happy or unhappy with the 2007 result and the same will occur this year

I can however quite readily bring myself to acknowledge and support the ALP (and have in the past) when they deserve it.

It is a shame Simon Crean didn't keep the leadership and get the chance to contest an election. And it's a shame that such a decent person as Kim Beazley is no longer at the helm - I think he would have made a good PM.


Oh - and for the record - there are many ALP supporters than would concur with my perspective of history as above. (Just as there are Coalition supporters who would prefer the ALP policy on refugees for example).

 

[Pushka]

Pot - Kettle


Not that I disagree - but I do try to be objective in my analysis - and I make a point of being transparent in regards to biases and beliefs.

I can however quite readily bring myself to acknowledge and support the ALP (and have in the past) when they deserve it.

It is a shame Simon Crean didn't keep the leadership and get the chance to contest an election. And it's a shame that such a decent person as Kim Beazley is no longer at the helm - I think he would have made a good PM.


Oh - and for the record - there are many ALP supporters than would concur with my perspective of history as above. (Just as there are Coalition supporters who would prefer the ALP policy on refugees for example).

Totally agree with your points. But they will be lost on those here. They seem to think that if you vote Liberal, then this automatically applies:

You would never vote Labor at any time
You want refugees to be towed back
You wanted Australia to invade Irag
You think Abbott is the bees knees
You don't think any labor PM has been worthy
You agree with everything a liberal PM has done
You don't think about any issues but stick to party lines. And so on.

But in reality there is far more diversity of opinions amongst the current liberal supporters on this thread than the labor ones.

 

[dfcatch]

But in reality there is far more diversity of opinions amongst the current liberal supporters on this thread than the labor ones.

Actually - I have a different view (and have had for many years)....

Rusted on ALP supporters are a lot more passionate and steadfast in their views than dyed-in-wool Liberal supporters IMHO.

Some portray this as Liberal supporters being more open-minded to reason and logic (a derogatory inference to ALP supporters) but I don't subscribe to this.

I think it is simply what it is - hence why you have people going on and on about children overboard, WMDs etc etc rather than actually engaging (with or without bias) on the merits for and against various policies (regardless of your biases and views in support or not).

Some of the hysterics with Abbott is a continuation of that. But there is no doubt he is a polarising figure - I Just don't think the debate is accurate.

 

[11sjw]

I think it is "levy time"!

Or as the guy with baggy trousers said "hammer time"

Dammit, I was going to say that it sounds like "Hammertime" just way more costly!

 

[The Rok]

Would anybody here actually vote for Clive or is his campaign going to the a Brewsters Millions pie in the sky campaign?

 

[medhead]

1/ The ALP at the time supported the Intel on WMDs. There was no question at the time of WMDs. The difference at the time was the question of waiting for UN approval before invading or not.

So the alp was also wrong. What's your point. That doesn't make Howard any less wrong for sucking up bush's anus so far it took years for him to escape. It doesn't suddenly undo the terrorist training ground that was created in Iraq. And if they had of actually waited for UN approval they might have actually avoided the place altogether. They went off on a little adventure together, and forgot the main point in Afghanistan. No one asked the obvious question about saddam - so what if he has WMD? The record clearly showed that he used those WMDs to keep a lid on the powder keg that is Iraq, to keep himself in power. At no point did any one of the brainboxes stop and think to use his desire for power to avoid war. Instead they just opened Pandora's box. Sure helping the people of Iraq was a good thing, but that was not the "war on terror".

Btw I'm pretty sure I'm on the record in the national newspapers saying there are no WMD in Iraq, at the time.

2/ David Hicks is not a hero, like all citizens if you go overseas and get in trouble - the government will not bail you out. He wasn't a tourist sightseeing and getting accidentally caught up in things. He actively decided to fight against us and our allies in armed conflict. Before you get up the US or other western countries on "human rights" - how bout directing those concerns to Africa, South America, China or any number of non-democracies that permeate the UN.

I think you've entirely missed the point. Firstly, on David hicks. He didn't actively decide to fight against "us" at all. His history was first in Kosovo, with his "Muslim brothers", working for (and being trained by) the USA. He then went on to continue his time with his "brothers" in other places. Sometime later his "brothers" attack us. His accounts then suggest he tried to get out. Now I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that the head of the "brothers" didn't sit him down and say "before you sign up I just want to let you know what we plan to do". I highly doubt the final outcome was known and I doubt he gave much thought to potentialities beyond fulfilling his desire for adventure.

Leaving behind Hicks. The other massive thing you are missing is the irony of defending democracy by throwing away the very foundations of our democracy. The issue was not about bailing out Hicks. The issue was about him not being subjected to a kangaroo court. As for talking to other countries about human rights. I take it you're having a joke with that comment. You must realise that telling other people what to do works better when your own backyard is in order. Do as I say, don't do as I do? That is a totally ludicrous position to take. Are you seriously suggesting that western democracy is no better that some tinpot dictator? Once they threw away the foundation of our democracy the terrorists won.

 

[dfcatch]

So the alp was also wrong. What's your point. That doesn't make Howard any less wrong for sucking up bush's anus so far it took years for him to escape. It doesn't suddenly undo the terrorist training ground that was created in Iraq. And if they had of actually waited for UN approval they might have actually avoided the place altogether. They went off on a little adventure together, and forgot the main point in Afghanistan. No one asked the obvious question about saddam - so what if he has WMD? The record clearly showed that he used those WMDs to keep a lid on the powder keg that is Iraq, to keep himself in power. At no point did any one of the brainboxes stop and think to use his desire for power to avoid war. Instead they just opened Pandora's box. Sure helping the people of Iraq was a good thing, but that was not the "war on terror".

Btw I'm pretty sure I'm on the record in the national newspapers saying there are no WMD in Iraq, at the time.



I think you've entirely missed the point. Firstly, on David hicks. He didn't actively decide to fight against "us" at all. His history was first in Kosovo, with his "Muslim brothers", working for (and being trained by) the USA. He then went on to continue his time with his "brothers" in other places. Sometime later his "brothers" attack us. His accounts then suggest he tried to get out. Now I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that the head of the "brothers" didn't sit him down and say "before you sign up I just want to let you know what we plan to do". I highly doubt the final outcome was known and I doubt he gave much thought to potentialities beyond fulfilling his desire for adventure.

Leaving behind Hicks. The other massive thing you are missing is the irony of defending democracy by throwing away the very foundations of our democracy. The issue was not about bailing out Hicks. The issue was about him not being subjected to a kangaroo court. As for talking to other countries about human rights. I take it you're having a joke with that comment. You must realise that telling other people what to do works better when your own backyard is in order. Do as I say, don't do as I do? That is a totally ludicrous position to take. Are you seriously suggesting that western democracy is no better that some tinpot dictator? Once they threw away the foundation of our democracy the terrorists won.

The point my dear Medhead is very simple:

By all means criticise the Howard government for The decision to go to war, as you have done.

But to criticise the Howard government for that decision on the WMD issue is to ignore that there was bipartisan agreement at the time on both the existence and the threat.

So by all means criticise, but don't rewrite history.

Hicks - you ignore the point that he left, and then when back after September 11 to rejoin the fight - as he himself put it.

And I never said we shouldn't uphold rights - I said Hicks isn't a hero - and never should be or have been treated as one.

By all means criticise the military court process - but it's hypocrisy to apply selective criticism. That doesn't mean he was treated right - but it doesn't make him a hero or excuse his actions either.

A bit of balance and perspective goes a long way IMHO.

 

[casanovawa]

So the alp was also wrong. What's your point. That doesn't make Howard any less wrong for sucking up bush's anus so far it took years for him to escape. It doesn't suddenly undo the terrorist training ground that was created in Iraq. And if they had of actually waited for UN approval they might have actually avoided the place altogether. They went off on a little adventure together, and forgot the main point in Afghanistan. No one asked the obvious question about saddam - so what if he has WMD? The record clearly showed that he used those WMDs to keep a lid on the powder keg that is Iraq, to keep himself in power. At no point did any one of the brainboxes stop and think to use his desire for power to avoid war. Instead they just opened Pandora's box. Sure helping the people of Iraq was a good thing, but that was not the "war on terror".

Btw I'm pretty sure I'm on the record in the national newspapers saying there are no WMD in Iraq, at the time.

I think a very large body of people (and intelligence organisations) in 2003 thought Saddam had WMDs, because he had quite determinedly tried to keep that front up by continuously non-complying with the various UN bodies, over a decade or two, that were tasked with finding that very question - did he have them or not and was he complying with UN resolutions... All the nutbag had to do was open up his facilities and give a half truthful account of his WDM programs (or lack there of) and Bush's evil plans would have been stillborn... Even as the whole process was moving towards its crisis point this fool was still playing games hoping his European allies would continue to obfiscate and delay until he would be allowed to get away with the same BS that he had for the last decade, just like they messed around and couldn't make a decision over the balkans war, Kosovo, Syria etc, etc..

It was going to take a military campaign to unseat Saddam, military campaigns in desert countries have deadlines about when fighting can occur and when it can't, they were just playing the same delaying game he always had with his spineless UN mates fudging for him... Like i said all he had to do was come out with an approximation of the truth... This same guy who stared into the abyss and couldn't make a rational decision to save himself and his regime was the same mind that the US was going to be content with having what they thought (and he steadfastly tried to maintain the image of) had WMDs just a year or two after taking one of the greatest psychological shocks in their history??? Because the Taliban regime in Afghanistan had acted so rationally to preserve itself by letting a terrorist group train and prepare on their ground and had been able to control them as well etc, etc... It was a highly complex process back at that point with lots of agendas going on, so try not to simplify something complex down into one liners and 20/20 hingsight... Yes on reflection it didn't help things going in there, the invasion went well but they lost the peace and would have done better to not divide their forces but it wasn't as simple simon as its all made out these days, the process had been going on for years to try to get Saddam compliant and even then they tried to use the UN process and were stone walled again... Just like the UN has been so effective in Syria, was so effective in Libya, Kosovo etc, etc... Its an amazing avenue for getting nothing accomplished...

I think you've entirely missed the point. Firstly, on David hicks. He didn't actively decide to fight against "us" at all. His history was first in Kosovo, with his "Muslim brothers", working for (and being trained by) the USA. He then went on to continue his time with his "brothers" in other places. Sometime later his "brothers" attack us. His accounts then suggest he tried to get out. Now I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that the head of the "brothers" didn't sit him down and say "before you sign up I just want to let you know what we plan to do". I highly doubt the final outcome was known and I doubt he gave much thought to potentialities beyond fulfilling his desire for adventure.

Leaving behind Hicks. The other massive thing you are missing is the irony of defending democracy by throwing away the very foundations of our democracy. The issue was not about bailing out Hicks. The issue was about him not being subjected to a kangaroo court. As for talking to other countries about human rights. I take it you're having a joke with that comment. You must realise that telling other people what to do works better when your own backyard is in order. Do as I say, don't do as I do? That is a totally ludicrous position to take. Are you seriously suggesting that western democracy is no better that some tinpot dictator? Once they threw away the foundation of our democracy the terrorists won.

Hicks was a half wit... There's a saying about "Went with, caught with, hung with"... He was a little prat who wanted to have an adventure, and these groups in the different wars and terrorist groups rely on attracting the fanatics and simple minded to come and do their fighting for them (and often blow themselves up while the fat cats of course 'direct the campaign') The fact that these lot that ended up at Gitmo got a good airing as to what happens to these guys who like to go side with the enemy hopefully convinced a whole lot of others to pull their heads in and see it for what it is, a serious business taking up arms where you don't just put your hand up when you feel like it and complain it was all a lark and you were misunderstood etc, etc...

 

[drron]

Forget WMD.This was the reason I supported intervention in Iraq-
Newsline

Hundreds of thousands of children needlessly dying under Saddam's rule.Easy to forget and not easy to blame Bush,Howard,Blair etc as the WMD theories-and I acknowledge that is the excuse they used.

 

[ReLoad]

Half wit David hicks gives him far too much credit, he was a total fool, but the point was, the Australian government let him rot in an non-judicial and grossly unfair prison without the basic rights afforded to any Australian.
Even the UK who are as just a strong an ally of the USA grew some balls and got people out of there.

Howard was too busy sucking up to his village idiot buddy Dubya and let him rot there.

Every single elected govt we have had have made poor decisions and mistakes, that's not going to change, its about choosing a side that minimises them. So far both the Labour and Liberals have done nothing to inspire my confidence that they can lead our nation.

Sadly we have a choice:
Tony is creepy guy who is so focussed on becoming the main man he doest give a fat rats clacker about you or I.
Julia is too busy fighting of the wolves of her own party at her door and placating other minorities that she has forgotten what Australia needs.

Either way its a bad picture, but as stated previously, the Tony fan boy love that's sprouted here is just plain embarrassing, he sure as heck isn't a panacea.

 

[casanovawa]

I'm going to be slightly generous here and say that most people that go into Parliament, on both sides have some level of care and interest in the public, even its just their own supporter base... With a job review every 3 years its just to hard and dicey a move to go in there and not think that you are going to have to do something for someone if you want some votes down the track... Once in there these feelings might be over taken by process and politics of being in politics... I think the power brokers and faceless men and women pretty soon just get consumed by existing for the sake of existing... So when you say Tony doesn't give a rats rear orifice about you or I, i disagree and feel that is way to much of a one eyed smear as bad as any 'Tony love in' that you think you have perceived here...

I think the jury is out on Tony, he could be a good leader, he will certainly be confronted with some extraordinary challenges not really of his making... He may grow into the job, he may not... We have had 6 years of the alternative and for many (evidenced by consistent polls) they have earned themselves a fail grade and failures are just piling up one on top of another as we come towards the finish... I have said before, and most here on both sides would agree, in a perfect world we wouldn't have either of them as our ideal pick, its the real world so we take what we are given and its turning into a bit of a tidal wave that the people feel the other guy needs to be given the chance to show what he is made of seeing the current lot have been found so, so wanting!!!!

I'm not really interested in rehashing Iraq and Hicks, they are pretty much done and dusted and some lesson learned, but i'm also not interested in having history re-written as simple simon stuff because it usually never is that simple and predictable and everyone was fools at the time... Bush's situation was a follow on of the previous Clinton administration that had backed away from getting involved in international affairs and who had critically undermined his own ability and credibility to show leadership in terms of dealing with Iraq because of his daliance with Monica, so most things build on top of previous situations...

If Hicks treatment sent a message to our home grown loons, to either not take their jihad inclinations overseas, or worse to start some front here, then the perceived injustices to Hicks were probably not all a bad thing... I still don't lose much sleep over what happened to him as i thought he was the author of most of it... I find plenty of other people to shed tears over first...

And yes, the UN lead by certain cheese eating mob (I will be careful to not take a racist undertone after recent incidents), have always been content to let a lot of innocents suffer in the background if it means they can fudge and delay and have a talkfest and don't have to risk anything... I'm not saying Australia or the US are absolute angels in that respect either... Its wonder the French had the gumption to get up and do this latest intervention in Mali...

 

[medhead]

The point my dear Medhead is very simple:

By all means criticise the Howard government for The decision to go to war, as you have done.

But to criticise the Howard government for that decision on the WMD issue is to ignore that there was bipartisan agreement at the time on both the existence and the threat.

So by all means criticise, but don't rewrite history.

Hicks - you ignore the point that he left, and then when back after September 11 to rejoin the fight - as he himself put it.

And I never said we shouldn't uphold rights - I said Hicks isn't a hero - and never should be or have been treated as one.

By all means criticise the military court process - but it's hypocrisy to apply selective criticism. That doesn't mean he was treated right - but it doesn't make him a hero or excuse his actions either.

A bit of balance and perspective goes a long way IMHO.

As you've written the ALP wanted to wait for a UN mandate. So there wasn't agreement on the trigger for taking action, even if there was agreement on the facts.

I've fixed your previous, given your repudiation of it here. I certainly didn't say he was a hero, but your reference to Africa etc., sounds a lot like an excuse for bypassing legal "rights". I know know about rejoining the fight. The bit I recall is that he was in Pakistan without travel documents and didn't know what to do. Personally, I would have taken myself to the embassy and said "help". But the guy clearly lacked sound judgement. I also wonder if he was surrounded by a heap of fanatics would might just cut off his head if he decided to run away. Who knows.

2/ David Hicks is not a hero, like all citizens if you go overseas and get in trouble - the government will not bail you out. He wasn't a tourist sightseeing and getting accidentally caught up in things. [-]He actively decided to fight against us and our allies in armed conflict. Before you get up the US or other western countries on "human rights" - how bout directing those concerns to Africa, South America, China or any number of non-democracies that permeate the UN.[/-]

I think a very large body of people (and intelligence organisations) in 2003 thought Saddam had WMDs, because he had quite determinedly tried to keep that front up by continuously non-complying with the various UN bodies, over a decade or two, that were tasked with finding that very question - did he have them or not and was he complying with UN resolutions... All the nutbag had to do was open up his facilities and give a half truthful account of his WDM programs (or lack there of) and

Exactly my point. If it was about WMD then his impending loss of power could have been used to force open the facililties. Regime change adn democracy were only reasons for the invasion after the fact. So talk of unseating him is irrelevant to discusion of the reason for the war.

Hicks was a half wit... There's a saying about "Went with, caught with, hung with"... He was a little prat who wanted to have an adventure, and these groups in the different wars and terrorist groups rely on attracting the fanatics and simple minded to come and do their fighting for them (and often blow themselves up while the fat cats of course 'direct the campaign') The fact that these lot that ended up at Gitmo got a good airing as to what happens to these guys who like to go side with the enemy hopefully convinced a whole lot of others to pull their heads in and see it for what it is, a serious business taking up arms where you don't just put your hand up when you feel like it and complain it was all a lark and you were misunderstood etc, etc...

I think you've misunderstood my point. There is no misunderstanding his actions as those of a stupid, disenfrachised person. But that doesn't mean we should attribute more to his actions that is supported by the public record. Also, the stupidity of youth is not a reason to throw away our values. Sure in the old days the local cop would give tthe bad kids a good clip around the ear for being naughty. But that is just vigilantism that teachs people to be afraid without them knowing why they need to be afraid. Western society is built of values and principles and the way to keep that society strong is application of those values and principles, not to bypass them when it suits.

Forget WMD.This was the reason I supported intervention in Iraq-
Newsline

Hundreds of thousands of children needlessly dying under Saddam's rule.Easy to forget and not easy to blame Bush,Howard,Blair etc as the WMD theories-and I acknowledge that is the excuse they used.

The outcome was good, but does that excuse the lie? (perhaps answer this question in the context of "Julair") I would have supported regime change if that was the reason presented. But I would have also demanded subsequent invasions of Zimbabwe, Burma, and well maybe those countries that DFCatch listed, perhaps even Alabama or Florida.

Is we don't like your government and internal politics a reason for war?

 

[amaroo]

Half wit David hicks gives him far too much credit, he was a total fool, but the point was, the Australian government let him rot in an non-judicial and grossly unfair prison without the basic rights afforded to any Australian.

John had to put up with David.........Julia has to put up with poor old Julian.

was too busy sucking up to his village idiot buddy Dubya and let him rot there.

Have you seen Julia when she gets within 500m of Barack? :shock: Not to mention that she went straight for Julian's jugular......condemning him straight up & then made the call that he had broken the law. A few basic rights & legal procedures broken in a 2min doorstop!

I guess this sort of thing just come with the job!

 

[casanovawa]

I think you've misunderstood my point. There is no misunderstanding his actions as those of a stupid, disenfrachised person. But that doesn't mean we should attribute more to his actions that is supported by the public record. Also, the stupidity of youth is not a reason to throw away our values. Sure in the old days the local cop would give tthe bad kids a good clip around the ear for being naughty. But that is just vigilantism that teachs people to be afraid without them knowing why they need to be afraid. Western society is built of values and principles and the way to keep that society strong is application of those values and principles, not to bypass them when it suits.

No I haven't misunderstood your point and i see where you're coming from... I just think your using a very simplistic approach.. When you say it like that it sounds very idealistic and noble... Its like Voltaire saying that I might not agree with your views, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say them (or words to that sort of effect).. Sounds all very noble and high principled... Sorry i can't bring myself to follow that in the real world, I'm not goiung to fight to defend every crack crack pot and fanatics right to spew any hatred or failed idea... I will apply logic and judgement to difficult real world problems... We have often bypassed our western values at times of crisis, were newspapers allowed to print just anything during WW1 and 2 or did they accept censorship??? (you could use any number of other examples of where our freedoms and noble ideas are curtailed by agreement) Did our Western values and civilisation collpase because of it??? No... I personally don't think you coddle and try to sit down and have a nice chat with fanatics and people that despise everything you value... When they take it the next step and try to actively war against you by any means possible, they have abrogated any expectation to be treated the same as Joe Bloggs in the street... I also think the odd clip behind the ear did a few youths some good, although there was quite obviously some abuses of it... They are difficult situations and questions but i can't agree that high falutin idealistic statements always apply to the complex, real world realities, but we can try to be guided by some underlying principles...

The outcome was good, but does that excuse the lie? (perhaps answer this question in the context of "Julair") I would have supported regime change if that was the reason presented. But I would have also demanded subsequent invasions of Zimbabwe, Burma, and well maybe those countries that DFCatch listed, perhaps even Alabama or Florida.

Is we don't like your government and internal politics a reason for war?

Again, simple statements that on first glance have a veneer of logic and common sense to them... As a bare minimum all he had to do was show that he had followed UN resolutions and disarmed... We all know geo-politics and clashes of nations and ideals and beliefs is not conducted in this simple simon way of looking at things and hasn't for the last thousand years or so... Its not new that not everything occurs in a fair and balanced and even handed way on the international scene or in any sphere of life... And regime change was never going to happen just by a gabfest and sitting ont he side lines, bit like waiting for the nutbag in charge of North Korea to wake up to himself, although with nukes now involved the equation has gotten so much worse...

 

[Pushka]

Who is your enemy? Who is your ally? Just a few years of time separates the two.

 

[medhead]

No I haven't misunderstood your point and i see where you're coming from... I just think your using a very simplistic approach.. When you say it like that it sounds very idealistic and noble... Its like Voltaire saying that I might not agree with your views, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say them (or words to that sort of effect).. Sounds all very noble and high principled... Sorry i can't bring myself to follow that in the real world, I'm not goiung to fight to defend every crack crack pot and fanatics right to spew any hatred or failed idea... I will apply logic and judgement to difficult real world problems... We have often bypassed our western values at times of crisis, were newspapers allowed to print just anything during WW1 and 2 or did they accept censorship??? (you could use any number of other examples of where our freedoms and noble ideas are curtailed by agreement) Did our Western values and civilisation collpase because of it??? No... I personally don't think you coddle and try to sit down and have a nice chat with fanatics and people that despise everything you value... When they take it the next step and try to actively war against you by any means possible, they have abrogated any expectation to be treated the same as Joe Bloggs in the street... I also think the odd clip behind the ear did a few youths some good, although there was quite obviously some abuses of it... They are difficult situations and questions but i can't agree that high falutin idealistic statements always apply to the complex, real world realities, but we can try to be guided by some underlying principles...



Again, simple statements that on first glance have a veneer of logic and common sense to them... As a bare minimum all he had to do was show that he had followed UN resolutions and disarmed... We all know geo-politics and clashes of nations and ideals and beliefs is not conducted in this simple simon way of looking at things and hasn't for the last thousand years or so... Its not new that not everything occurs in a fair and balanced and even handed way on the international scene or in any sphere of life... And regime change was never going to happen just by a gabfest and sitting ont he side lines, bit like waiting for the nutbag in charge of North Korea to wake up to himself, although with nukes now involved the equation has gotten so much worse...

I am not asking you to defend anyone. You have missed my point. Simply put the strength of our democracy is that it can deal with this sort of cough without needing to go outside to extra-judicial activities. Even war had rules. By stepping outside our constitutions, the foundations of democracy and the common law foundations of our legal system we have automatically thrown away everything that we are supposed to stand for, we have weakened our democracy. We've gone to war in Iraq and [-]killed[/-] perhaps a hundred thousand people have died to impose this magically democracy. But we can't even stand by that democracy in dealing with the people that attack us? It is gross hypocrisy to suggest any situation justifies throwing our core values out the window.

Take the captured mastermind of 9/11. Why did they have to make up a new special offense? What's wrong with conspiracy to commit murder?

This is simple stuff because these are the basic principles of who and what we stand for. Yes, the world is complex but it is only complex when, and because, we act within those principles. Making a new set of rules is the simplification. It is what evil dictators do; don't like some one? Kill them! Kill their family? Gas their village! Go down that path and we become everything we are supposed to be fighting against. As I said we then lose. If our principles can't be applied for every situation we should just throw them out entirely.

 

[dfcatch]

When it comes to Alabama - isolation is the best policy