Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Register To Vote


BigMike

12-Jul-2007
2:11:27 PM

On 12/07/2007 bne wrote:

>
>and the news headlines:
>
>100 Australian soldiers died in iraq this month (but they were all murderers,
>so its ok)

I doubt that many would want that, or subsequently say that. And it's fortunate - for the soldiers and their families, as well as the coalition - that Australia has yet to suffer a combat fatality in Iraq.

But a figure of 100 a month compares with some of the estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq.

Which are running around 50 people ...

... a day.

Consider, 88 Australians died in the Bali blast, and think of the effect that had on the national psyche. Now imagine something like that happening every 48 hours.

But at least those Iraqis are dying so that Al Qaeda can be defeated...

Or was it, so that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction could be disabled.

Oh hang on, Brendan Nelson had an attack of truth-telling recently and mentioned it was for oil after all...


manacubus

12-Jul-2007
2:39:04 PM

On 12/07/2007 BigMike wrote:
>Of course it's like putting 16kg of soy protein into a cow to get one
>kg of beef out... law of diminishing returns.

Try feeding your cow grass next time. Cows don't like soy burgers.


gordoste

13-Jul-2007
9:24:35 AM

BigMike, I hear you, but unfortunately it's rather irrelevant in the election. In my opinion, as long as the economy is going OK most Australians won't want to rock the boat. Look out for number 1. Rudd's best line of attack is on housing affordability - since 1996, the cost of the average house has gone from 4 times the average wage to 7 times (courtesy Ross Gittins in SMH).


shamus

13-Jul-2007
11:56:11 AM

I'd quite like to stand up and defend the work our defence force does. I could give dozens of examples of what is ACTUALLY happening, did happen through those golden days (rose coloured glasses anyone?) of the 1990s, and what some of the training involves, instead of some of the tabloid-misinformed opinions being spouted on this thread. However, looking at the history of this site, I also know it wouldn't take long to get most of the population off-side, ignite a war of deluded opinions, and be shouted down as a fascist warmongering child-killer-and-probably-eater (by the way, they're best tenderised [tho you can skip this for infants], marinated and then cooked as kebabs with apple, capsicum, onion and mushroom).


BigMike

13-Jul-2007
1:01:25 PM

On 13/07/2007 gordoste wrote:
> as long as the economy is going OK most Australians won't
>want to rock the boat. Look out for number 1. Rudd's best line of attack
>is on housing affordability -

You're absolutely right of course.

Housing affordability is a key item, but a lot of people struggle with the sums and get foncused by big numbers. Hence the last election, Howard implying that the interest rate would zoom back up to 17 per cent the moment Labor got in. Forgetting that 1. RBA sets the rate 2. Even when it was 17 per cent, housing was taking a smaller share of people's income 3. Under JWH as Treasurer in early 80s, rate was 19 per cent.

But the thing that's hurting the Libs right now is WorkNoChoices. I think most people are disturbed by the notion of having any rights or bargaining powers taken away from them and their kids.


oweng

13-Jul-2007
2:13:27 PM

Im getting confused.

I have voted liberal at the last two federal elections. I know I have my faults, but if put under a lie detector I would say that I think im reasonably intelligent, able to feel empathy for others, and would like to see what is best for Australia.

But from reading some of the above posts, im getting very nervous. It seems I must have been tricked into voting liberal by deliberate lies about Iraq, about interest rates etc. I also seem to be really selfish because I think a strong economy is important, not just for me (#1) but for the country. Here was me thinking I had weighed up the issues before making my judgement about who to vote for.

I was going to weigh them up again before this upcoming election, but after reading this thread, I think I will just give up and vote for whoever has the pre-election tv ads with the most Australian flags waving in them (take note Neil!). I also need to be told what I think, so ads with quotes like "the majority of Australians beleive that..........." should also help. Perhaps I shouldnt vote at all, I mean I could accidentally by tricked into voting liberal again (three times in a row would be embarrassing)! But they might fine me if I dont vote, so that's not an option. Damn.... Best to let the tv tell me what to do.

So I think an ad with Howard or Rudd standing in front of a sea of school children waving oversized Australian flags, with the national anthem playing quietly in the background, and Howard / Rudd saying "I believe the majority of Australians value a fair go, a fair go for their kids, who are our future" "I like most Australians are proud of my country, and want to see it prosper, I'll deliver to the true Australian battler economic responsibility, a steady hand at the tiller. This is the Labour/Liberal vision for Australia. A place of opportunity, prosperity, and a fair go".


Eduardo Slabofvic

13-Jul-2007
2:21:51 PM

On 13/07/2007 oweng wrote:
>But they might fine me if I dont vote, so that's not an option.

You could always write an essay on your ballot paper instead. I usually get about 500 words on my
Senate ticket. The trick is to take your own pencil sharpener.


BigMike

13-Jul-2007
2:23:59 PM

On 13/07/2007 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>On 13/07/2007 oweng wrote:
>>But they might fine me if I dont vote, so that's not an option.
>
>You could always write an essay on your ballot paper instead. I usually
>get about 500 words on my
>Senate ticket. The trick is to take your own pencil sharpener.

And now we know why some have complained it takes hours to vote. They're standing in the line behind Slabbo!


oweng

13-Jul-2007
2:38:15 PM

On 13/07/2007 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>On 13/07/2007 oweng wrote:
>>But they might fine me if I dont vote, so that's not an option.
>
>You could always write an essay on your ballot paper instead. I usually
>get about 500 words on my
>Senate ticket. The trick is to take your own pencil sharpener.

An essay! That sounds suitably pretentious. But I wonder if instead of a pencil, writing it in blood might carry more weight. I mean that would demonstrate some passion.


anthonyk

13-Jul-2007
4:11:20 PM

On 13/07/2007 oweng wrote:
>I was going to weigh them up again before this upcoming election, but
>after reading this thread, I think I will just give up and vote for whoever
>has the pre-election tv ads with the most Australian flags waving in them
>(take note Neil!). I also need to be told what I think, so ads with quotes
>like "the majority of Australians beleive that..........." should also
>help. Perhaps I shouldnt vote at all, I mean I could accidentally by tricked
>into voting liberal again (three times in a row would be embarrassing)!
>But they might fine me if I dont vote, so that's not an option. Damn....
>Best to let the tv tell me what to do.

maybe its just me but i tend to find arguments for the current government tend to be based on either narrow self interest, ignorance or smug indifference, and your response hasn't changed that view.

having said that i can't guarantee the other side would be much better.. but you've got to take the lesser of two evils and i'd rather risk a potentially slightly slower economy than a guaranteed cut to working conditions and a dishonest & shit-stirring foreign policy


gordoste

13-Jul-2007
4:20:32 PM

shamus, I have the utmost respect for the defence forces. They are almost all very good people who want to make a positive difference in the world. My issue is with the decisions our government has made on where to deploy them.

To everyone else, I acknowledge (unlike many) that a strategic alliance with the US makes sense for Australia. My issue is with the way the government stifled debate on the troop deployment - through misrepresenting facts, not revealing the true justifications and spreading FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) - until it was too late, and now we're stuck there. If it was for oil, why couldn't they say that, and let the Australian people decide if it is a good enough reason?


oweng

13-Jul-2007
4:29:16 PM

On 13/07/2007 anthonyk wrote:
>On 13/07/2007 oweng wrote:
>>I was going to weigh them up again before this upcoming election, but
>>after reading this thread, I think I will just give up and vote for whoever
>>has the pre-election tv ads with the most Australian flags waving in
>them
>>(take note Neil!). I also need to be told what I think, so ads with quotes
>>like "the majority of Australians beleive that..........." should also
>>help. Perhaps I shouldnt vote at all, I mean I could accidentally by
>tricked
>>into voting liberal again (three times in a row would be embarrassing)!
>>But they might fine me if I dont vote, so that's not an option. Damn....
>>Best to let the tv tell me what to do.
>
>maybe its just me but i tend to find arguments for the current government
>tend to be based on either narrow self interest, ignorance or smug indifference,
>and your response hasn't changed that view.

Fair enough. I pretty much admitted to narrow self interest. I would argue that I was being much more arrogant than smug. In relation to ignorance, well who knows. I suspect "ignorant" is being used in the context of "if somebody disagrees with me they are ignorant", so its in the eye of the beholder.


anthonyk

13-Jul-2007
4:43:35 PM

On 13/07/2007 gordoste wrote:
>To everyone else, I acknowledge (unlike many) that a strategic alliance
>with the US makes sense for Australia.

we've had strong military ties with the US for a long time and choosing not to join them on their adventures in the middle east wouldn't change that, regardless what GWB might say at the time. iraq was not a defensive move, it was an attack to gain a firmer hold on resources, given they had the opportunity to use their military advantage and blame it on "terrorism", which was really just a distraction in terms of global power struggles. australia and britain signed on to share in the benefits of access to these resources, and possibly for benevolent goals of spreading democracy, even if it was done under dodgy pretenses.

if you're talking about military ties in terms of defense, ie preventing people from attacking you, that would never have been affected by any of this. no matter what we do we are in the strategic interests of the US. if we all bared our asses at GWB and then china went to invade us (yeah right) the US would still defend australia, because having our resources in friendly hands is necessary for them.


anthonyk

13-Jul-2007
4:58:39 PM

On 13/07/2007 oweng wrote:
>Fair enough. I pretty much admitted to narrow self interest. I would argue
>that I was being much more arrogant than smug. In relation to ignorance,
>well who knows. I suspect "ignorant" is being used in the context of "if
>somebody disagrees with me they are ignorant", so its in the eye of the
>beholder.

no ignorance means drawing conclusions without including relevant information. like thinking that invading a country under false pretenses will increase your security, not give more people more reasons to want to attack you.


oweng

13-Jul-2007
5:09:59 PM

On 13/07/2007 anthonyk wrote:
>On 13/07/2007 gordoste wrote:
>>To everyone else, I acknowledge (unlike many) that a strategic alliance
>>with the US makes sense for Australia.
>
>we've had strong military ties with the US for a long time and choosing
>not to join them on their adventures in the middle east wouldn't change
>that, regardless what GWB might say at the time. iraq was not a defensive
>move, it was an attack to gain a firmer hold on resources, given they had
>the opportunity to use their military advantage and blame it on "terrorism",
>which was really just a distraction in terms of global power struggles.
> australia and britain signed on to share in the benefits of access to
>these resources, and possibly for benevolent goals of spreading democracy,
>even if it was done under dodgy pretenses.
>
>if you're talking about military ties in terms of defense, ie preventing
>people from attacking you, that would never have been affected by any of
>this. no matter what we do we are in the strategic interests of the US.
> if we all bared our asses at GWB and then china went to invade us (yeah
>right) the US would still defend australia, because having our resources
>in friendly hands is necessary for them.

I agree that if we hadnt joined the US in Iraq, we would still be tight with the US (joining them has made a tighter connection though fro sure). Ive wondered why we joined in, it always seemed like a bad idea. The Iraq / Al Quida link at the time was obviously a crap excuse (Bin Laden and Saddam would never get along, Saddam was far to moderate, after all he had a Christian second in command). Oil security seems the obvious reason for the US invasion, given the pessimistic projections for future no middle eastern oil supplies. I suspect we became involved because Howard was in the US when September 11 happened, and he went a little bit native.

Anyway, enough crapping on. Time to go home.


oweng

13-Jul-2007
5:20:37 PM

On 13/07/2007 anthonyk wrote:

>no ignorance means drawing conclusions without including relevant information.
> like thinking that invading a country under false pretenses will increase
>your security, not give more people more reasons to want to attack you.

Whoops, have to delay my trip home slightly.

Nobody, not you or I, can make an accurate call on issues such as this. By your defenition unless conclusions are draws after considering all relevent information they involve a degree of ignorance. I agree. The problem is we will never know what information the people that make these decisions had at the time.

In terms of the decision for Australia to go to war in Iraq, if I remember correctly it had bipartisan support at the time. As such both the Libs & Labs share guilt. They both thought it was the right decision.

The point of difference is on whether we should now stay or go. They obviously have different views on that, and that is something that a vote at this years election can be based on.


billk

13-Jul-2007
5:34:20 PM

On 13/07/2007 oweng wrote:
> The problem is
>we will never know what information the people that make these decisions
>had at the time.
>

However, we can ask why whatever inteeligence they were working with was so seriously flawed.

I can recall clearly that people like Hans Blix were arguing publicly that the case for Iraq having a WMD capacity was weak.

Opponents of going to war were also arguing before the invasion that it was likely to trigger a nationalist insurgency that could also draw in jihadis from elsewhere in the Arab world.

So the outcome was hardly unanticipatable. Rather the Australian, UK and US governments were so keen to go, they simply refused to countenance the possibility that they would make things worse instead of better, as well as refusing to consider the possiblity that their efforts to destroy Saddam's WMD programmes had been largely successful.


anthonyk

13-Jul-2007
5:38:16 PM

On 13/07/2007 oweng wrote:
>On 13/07/2007 anthonyk wrote:
>
>>no ignorance means drawing conclusions without including relevant information.
>> like thinking that invading a country under false pretenses will increase
>>your security, not give more people more reasons to want to attack you.
>
>Whoops, have to delay my trip home slightly.
>
>Nobody, not you or I, can make an accurate call on issues such as this.
>By your defenition unless conclusions are draws after considering all relevent
>information they involve a degree of ignorance. I agree. The problem is
>we will never know what information the people that make these decisions
>had at the time.
>
>In terms of the decision for Australia to go to war in Iraq, if I remember
>correctly it had bipartisan support at the time. As such both the Libs
>& Labs share guilt. They both thought it was the right decision.
>
>The point of difference is on whether we should now stay or go. They obviously
>have different views on that, and that is something that a vote at this
>years election can be based on.
>
>

not true

"The Government and Opposition are at odds. For the first time, bipartisan agreement for the deployment of troops has not been achieved. Labor has chosen to support continuing peaceful disarmament under UN resolution 1441. The Coalition supports an invasion of Iraq led by the US with Australia as part of the coalition of the willing without United Nations authorisation." - Kate Lundy, 20 March 2003 (as opposition MP) http://www.katelundy.com.au/Anti-war.htm


BigMike

13-Jul-2007
5:38:44 PM

Oh that's right! I remember now. We went because Howard told us about Saddam's people grinder!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1155399,00.html


gordoste

13-Jul-2007
5:40:15 PM

On 13/07/2007 oweng wrote:
>In terms of the decision for Australia to go to war in Iraq, if I remember
>correctly it had bipartisan support at the time. As such both the Libs
>& Labs share guilt. They both thought it was the right decision.

No, I blame the government as I said before. By hiding the reasons behind the Iraq deployment, they made it political poison for anyone to take a stand against it - effectively removing opposition to their plan. If the facts were out there in the public eye and being discussed openly in the media, Labour & others would have been able to say "That is not a good enough reason to invade Iraq" without opening themselves up to attack as "weak".

There are 240 messages in this topic.