Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Register To Vote


oweng

15-Jul-2007
12:14:41 PM

On 13/07/2007 anthonyk wrote:
>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

Thanks for that. Clearly my memory was wrong. I remembered Labour supporting the invasion, but forgot about the pretty crucial component of the support, which was that the support was conditional on a new UN resolution (which was never issued).


oweng

15-Jul-2007
12:23:26 PM

On 13/07/2007 gordoste wrote:
>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".

As said, I was wrong about the bipartisan support. The majority of Australians opposed the war prior to the invasion. I cant find the actual survey, but this quote alludes to the fact that in early 2003 (eight weeks before the war started) only 6% of Australians supported going to war without a specific UN mandate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200301/s765510.htm

So presumably 94% of Australians thought we were wrong to invade Iraq unless we had a UN endorsement. Unusual for a governement seen to be very popularist and poll driven.


oweng

15-Jul-2007
12:24:55 PM

This thread has turned into a bit of an anti-war lovefest!

Here is my last contribution. Robert McNamara was the US Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and LBJ for much of the Vietnam War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara

Below are eleven lessons taken from his 1996 book In Retrospect: The Tragety & Lessons of Vietnam:
I find them really interesting, coming from someone who has been there, done that. Its almost as if you could replace the words "Vietnam" with "Iraq", and draw the exact same lessons. Didnt someone once say "those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them".
1) We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
2) We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3) We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4) Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
5) We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine…
6) We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
7) We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
8) After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
9) We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
10) We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
11) We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.


AlanD

15-Jul-2007
6:10:04 PM

Security in the region is important to the USA, because of the oil reserves and how insecurity of those reserves would impact on the world economy, however the USA does not get a significant amount of oil from the region. The USA largest supplier of oil is Canada, but also receives significant amount from Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria and Saudi Arabia. Europe is much more relient on the Arabian Gulf oil. There is a big difference in my opinion between the security of the region because of the oil reserves and doing a quick grab of the country to get your hands on it's oil.

IMO the reasons for the current Gulf War is multifacitated, a false belief in WMD, a distorted belief between Iraq and terrorism, regional security and probably the most important, finishing off the job his father started and was so heavily criticised for stopping short (ie Gulf War 1), which left the USA and other countries like Australia being a policeman for the country ever since. People forget that Australia has had continuous navy operations in the Gulf ever since GW1.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

The biggest thing with elections is that opositions do not win elections, governments lose elections. If the population wants a change in government it will occur almost without any input on policy. At the last election, the voting population saw very little difference between the parties as per usual, but did not want Latham as PM. Forget Tampa, children over board etc, they are just meerly excuses trotted out by Labor to explain the loss publically. Did anyone really adjust their vote because of the those reasons? The real reason was the same was the same as Labor was so quick to dump Latham after the election, everyone saw that he was a goose, the Labor party only realised it after the election. Rudd is likely to win the next election because he comes across as being semi intelligent and the country wants a change in government, as long as Rudd doesn't do anything stupid between now and the election, he can't lose.


BigMike

15-Jul-2007
9:02:18 PM

On 15/07/2007 AlanD wrote:

>The biggest thing with elections is that opositions do not win elections,
>governments lose elections. If the population wants a change in government
>it will occur almost without any input on policy.

I'll drink to that!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/government-wasting-millions-labor/2007/07/15/1184438128683.html


AlanD

15-Jul-2007
9:15:16 PM

You really think the expenditure shown in that link would be any different if it was a Labor government in power? I seem to remember similar type activities being done by Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating. I doubt that Rudd would curb the equivalent expenditure.


BigMike

16-Jul-2007
11:32:19 AM

On 15/07/2007 AlanD wrote:
>You really think the expenditure shown in that link would be any different
>if it was a Labor government in power? I seem to remember similar type
>activities being done by Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating. I doubt that
>Rudd would curb the equivalent expenditure.

Spending tends to be incremental. After a government has won a few elections, it develops a sense of entitlement. It also works out that it can keep getting away with stuff. Periodic change helps to keep the bastards less dishonest.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

27-Jul-2007
11:30:02 AM

Have not verified it, but I just heard Premier Steve Bracks has just resigned and media will be provided with further detail soon.

Interesting times we live in.


bluey

27-Jul-2007
11:38:09 AM

He has resigned - his press conference was about half an hour ago. Resigned for personal reasons. Now to the joy of watching the Brumby and Thwaites sprint for numbers in caucus.......

Caucus meeting on Monday will decide who new leader is. Bracksy has indicated support for Brumby.


nmonteith

27-Jul-2007
12:48:42 PM

Thwaites is quitting to.

Bob Saki

27-Jul-2007
1:05:36 PM

On 27/07/2007 nmonteith wrote:
>Thwaites is quitting to.

typical Melbourne Grammar boy, get out before the ship sinks and leave the crew alone


BigMike

27-Jul-2007
1:56:05 PM

Hey Neil now that this thread has resurged, are you working on that Ombudsman TV advert series?

If so, what can I pay you to throw a rotten tomato or similar at that Barbara Bennett?


billk

27-Jul-2007
2:10:39 PM

On 27/07/2007 BigMike wrote:
>
>Hey Neil now that this thread has resurged, are you working on that Ombudsman
>TV advert series?
>
>If so, what can I pay you to throw a rotten tomato or similar at that
>Barbara Bennett?

Is she the one who looks like she's never worked in a menial job in her life and would know jackshit about ordinary people's job worries?


BigMike

27-Jul-2007
2:21:14 PM

On 27/07/2007 billk wrote:

>Is she the one who looks like she's never worked in a menial job in her
>life and would know jackshit about ordinary people's job worries?

Amazingly ... yes.


billk

27-Jul-2007
2:35:28 PM

On 27/07/2007 BigMike wrote:
>On 27/07/2007 billk wrote:
>
>>Is she the one who looks like she's never worked in a menial job in her
>>life and would know jackshit about ordinary people's job worries?
>
>Amazingly ... yes.

I suspect those ads are an own goal if my reaction is anything to go by.

Rule #1 for that sort of campaign is try to avoid looking too much like you come from Toorak/ North Shore/ wherever the Briso equivalent is. Even if she keeps the hair, she should lose the suit.

Bob Saki

27-Jul-2007
2:39:33 PM

c'mon guys if our taxes are paying for these adds, I want someone looking and sounding presentable............................


BigMike

27-Jul-2007
2:40:16 PM

On 27/07/2007 billk wrote:

>Rule #1 for that sort of campaign is try to avoid looking too much like
>you come from Toorak/ North Shore/ wherever the Briso equivalent is. Even
>if she keeps the hair, she should lose the suit.

And the hectoring approach.

Still she's all heart:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/comcare-boss-changed-evidence-to-senate/2007/07/23/1185043033314.html


billk

27-Jul-2007
2:42:55 PM

Sounds like she could give our mate Jane Halton a run for her money in how much bullshit she is willing to spout to get a little higher up the greasy pole.


bluey

27-Jul-2007
2:47:38 PM

hey guys, the ombudsman is my mum, you could be a little kinder......


billk

27-Jul-2007
2:51:16 PM

On 27/07/2007 Bob Saki wrote:
>c'mon guys if our taxes are paying for these adds, I want someone looking
>and sounding presentable............................

You're dead right that there's no point going too far the other way. You see a few regular spokesperson types on the news and Lateline who lose all credibility with the bad hair and threads. However, this particular character really sets off my B/S detector and the turn out is a big part of the package.

There are 240 messages in this topic.