My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

« Ears ring | Main | The forum »

Comments

Hi Adrian.

Mate, it sounds like you are getting some real people in your taxi at last, rather than the cardboard cut-outs mouthing Liberal platitudes, that you seem to get every other night!

You must be getting worried, mate. Even your Cyber-Gliterati "might is right" or is it "right is right" hero, Tim Blair, thinks Latham will win!

After all these weeks of playing the man, dumping on Latham, highlighting his so-called inexperience, his failures as Liverpool mayor, etc, his popularity refuses to collapse. And he has done the preference deal with the Greens, to make sure he will get over 75% of their preferences.

Howard has been so desperate, throwing money around with gay abandon, putting the economy and interest rates at risk with this mad list of give-aways, and promises. And still the best he can do is about 50:50 in the polls. I bet Howards shoulder twitch will start to re-appear soon!

Now we have the absolute desperation of the old "pre-emptive strikes" scenario coming from Howard and (God help us) Downer.

Mate, would you endorse that pre-emption stance? Would you endorse a similar stance by other countries, such as North Korea, China, Indonesia?

Because the theory of pre-emptive strikes doesn't only apply to us. It could apply to other countries too. For example, North Korea decides (for whatever reason - even faulty intelligence) that Australia presents a risk to their security. So they launch a pre-emptive strike on "terrorist bases" in Sydney Harbour. Howard would have to say - well that's our policy too, and they are correct to pre-empt and invade us, even if their intelligence was wrong. His Iraq line...

Centrebet might start to get worried, soon, too.

Still, there is a long way to go, Labor is still the underdog, and I had better make sure I don't sound too prematurely triumphant - something your side of politics is very good at.

You know that the official campaign has not even started yet. That is because the taxpayer foots the bill for travel of the pollies up till the "official campaign launch", so both sides keep that till as late as possible. You don't want to use your own dough now do you?

That's one thing they agree on!

Cheers

Ymmot, you're a mug - ya should've taken the bet when offered as the bet's now closed. Whatdaya think I'm stupid...

If you're fair dinkum, then you'll take Yobbo's offer of even money to the tune of $1000 for anyone who wants to back Labor. Have a go ya mug !

Because the theory of pre-emptive strikes doesn't only apply to us. It could apply to other countries too. For example, North Korea decides (for whatever reason - even faulty intelligence) that Australia presents a risk to their security. So they launch a pre-emptive strike on "terrorist bases" in Sydney Harbour.

Do you seriously believe that isn't their policy already? Pre-emptive strikes are a fact of life, and have always been a part of warfare. That's why there's already a term (pre-emptive strike) for it. The only thing stopping NK from launching a pre-emptive strike at Japan right now is the knowledge that they'll be turned into a river of glass by the US if they do so.

To even suggest that we DON'T Have a policy of pre-emptive strike is ridiculous. All countries do, and anyone who says otherwise is a blatant liar.

Handled yourself well, mate. Must have been fun sitting with Andrew Bartlett and Bob Brown. Just as well cabbies aren't armed.

And you got the last word in, too, you crafty bugger! I bet you primed up Jennie in the Green Room beforehand.
And you probably found out Bartlett and Brown are decent people, just with a different opinion on some issues.
Anyway, good on ya mate, you done good!

Hey Yobbo,
So you're saying that North Korea, run by a mad, murderous dictator, has WMD poised to strike Japan (and presumeably us) at any second, but they don't do it because US will use bigger WMD against them and destroy them.
But Iraq, run by a mad murderous dictator, and as Yobbo rightly points out, much less of a risk to US and AUS than North Korea, with no WMD, no nukes, no links to Bin Missin and AQ, no links to 9/11, no economy, no nuthin' really, had to be invaded and liberated and turned into a river of rubble and bodyparts?
Do we only pre-empt the little guys?
Should we invade and liberate NK, or some of the other dangerous dictatorships that really do pose a threat to us? If not, why not?

Cheers

after loosing a small business due to the excess amount of times I had to go to accountants for GST, my business was just scraping by at that present time the extra $5,000/year in accounting fees for calculating 4 times a year and an Annual return, destroyed my shop and many others around me. I've noticed in my home town of Newcastle (had to relocate for work, leaving the family there) that many shops had the exact same problem as me and there are so many now empty buildings, the economy is about to come to hit a brick wall and some how Labor is always in power when this happens. I employed 5 people, most of these shops employed 5 people or more, now walk into your local shops count how many places have been closed since Liberal brought in the GST, then think a small shop like that employed 5 people in most common malls/local shops you'll see about 50 jobs or more gone! How can an economy survive if no one's working?

As everyone knows here, the Interest rates of 23% were the same world over, the recision was WORLD OVER. No matter what party gets in they have about a 1% control over the Australian interest rates. If interest rates do rise house prices drop, people needing to buy houses for the first time can't, you'll see a lot of under 30's voting labor so they can think of starting a family!

Everyone thinks Labor spend up big when they're in but that's just to correct Liberal's mistakes. Much needed spending is a bit different than making people live in poverty.


Under Liberal, I saw many friends loose their IT jobs due to a lot of IT work being out sourced to the US to get around the GST and this creating harder to find jobs in Australia. We're in for the biggest shock to ever hit Australia and whoever's in power at the end of this election will be hated for a long time to come. So Please vote Liberal!

Stuart you make a good point that nothing the government of the day does is going to stop a potential economic collapse that would follow a rise in interest rates or a couple of quarters of negative growth. Given that the economic growth that Howard is taking credit for has been driven by Consumer spending ( the current household savings rate in Aust. is minus 3% ) and the doubling of house prices since 1997 coupled with a stock market that has increased by one third over the past 18 months, any slowdown in growth could cause a domino effect on a fragile economy. The increase in oil prices is going to cause a rise in inflation; if inflation increases so do interest rates.

I can see a lot of good things that Liberal have done. But it is scarry at what's about to happen if the oil prices do go up and same as interest rates. I'm a green voter myself, but we can all dream I guess.

regards
stuart

You there Yobbo?
Just wondering if you could try to answer the questions in my post above?
Another question - Should we send more troops to Iraq to "finish the job" to "stay the course" to "get the job done"? Would you go? Would you send your son or daughter, or use the Bush method of getting out of doing your duty - as he did in Vietnam war?

ymmoT

It is to late since North Korea already has nukes although it still might come to that.

"Should we send more troops to Iraq to "finish the job" to "stay the course" to "get the job done"? "

Yes

"Would you go?"

Yes

"Would you send your son or daughter"

A parent has no such power, it was a fallacious question from MM.

So you're saying that North Korea, run by a mad, murderous dictator, has WMD poised to strike Japan (and presumeably us) at any second, but they don't do it because US will use bigger WMD against them and destroy them.

Pretty much, yep.

But Iraq, run by a mad murderous dictator, and as Yobbo rightly points out, much less of a risk to US and AUS than North Korea, with no WMD, no nukes, no links to Bin Missin and AQ, no links to 9/11, no economy, no nuthin' really, had to be invaded and liberated and turned into a river of rubble and bodyparts?

I think we all know that WMD was not the reason that Iraq was invaded. It was the pretext - they are different things.

Do we only pre-empt the little guys?

Well, yes. The major benefit of pre-emptive strikes against small countries that don't pose a particular large threat is that WW3 doesn't start. This is why we didn't invade Russia and stuff.

Should we invade and liberate NK, or some of the other dangerous dictatorships that really do pose a threat to us? If not, why not?

Morally, I think we should. The problem with North Korea is that China sees it as "their problem", and would be absolutely livid if the US did anything there.

Therefore, the best course of action in regards to NK, in my opinion, is to pressure China to take care of it themselves. Of course, this means the whole thing will turn out a lot worse for North Koreans than if the US handled it, but that's the nature of world diplomacy.

Hi Yobbo and Gary,

Yobbo, thanks for your response - I know you are busy trying to keep HoWARd and Bush in power, so I am flattered you have taken the time.

So we only pick on the little guys, eh? Where's the strength in that? I thought HoWARd and Bush were tough guys? You're telling me they are just bullies! Weak little bullies. No wonder why you love them!

The message we are sending to the terrorists and their protector countries is therefore: GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS - YOU ARE SAFE FROM THE YANKS AND THE WEST IF YOU HAVE NUKES! True?

How will this make us safer if everyone get's nukes?

Gary, glad you are unique amongst the cheersquad - you would actually go to Iraq. One small question, why are you here then? I'm willing to contribute to get you there, if that is a problem. You would make a real difference, because we have hardly any troops there because Howard cut and run from Iraq 15 months ago. I'm sure the Iraqi's will be cheering in the streets when you get there. Just read Chrenkoff, everything is going beautifully! Those bombs aren't really going off, and the Iraqis are really happy to have been liberated.

Downer has now admitted that he would have no problem if NK invaded Australia pre-emptively, as long as they sincerely believed we were a threat to them! Yes, he said that in relation to Indonesia - I have extrapolated to NK. That is totally unbelievable - he has invited them to invade! But he's tough, man of steel, of course!

I don't want any country invading Australia, and if they did, I would fight back, just like anyone would if their country was invaded.

How does inviting our enemies to invade us make us safer? The pre-emption theory as outlined by me in the post above, and as agreed by Downer, means that you also allow others to invade your country if they think it is necessary. NO THANKS!

Gary and Yobbo - there is only one side of politics in Australia that has got this right. Labor. If you are really tough on terror, then you would support them! Otherwise you are bullies pretending to be tough. It may fool some (including yourselves) but not many.
Gary, finally, I agree that us mere parents have no power to send our kids to war, but Bush's parents had the power to ensure he didn't go to Vietnam. Besides, he was too gutless to go. Maybe we should only send poor peoples children to fight the little guys, eh?
Cheers

The comments to this entry are closed.