2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (1 Viewer)

[jb_nc]

Oh Shit, I have to get out of this country..

In Poland I have not heard of any of this...

First of all.. THERE IS A FEDERAL ELECTION THIS YEAR??? JEEZE, NO ONE TOLD ME..

I vote greenpeace... Howard is a drop kick who should be slapped down and stomped on..and same goes for rudd..

Honestly...Howard has been in control for as long as I can remember...(He still looks the same, amazingly) Plus he made us lazy people out there look bad with his morning walks... My grandmother still says i should "walk more like Mr Howard" thats traumatic...

And As for Rudd...Well he took over from Kim, who took over from Lathum, who took over from Kim... I need some stability here before I go voting for them...

Peice of triva for you all... The Polish President and Prime Minister are Identical Twins... Bet you did not know that... Both are as stupid as the other. The PM lives with mummy and her 7 cats, with no bank account... Thankfully the Pres lives a more dignified life with he wife of 25 years...

shut up

poland is a fucking terrible country you moron

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Agreed.

There is nothing that sickens me more than the Labor Party of today - right wing trade unionists.

Because they cause so much eeeevil, amirite?

 

[bittersweet787]

Yes, I know and understand this...
I have lived here for 7 months now, and one cannot escape the Political Bullshit that is the Kaczynski Brothers...or more appropriatly, the PiS party.

 

[hiddenagenda]

John Howard wrote a threatening letter to the Iraqi primeminister this week. He said 'reconciliation is happening too slow'. He then went on to say in a media interview, that the Iraqi government should 'take a leaf out of the book of the Iraq soccer team"

I don't want a plankton leading my nation, who thinks nation building is as simple as playing soccer, or that stamping his insignificant foot in anger will have any impact on the middle east.

PS. Kevin Rudd is no saviour.

 

[E*star*]

I don't want a plankton leading my nation, who thinks nation building is as simple as playing soccer, or that stamping his insignificant foot in anger will have any impact on the middle east.

:rofl: I love it when people look at the world this simply.

"prompt, concrete measures are needed not only to secure Iraq's future, but also to ensure regional stability and continued constructive international engagement'' - I think thats more along the lines of what happened rather than a stamping of an insignificant foot and why shouldn't he send a threatening letter to Nouri ; isn't that a good thing if he wants progress to occur...should he just let nothing happen? Perhaps you could say that it was his fault we are there in the first place needing to make these threats but don't forget Mr Rudd as foreign minister has been revealed as supporting his actions.

Yep Howard thinks nation building 'is as simple as playing soccer' infact his entire foreign policy when it comes to Iraq is structured to a soccer manual a few pages with some pretty pictures..thankyou for bringing to light this fact :rofl:

Kevin Rudd is no saviour.

YES HE IS! he is the saviour of the ACTU; gosh what is it now 70% membership of the frontbench by union officials..did someone call him a puppet...ORLY? NOWAY!

ahahah was it Costello who declared labor was into 'echo-nomics' classic

Well I'm tired but before I go to bed I'll watch a recording of Rudd on Kerianne. yea sure his dancing was a bit ordinary but amazing compared to his + when she asked him the same GST cake question that stumped Hewson, what was it 14 years ago? and from what I gather from his response Hewson almost had it answered correctly with a bit of faultering Rudd just flat out said he didn't know and tried to get a change of subjects

Also can someone answer me:
I'm not entirely sure but seeing as Iraq is a major oil supplier in the world is it not better that their Prime Minister who falsely imprisoned, tortured and murdered thousands of innocent people in Dujail alone does not have control over this? - I am being serious with this question too no sarcasm intended.. I mean people bitch and moan about going into Iraq; should we have just let the tyrrany continue or let America go in there alone even though we would expect their loyalty if something happened to us; sure no Australians have died as a result of the conflict but I am more getting at the fact that by going into Iraq and doing what has been done haven't we removed the power of a dictator and atleast attempted to stop the stupid Sunni and Shiites from blowing the shite (lol) out of eachother then of course there is the domino effect where Kuwait and Lebanon and all those other countries with ethnic problems would've followed into a worse situation. Good old Hezbollah was formed due to a civil war - atleast we are trying to stop this

Maybe this is the wrong way to look at it but why aren't people seeing it this way? and don't anyone say that Bush and Howard and worse than Saddam Heussian cause that'd just prove your stupidity

 

[jb_nc]

I'm not entirely sure but seeing as Iraq is a major oil supplier in the world

Australia received a marginal supply of oil from Iraq before and after the invasion. Does being an oil supplier give you the right to invade a sovereign nation?

is it not better that their Prime Minister who falsely imprisoned, tortured and murdered thousands of innocent people in Dujail alone does not have control over this?

148 people died in Dujail, hardly "thousands" but I'm not going to attempt to defend a dictator. Fuck, at least you could buy a loaf of bread in Bagdad without being killed. Totally great quality of life there.

What the hell did America do to stop Pol-Pot or countless other dictators that did the exact same thing?

- I am being serious with this question too no sarcasm intended.. I mean people bitch and moan about going into Iraq; should we have just let the tyrrany continue or let America go in there alone even though we would expect their loyalty if something happened to us;

TWO OPTIONS: Invade Iraq or do nothing

sure no Australians have died as a result of the conflict

COOL NO AUSTRALIANS HAVE DIED. Iraqis aren't people, so it's totally cool.

but I am more getting at the fact that by going into Iraq and doing what has been done haven't we removed the power of a dictator

America is so kind and generous, what with helping the British crush Iran's democratically elected government then install a Shah in 1953 and then bankrolling Saddam in killing near an entire generation in the Iraq-Iran conflict, I sure hope they can take the moral high ground.

and atleast attempted to stop the stupid Sunni and Shiites from blowing the shite (lol) out of eachother

Whose moral obligation is it to clean up the mess they made? "Attempted", yes, great work.

then of course there is the domino effect where Kuwait and Lebanon and all those other countries with ethnic problems would've followed into a worse situation.

What

Good old Hezbollah was formed due to a civil war - atleast we are trying to stop thisY

Bankrolled by the United States. And I'm certain Hiz'bollah came about through the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Maybe this is the wrong way to look at it but why aren't people seeing it this way?

Because you're seeing the world through the most ignorant and stupid world view possible and are probably living in 2004.

 

[E*star*]

Australia received a marginal supply of oil from Iraq before and after the invasion. Does being an oil supplier give you the right to invade a sovereign nation?

Notice how I said 'in the world' this generally means I am talking about it in that wider context in which it has the third largest supply although with sanctions these days no Australia does not receive much oil from there - we like the SE Asian nations better and so we should. Even so this was not what I was getting at and "does being an oil supplier give you the right to invade a sovereign nation?" - You have confused your terms but I know what you are saying and I didn't say that, you are taking me out of context and posing a rediculous rhetorical question.

148 people died in Dujail, hardly "thousands" but I'm not going to attempt to defend a dictator.

Yes granted 148 people died but i actually said "falsely imprisoned, tortured and murdered" which in total brings the number to 2k+ so yes thousands

at least you could buy a loaf of bread in Bagdad without being killed

Don't really know what to say to that, obviously you are generalising but I take your point that yes the mortality rate in Baghdad has risen since the invasion.
Interesting quote from a recent report on the Iraqi situation 'A handful of foreign fighters (500+)--and a couple thousand Al Qaeda operatives incite open factional struggle through suicide bombings which target Shia holy places and innocent civilians...The police force is feared as a Shia militia in uniform which is responsible for thousands of extra-judicial killings." ' - well aslong as these people didn't feel like some random killings then no you probably wouldn't be killed buying a loaf of bread

What the hell did America do to stop Pol-Pot or countless other dictators that did the exact same thing?

Not a great deal even though they could have BUT that was like 30 years ago, terrible thing sure but does the fact that the Government at the time were lax in their response to dictators mean that now we should not take action and let it happen again? I mean what argument are you trying to raise here?

TWO OPTIONS: Invade Iraq or do nothing

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing' - Edmund Burke

COOL NO AUSTRALIANS HAVE DIED. Iraqis aren't people, so it's totally cool.

Yes it is good no Australians have died, if only you could take it a bit more seriously, you do realise that Iraq wasn't peaceful before the invasion don't you? I mean it wasn't like modern day Sydney where maybe a person gets stabbed every now and then but not much else and suddenly it descends into chaos after the invasion - it was a bloody civil war; or nearly was atleast...How much do you think Saddam Hussein cared about the people?

America is so kind and generous, what with helping the British crush Iran's democratically elected government then install a Shah in 1953 and then bankrolling Saddam in killing near an entire generation in the Iraq-Iran conflict, I sure hope they can take the moral high ground.

Completely agree. Once again however different time, different place, different people its not like America is this eternal entity led by the same people and motives throughout history....same with Pol-Pot, its a weak argument to bring up really

Whose moral obligation is it to clean up the mess they made? "Attempted", yes, great work.

Um the international community who don't want people to go around blowing eachother up one group coming to power and then obliterating all its political but mainly religious rivals and gaining control of leverage through the oil supplies?

What

The Washington Post, August 20, 2006. Article titled: 'A Domino Theory for the New Mideast: What Happens When Iraq Runneth Over'
I am going to give you the credit of knowing where Kuwait and Lebanon are but seeing as they are of a similar cultural and ethnic diversity it raises the point that if the Iraq unrest was left to become the inevitable civil war that it would have, it 'could also spill over to the rest of the region'

Bankrolled by the United States. And I'm certain Hiz'bollah came about through the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Lebanese Civil War

Because you're seeing the world through the most ignorant and stupid world view possible and are probably living in 2004.

Perhaps you however are seeing the world through some context free method in which America is eternally stricken with the same people and motives and what the media tells you must be regurgitated thoughtlessly without investigation?

:rofl:

 

[jb_nc]

Notice how I said 'in the world' this generally means I am talking about it in that wider context in which it has the third largest supply although with sanctions these days no Australia does not receive much oil from there - we like the SE Asian nations better and so we should. Even so this was not what I was getting at and "does being an oil supplier give you the right to invade a sovereign nation?" - You have confused your terms but I know what you are saying and I didn't say that, you are taking me out of context and posing a rediculous rhetorical question.

Then what did you mean? And no I didn't mince words.

Yes granted 148 people died but i actually said "falsely imprisoned, tortured and murdered" which in total brings the number to 2k+ so yes thousands

Your use of language didn't make the fact that you were encompassing the thousands in with the "imprisoned, tortured and murdered", rather thousands had been murdered.

Don't really know what to say to that, obviously you are generalising but I take your point that yes the mortality rate in Baghdad has risen since the invasion.
Interesting quote from a recent report on the Iraqi situation 'A handful of foreign fighters (500+)--and a couple thousand Al Qaeda operatives incite open factional struggle through suicide bombings which target Shia holy places and innocent civilians...The police force is feared as a Shia militia in uniform which is responsible for thousands of extra-judicial killings." ' - well aslong as these people didn't feel like some random killings then no you probably wouldn't be killed buying a loaf of bread

There is no cadre of "foreign fighters" in Iraq:

Ned Parker of the LA Times reports that of 19,000 "insurgents" held by the US military in Iraq, only 135 are foreigners.​

http://www.juancole.com/2007/07/few-foreign-fighters-in-iraq-many-are.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story?coll=la-home-center

Luckily though the Iraq war has radicalised most foreign fighters in Iraq

Saudi and Israeli studies show that most foreign fighters were not terrorists before Iraq war.​

Not a great deal even though they could have BUT that was like 30 years ago, terrible thing sure but does the fact that the Government at the time were lax in their response to dictators mean that now we should not take action and let it happen again? I mean what argument are you trying to raise here?

That was like, oh my god, like, 30 years ago. 30 years ago America went into Vietnam to crush Communists. 30 years ago America helped install Pinochet to crush Communism in Chile.

Yet they were not eager to either help the Cambodians while Pol-Pot was ruling or bring him to justice. Why didn't America depose Saddam when a) the time was right and b) when the rest of the International forces (including the UN) supported them? That would have been smart.

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing' - Edmund Burke

Is this the first line of the Neo-Con Bible: Interventionist policy for dummies?

Yes it is good no Australians have died, if only you could take it a bit more seriously, you do realise that Iraq wasn't peaceful before the invasion don't you?

Guess that makes it tip-top then. Wasn't peaceful before, shouldn't be peaceful after, fuck 'em.

The researchers ascertained the Death Rate and it has risen from 5.5 deaths per 1000 population to 13.3 deaths per 1000 population since the invasion. From the new death rate they interpolated that between 400K and 900K additional or hastened deaths had occurred.
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
​

Not to mention the millions of refugees who have fled their homeland to neighbouring states alone:

[...]Now that the international community is finally beginning to pay attention to the existence of an estimated 2 million Iraqi refugees in the Middle East[...]
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/refugees/iraq0407/iraq0407.pdf,​

Baghdad is a glorious paradise thanks to the occupying forces. Praise Allah.

I mean it wasn't like modern day Sydney where maybe a person gets stabbed every now and then but not much else and suddenly it descends into chaos after the invasion - it was a bloody civil war; or nearly was atleast...

Whose fault is this? If I had to lay blame, it would be to the Americans (again) for invading with too few forces which left them unable to lock down the borders or do a number of numerous things which an extra 100 000 to 200 000 troops would have let them do. But they wanted to then it then in their time, any other contributions were token - even the British - compared to the US military's combatants which were not enough alone.

How much do you think Saddam Hussein cared about the people?

Probably more than the American troops who don't really think the Iraqis are people:

'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'
Interviews with US veterans show for the first time the pattern of brutality in Iraq​

Completely agree. Once again however different time, different place, different people its not like America is this eternal entity led by the same people and motives throughout history....same with Pol-Pot, its a weak argument to bring up really

You think anti-American sentiment sprung up over night? No it reaches back to those "different times".

Um the international community who don't want people to go around blowing eachother up one group coming to power and then obliterating all its political but mainly religious rivals and gaining control of leverage through the oil supplies?

The "international community" is America. If France had an interest to stop the violence, they would intervene (not that the didn't have an interest for Saddam to stay in place). If Canda... If New Zealand... If Saudi Arabia... If...well who's in Iraq again? Poland? South Korea?

The Washington Post, August 20, 2006. Article titled: 'A Domino Theory for the New Mideast: What Happens When Iraq Runneth Over'

It does appear you've copied and pasted a reference from wikipedia from a source you haven't read which was written close to a year ago.. So, since I cannot be bothered going into factiva and finding the article, care to enlighten us what's in this amazing piece.

I am going to give you the credit of knowing where Kuwait and Lebanon are

Thank you for your delightful ad hominem, you couldn't be an Iraq war defender without one.

but seeing as they are of a similar cultural and ethnic diversity it raises the point that if the Iraq unrest was left to become the inevitable civil war that it would have, it 'could also spill over to the rest of the region'

I'm sure the average Lebanese or Kuwaiti subject are going to be inspired by the violence in Iraq and start their own civil wars. Kuwaiti is very rich and almost Western like and Lebanon, having suffered it's own civil war not that long ago would know the exact same pains Iraq is going through.

Lebanese Civil War

The islamist ideology of Hizbollah came directly out of the Iranian revolution's Ayatollah Khomeini (it was also trained and funded by the IRG).

Perhaps you however are seeing the world through some context free method in which America is eternally stricken with the same people and motives and what the media tells you must be regurgitated thoughtlessly without investigation?

You're absolutely right. Seeing the War in Iraq as anything else but a major success against Islamists and dictators, and a massive triumph for the West in the Middle East is absolutely insane. Absolutely insane.

After all the did find those WMDs, didn't they? I bet the news media has being lying to me forever.

E-E-E-EPIC POST.

 

[ZabZu]

Hanson calls for halt to muslim immigration
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...lim-immigration/2007/08/16/1186857634226.html

 

[cruane]

What really annoys me is how labor always pulls in these ex celebrities to gain votes - if u ask me they must be really desperate! An example of this is how labor are promoting maxiene mckew to try and beat howard in his seat of bennelong! I will definately be voting for liberal and no celebrities can change that!

 

[Triangulum]

Now Howard wants to take over control of ports from the states as well. Does he even realise how pathetic and desperate he looks? Joe Tripodi (who's now the state minister for ports, who knew?) is quite accurate:

"This is a half-baked idea that the desperate Howard Government has come up with," he said.

"There is no comprehensive planning, there's no structure, there's no detail on the corporate governance that's being proposed."

 

[jb_nc]

joe tripodi is a filthy wog who should be have been sacked from the ministry with sartor and costa, couldn't give a fuck if howard takes over the ports as long as it involves deporting tripodi back to his mafia homeland

 

[Raaaaaachel]

at least what howard touches works, wtf has nsw labor did that worked

Actually thats harsh I made a list as it follows:






End.

Its very easy to preside over a strong economy then claim its as a result of your brilliant management. State issues like the provision of healthcare, transport, education and policing are a little more difficult.

If you look national infranstructure its similarly disgraceful to that which the states are responsible for. Look at the national highways and rail system.

 

[withoutaface]

Because NSW's tollways and railways (run by the Iemma govt) are incredibly efficient?

 

[Raaaaaachel]

Because NSW's tollways and railways (run by the Iemma govt) are incredibly efficient?

The railways are. Althoug Bondi Junction line is pretty good. However if you choose to live out West or in the Hills you cant really expect excellent public transport to serve your low density housing. Its a waste of taxpayers' money.

I would argue that Sydney's roads are pretty good considering there is very little room to expand them and the city is faced with growing population and care ownership but limited space. It would be nice to see Oxford Street and New South Head Road widened, but its not practical because it would cost so much to reposses the land.

My point was that the federal highway system (roads such as the Pacific Highway and Hume Highway) are grossly underfunded. This is a federal responsibility, you cant blame it on the state Labor governments.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

Oh you call the cross city tunnel a very good idea?

I certainly do. Saves alot of time.

 

[withoutaface]

1. The pure arrogance of telling a group of people they "don't deserve a railway line" because it's a "waste of taxpayers' money" when they pay higher rates of tax than most other areas of Sydney is utterly contemptable.
2. Cross City Tunnel saves you a lot of time, but statistics say it doesn't do so for many other people. We then get back to your argument of saying that taxpayers shouldn't fund a tunnel for a route which very few people use.
3. Vast inconsistencies across toll roads, whereby those from the South West get 90% of their tolls back, while those from places such as the North West pay >$10 worth of tolls a day for a comparable trip.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

1. The pure arrogance of telling a group of people they "don't deserve a railway line" because it's a "waste of taxpayers' money" when they pay higher rates of tax than most other areas of Sydney is utterly contemptable.
2. Cross City Tunnel saves you a lot of time, but statistics say it doesn't do so for many other people. We then get back to your argument of saying that taxpayers shouldn't fund a tunnel for a route which very few people use.
3. Vast inconsistencies across toll roads, whereby those from the South West get 90% of their tolls back, while those from places such as the North West pay >$10 worth of tolls a day for a comparable trip.

1. I didnt say people in the west dont deserve rail. Its just that due to low population density they cant expect a high frequency service that will be as good as Eastern Suburbs or North Shore lines. If people want rail access they should move somewhere were it is available. The government can't be expected to provide every area with rail, particularly where land reposession and construction of tunnels would make it prohibitively expensive.
2. Those that do use it pay for it. Those that dont still benefit from reduced traffic on the city streets.
3. I cant defend such inconsistencies. Im not saying the state government is great. If you will recall, my initial point was that they are about as competent as the federal government.

 

[withoutaface]

1. I didnt say people in the west dont deserve rail. Its just that due to low population density they cant expect a high frequency service that will be as good as Eastern Suburbs or North Shore lines. If people want rail access they should move somewhere were it is available. The government can't be expected to provide every area with rail, particularly where land reposession and construction of tunnels would make it prohibitively expensive.

North Shore is no more densely populated than the Hills district, and the government has been promising a North West link since 2003.

2. Those that do use it pay for it. Those that dont still benefit from reduced traffic on the city streets.

Or have issues with road closures and illogical one way streets.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

North Shore is no more densely populated than the Hills district, and the government has been promising a North West link since 2003.

Im no expert, but I'm quite sure that areas like North Sydney, St Leonards and Chatswood that are actually along the rail line are much more densly populated than the hills. Its clear from the amount of apartments in these areas. North West link is not viable. Too expesive to build. North Shore Line works because the infrastructure was in place when the area developed. There is simply no room to build the North West link without the expenses of tunnels and land reposession which I mentioned earlier.

Or have issues with road closures and illogical one way streets.

People have got used to it now. They just complain about everything.