|
Australia's Conservative leader Howard suffers "humiliating" defeat (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
The statement is beyond ridiculous to make, but it does serve quite well in the infamous neocon scare-tactic archives. |
so your point of bringing up this exchange was to point out how "ridiculous" it is. ok.
why? why is it so ridiculous to have this debate? why is a foriegn leader not able to critcize what his allied government is proposing in the face of everything at stake?
| quote: | | You really think I would agree to that garbage? |
not really, but a rational person would concede that the Democratic party, the party that won majority on the notion that they would withdraw all efforts in Iraq forthwith not 11 months ago, would hand over the the advantage to murderous religious zealots if given the chance whether they care about Iraqis and the war or not.
as a side note, a lot of things have changed since Feb, when that exchage between Rudd and Howard and the Democratic party's total investment in the effort of giving up. the party itself is changing in their attitude of giving up.
| quote: | | I could care less if he's insensitive. |
you cared about it enough obviously. you made it issue here. Rudd accused Howard of being insensitive, not me. i just called it politics. Rudd is the one not following your master plan for Iraq.
how convenient for you. Rudd stops 55% short of your standard
and all of a sudden you're all about "stay the course":rolleyes:
convenient irony at it finest. thanks General Petraeus:haha: |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So while I'll concede that this may not have been a central issue for the people of Australia to slap Howard's ass not just out of being P.M. but out of his own seat in Parliament (which is rather rare, isn't it?), I can't help but have a sense of relief seeing another Bush loyalist who clung so tightly to this debacle of a war lose his election. |
If it happens it'll be the 2nd time in history that a PM hasn't gotten his seat, last time was back in the 1920's.
It's not to say that the Iraq war is 'popular' even if it wasn't a central issue, but opinion to it last I bothered to look was running at about the mid-70% opposed. So it was one of the many things which contribute along the way people where upset with.
Add to that,secondary things that haven't mentioned yet-
Aboriginal rights and federal government apologies, something of a dirty issue which was still fresh in people's minds. I mean the guy basically put in effect prohibition on booze in central Australian communities, all this managed to achieve was a migration out of those areas! Amongst other things, continuing refusal to apologise on a federal level for things that where happening up until recently in the 70's where aboriginals where taken away from their natural families and adopted by whites.
Treatment of Refugees and Asylum seekers, which being one of the latter I'm more partial to pay more attention too, is absolutely terrible. People coming over here via unconventional means ending up in what's for the lack of anything else 'detention camps' and mostly offshore on remote islands. Now, that in itself isn't something which you should do in a country where the majority of people floated over here in some form for the last 200 years! Add to that, keep them there in limbo for up to four or five years is just barbaric in that due process was delayed for that long, either let them in under a temp visa or ship them off back where they came within a month for goodness sakes... disgusting treatment. Very high rate of depression, suicide, self harm and rioting as a result, basically these camps are Gitmo without orange overalls and torture.
Rising interest rates and inflation, now these where going to happen regardless of what the government does, the country is still small beans in a big world and not immune to global economic patterns. However, when you say that you'll reduce inflation and slow interest rates as a government policy when you and everyone else knows damn well that there's not a lot at a federal level you can do. Makes you look like a liar and at best, perhaps a little bit hypocritical when you claim to be the "economic guru's" who never set a foot wrong.
It is hard for federal governments to reduce these things, however it is entirely possible to provide an environment which exaggerates the problem a little more by pumping federal money out there coming up to election time. Like banks pumping money in to raise a more vibrant market in currency trading, it also happens when federal governments do it. As a result of all this, I'm back to 'Liliths Plan B' which I don't much like doing having truly suffered for the last 12-18months through about 6 sets of interest rate hikes keeping the banks at bay.
I might be broke and uncomfortable, but I'm out of debt...
About the only thing I'm sure of there is that a lot of people are doing it a lot tougher than me and they voted over the weekend accordingly out of desperation as much as anything else.
Laying claim to being the reason for all this economic shennanigans, for both the good things and quietly ignoring the bad isn't something the average Australian is completely ignorant of. They're well aware that key areas like-
*Selling exports off at lower than market prices
*Neglect of the rural sectors in times of hardship
*Failure to nurture industry and services, as a result it gets sent offshore
*Ignoring a chronic skill shortage in the workforce that has been in effect for close to 20 years
*Completely inefficient harbour services
*Privatisation and sale of government services and education (lot of people burned, lot of useless services as a result)
*Complete failure to re-vamp the tax system which is a nightmare of government 'double dipping'
*Housing affordability and rent crisis for average people
*Extreme mortgage and loan stress on households
*US biased 'free trade' agreement (very much in favour of the US...)
It's not a record that speaks well of economic mastery which was so vaunted by the Liberal government and frankly, I don't expect much from the new government either. But at least they're not wandering in making promises they cannot keep at least yet and claiming to be something they're probably not.
Interesting times indeed... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| Honestly, I really don’t think the aboriginal issues made to much of a difference to "middle australia". The ALP supported the legislation after all. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| It's not exactly painted JWH in a manner which is exactly favourable though and ultimately made him look very archaic. Fact that Labor was also 'me-too!' a lot probably doesn't bode very well for anything being done on that front, they'll probably go back to creating another welfare state for the Aboriginals like they did in times past. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Well at least you skipped over your initial generalizations. A bit refreshing to put that behind for once.
On to the rest:
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
so your point of bringing up this exchange was to point out how "ridiculous" it is. ok.
why? why is it so ridiculous to have this debate? why is a foriegn leader not able to critcize what his allied government is proposing in the face of everything at stake? |
In no way am I categorizing the entire debate itself as "ridiculous", rather the rhetoric of painting one party or one particularly popular presidential candidate as supposedly favoring/supporting "terrorists".
And just as a correction - he's not criticizing an allied government - he's criticizing part of a policy of a presidential candidate who's not even the ing president yet. If he WERE to actually criticize a governmental policy, that would be another issue entirely. Now you might say that because the Dems. control the majority in the Legislature, Obama's thoughts on foreign policy therefore characterize the entire Democratic party and thereby characterize the Legislature.
The problem, of course, is considering the extreme lack of spine that the Dems. have in the Legislature right now, what's terribly clear is that in matters pertaining to Iraq the last thing they have is any control on the issue. They've capitulated to nearly all wishes by this Administration, which by and large control the issues regarding Iraq at this point.
But again, any debate on this matter should and does occur in other countries worldwide, and I fail to see how I could possibly disagree with holding that debate by those countries in any way. That's a bit of a strange straw man for you to create, considering where the majority of those countries stand with our presence in Iraq, which more than likely occurred as a result of their numerous internal debates on the issue.
| quote: | | not really, but a rational person would concede that the Democratic party, the party that won majority on the notion that they would withdraw all efforts in Iraq forthwith not 11 months ago, would hand over the the advantage to murderous religious zealots if given the chance whether they care about Iraqis and the war or not. |
Uhh, no. The majority of the Democratic party wanted to abide by the bipartisan, Bush-supported Iraqi Survey Group's recommendations of a phased withdrawal out of Iraq to put pressure on the Iraqi government to start doing their ing job and get the ball rolling politically as well as for security matters since our military has never been equipped for police work or for political reconciliation for that matter. The recommendations also wanted to leave behind a task force to continue hunting down al Qaeda in Iraq.
But instead, we have Bush continually lowering the bar for his ever-changing definition of "Victory":
| quote: | With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections. […]
There have been signs that American influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling after the recent improvements in security — which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure “reconciliation” among Iraq’s deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, some officials now refer to their goal as “accommodation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/w...n/25policy.html |
Considering that was the primary premise for the SURGE! (i.e. clear the path for the political process to go forward), color me shocked that the goalposts just got moved once again.
And in regards to "giving up", first tell me what Victory and Success means, since Bush seems to have a difficult time defining that himself. Then I'll explain to you (once again) that what you describe as a plan to "give up" is what the majority of our country, the majority of the world, and yes, the Democratic Party, sees as our presence being part of the problem, not part of the solution.
And finally, in regards to the murderous zealots, I hate to break the news to you, Q., but there's a very healthy handful of those type of folks in the Iraqi government right now, including a leader we've helped install that's done more than his fair share at looking the other way.
You are aware of this, right? You are aware that your president has helped install a religious government that's closely allied to our next target, Iran, right?
| quote: | | as a side note, a lot of things have changed since Feb, when that exchage between Rudd and Howard and the Democratic party's total investment in the effort of giving up. the party itself is changing in their attitude of giving up. |
Sadly, I'm inclined to agree for the same obvious rational we've discussed in the past - they have no spine.
| quote: | | you cared about it enough obviously. you made it issue here. |
Huh? That is not in any way related to my response or my sentiments. I cared about it not because of its insensitivity, Q, but rather because of its asinine rationality of attacking a presidential candidate who holds no presidential power, let alone true power over our countries' foreign policies (as I explained the reason why above).
| quote: | | Rudd accused Howard of being insensitive, not me. |
I didn't see that particular word "insensitive" in his retort of Howard's remarks in the quote I posted, though I'll assume he did say it if the caption stated "gross insensitivity." It would be worthwhile to know the full context as to what he's referring to here since that wasn't presented in the quote itself, but that's neither here nor there since it wasn't the point I was making in discussing the quote in the first place.
| quote: | | i just called it politics. Rudd is the one not following your master plan for Iraq. |
Rudd hasn't even been in office yet, Jesus. What is it with you neocons jumping the gun so quickly? Is it that pre-emptive attitude of yours or something?
| quote: | how convenient for you. Rudd stops 55% short of your standard
and all of a sudden you're all about "stay the course":rolleyes:
convenient irony at it finest. thanks General Petraeus:haha: |
As I said before, perhaps you need to read my statement one more time. Actually, let me help you with some clarification of my statements:
| quote: | | But if you want my initial opinion on his Iraqi policies it's this: It's his country and he can do as he pleases with his troops in Iraq. |
Meaning we have the vast, vast majority of troops in Iraq, so it logically follows that my primary concern is what we do first with our troops, coupled with the fact that I am American and tend to have a little more selfish concern with my fellow Americans first.
| quote: | | However I disagree with him, |
Wait, what did I say?
| quote: | | However I disagree with him, |
Sooo, I guess that means I support his policies according to you, Q, right?
Umm, yeah.
| quote: | | and if he continues to hold troops in Iraq then he should be equally held accountable in time. |
Hmmm, do I really need to break that down for you? Here's a real short version - once he gets in office and actually holds the reins, if he keeps with what he has stated earlier I will disagree with him.
How we doin' so far, Q? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Here's a real short version - once he gets in office and actually holds the reins, if he keeps with what he has stated earlier I will disagree with him.
How we doin' so far, Q? |
let me be so bold as to say, go ahead and start villifying the poor bastard now. save us some grief.
...meanwhile, we got some more work to do. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
let me be so bold as to say, go ahead and start villifying the poor bastard now. save us some grief. |
He's the least of my worries in regards to Iraq, but you know I live to give you grief :D.
| quote: | | ...meanwhile, we got some more work to do. |
I'd sure as hell prefer the Iraqis start doing this work on their own, especially the political process, but since Bush isn't giving that as an option, oh well. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I'd sure as hell prefer the Iraqis start doing this work on their own, especially the political process, but since Bush isn't giving that as an option, oh well. |
Until 2008!:o |
|
|
| tubby |
the only issues which seem to me to have really caught peoples attention during this election have been the rise in interest rates (unlucky with the timing for howard) and industrial relations. rudd ran a smart campaign for the time, knowing all he had to do was nothing at all to win, unlike hewson some years ago.
the best description of the whole campaign was the seinfeld election, an election about nothing. There was really very little in terms of direction between the parties. |
|
|
| tathi |
| finally idiot australia hasn't fallen for that sneaky cunning little rats bull again |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
finally idiot australia hasn't fallen for that sneaky cunning little rats bull again |
jake has such a way with words :toothless |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Both parties are relatively conservative in terms of left/right political orientation, its just that the Liberal party began to swing from libertarian right into authoritarian right (which wasn't taken very well by the vast majority of the population) and Labor was offering a libertarian left. It's also fairly rare that people would adopt any form of extreme government here and as proven time and time again, anyone who goes towards either authoritarian left or right, gets the punt.
Which is what killed off the Keating government back in the 90's, people where sick of being talked down too and the circle comes around to where the liberal party begins acting with more and more bravado in their policies and behaviour, then they get the ass and out the door. What killed him in the end was 'Work Choices' which is a very backwards and awkward re-write of the employment laws that was very intrusive on all levels of social strata.
|
To be honest, a lot of that blame can be attributed to all of us for actually giving the government virtually absolute power through such a large Senate majority. There needs to be a balance to keep the government in check which wasn't there in the last 3 years. Wait, let me rephrase that "...to all of you for...". I was a couple of months too young to actually vote last time :p
I agree that this election was mostly centred on IR laws and interest rates.
Aboriginal affairs is a non-issue to most people even though the media makes it seem like it is.
The Iraq war was also very minimal. Nobody here actually cares as much you Americans do.
I also agree that it was a very "Seinfeld Election". |
|
|
|
|
