Latham or Howard? (1 Viewer)

[Ocker]

Oh no wait... the English called the IRA terrorists... now theres irony

The IRA topic started in past-tense.

I was pointing out that any activities done by groups using the IRA name would have been equalled, easily, by British actions in Ireland.

I did not mean incidents such as civilian bombings recently by the RIRA, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Generator]

It was a general statement, although I made the post in response to Aerials rather than yourself... I was tempted to make the same 'terrorist' comment about another imperialistic state, but then changed my mind.

 

[Aerials]

right, so because UK=Former Imperialist the English couldnt possibly have committed acts of terror? What kind of stupid reasoning lies behind that? Iran's government is not considered a "Terrorist Organisation" but that doesnt stop them from TERRORISING citizens day in and day out.

My point was that it was hypocritical of the British to label the IRA as terrorists when clearly they have performed and at times out-performed the IRA in "their own game" and managed to stay un-labelled as terrorists themselves. (Events in the Easter Rising in 1916... ring a bell?)

 

[Aerials]

And also I was referring only to the Provisional IRA, not RIRA, who are just a faction which merely use the IRA name. Im completely against the car/civillian bombings done by RIRA... but than again Im also against the British who choose to empty a whole clip into the body of a 15 year old.

 

[Generator]

Ummm, by that logic most nations have been 'terrorists' at some stage...

There is a difference between the acts of a nation state and the acts of a radical para-military group, no matter the situation.

But, in the end, I guess that we just have different views over what 'terrorism' truly is.

 

[aditya]

wow damn, im just gonna be a random and post my thoughts ont he original post...

i came into this thread thinking that latham was more of an animal than a man, he was rude and didnt have the diplomacy to be a succesfful poilitican in a time of agreement and the gloabisation process....

infact i pretty much hated latham, and preferred john howards "ass licking" because i feel that howard, although comparitvely passive, would never do anythign to harm australians, no sane person would do such a thing... he would have somepurpose for his actions (ecnomically speaking, hes a fukn liar otherwise), long-term goals or a certain directional aim he wishes to reach...

But about the economics of some earlier people... something about exporting and importing... australia does not manufacture much... and demand for metals in highly advanced ecnomics such as japan would put a higher price tag on these exports... so this results in australia exporting the raw materials and in turn, pruchasing that japanse made car...

they should start giving domestic manufacturers added incentive to, wel manufacture domestically, especially withcheap labour markets like india and china arising, this market needs to be grasped ( i dont think that made ANY sense but anyway, i couldnt be fucked thinking about it)....

so yeh, please reply and guide me to my wrong thinking =) preferably pm

 

[Aerials]

Originally posted by Generator
There is a difference between the acts of a nation state and the acts of a radical para-military group, no matter the situation.

Terrorize: to force or oppress by fear or violence (Collins Dict.)

It doesn't matter WHO is doing the terrorizing, it is still an act of terror. If you ever studied about the Bolsheviks, you might remember the growing use of the Red Terror. The use of Cheka to repress the people of Russia was the main use of terror BY THE NATION STATE. So you see, there is no real difference between terrorist acts of a nation state and the acts of a radical para-military group, except for the tactics used to employ the terror.

 

[olay]

ROFL i swear we should all combine to form a mad ass political party. we would so rock australias socks. screw howard. and all my thoughts are freakishly what came out in "Mr Evil Egg of Satan's" [as Johnny there calls him] post.

i say we get back gough whitlam. best PM australia ever had! otherwise, i vote Egg666 as PM, and Melbournian as treasurer.

EDIT: i want Ziff and Asquithian as head honchos too

 

[George W. Bush]

Gough Whitlam was the best PM Australia ever had?



I guess you don't really care about the economy, eh?

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Gough Whitlam was the best PM Australia ever had?



I guess you don't really care about the economy, eh?

Thats what I was thinking, hmm lets give everybody free tertiary education... now if only we could still afford to pay the teachers to get them far enough to be able to get tertiary education.

But I suppose the thing about the economy is true for all ALP.

ALP: We dont care about the economy, so why should you?

 

[Katie123]

Latham because he is not Howard simple
Iraq put it there for me
Lukily if howard retires soon i will not have t have him as a choice when i vot cos i dont get to vot until the Federal Election after the one taht happens this year

 

[George W. Bush]

Liberal party: Are you dumb enough to vote AGAINST national security?

 

[teh winnar!]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Liberal party: Are you dumb enough to vote AGAINST national security?

I KNOW CAUSE THEN YOU WOULD BE VOTING FOR INSECURITY WHICH IS BAD CAUSE YOU GET EMBARRASED ABOUT THINGS LIKE HOW POOR YOU ARE AND HOW YOUR GUN ISN'T EXPENSIVE ENOUGH

 

[George W. Bush]

Your gimmick account is more annoying than mine.

 

[RUB!X]

70-30 lols, howard licks bushes ass and latham is dumb, aus politics sux ...

 

[Nescient]

OMFG i already dislike howard... but with his recent crap about same sex couple marriages (over seas) not being "accepted" (or what eva word u wanna use) is total bullcrap... gay partners already cant get married in aus and saying that their OS marriages wont be accepted is utter BULLCRAP! and if Johnny comes back and agrees with bushes abortion thing OMFG they're gonna hear it... both are the biggest ignorant morons to ever walk this earth...

 

[kim_iz_yippin]

Latham's policies include:
1) Ratifying the Kyoto protocol, which will result in many job losses and will thus limit our chances of finding employment once we leave school.
2) The republic, which is costed well into the billions, will be funded by the taxpayer, leaving less funds for healthcare and education. Wouldn't this money be better spent on Universities? Why would Latham on one hand claim he is a supporter of public education and then put forward a policy which takes money away from it?
3) Withdrawing troops from Iraq. If we do so then it sends a signal to others that we wimp out at the first sight of trouble. Also, if East Timor or PNG ever come under attack we may be short of allies willing to help us protect democracy in the Pacific.
4) He keeps promising what he cannot afford. So far he can't even cost policies that will send us into debt that Howard has just paid off from the last Labor government.

Johnny has reduced unemployment from 11% under labor to 5.6%. He has run a stable nation without going into debt. He has increased funding for the state labor governments for health and education (what they do with it is their own business...). Stronger ties with America ensures Australia will be protected from invasion. He doesn't get hostile, unlike someone we know....things aren't bad but if we let labor loose again then things will be much worse.

When I leave school I will be looking for secure employment. Every time labor has run the country many people have been out of work.

Make time to look at both Howard's and Latham's policies. Don't just judge by what you hear on the news or in school. Make your own decision because it will directly affect you.

 

[ameh]

Originally posted by teh winnar!
I KNOW CAUSE THEN YOU WOULD BE VOTING FOR INSECURITY WHICH IS BAD CAUSE YOU GET EMBARRASED ABOUT THINGS LIKE HOW POOR YOU ARE AND HOW YOUR GUN ISN'T EXPENSIVE ENOUGH

its either voting against national security or voting for an idiot

 

[propagandhi]

KYOTO NOW!
isnt a sustainable environment really whats best for us in the long run? why would that cut job losses...,why cant we move those jobs into researching sustainable forms of transport and energy?
and withdrawing troops from iraq...thats howards mess, so why should latham be blamed when he does what is right by 70% of our nation and bring our boys and girls home, out of danger, stop the danger to our nation and send bush a message that says mass murder is not ok! not for any amount of oil.
can you imagine how much money we could spend on public education if we werent wrapped up in racist petty theft called "liberation". Kim, you should think out your words.
i dont know that latham feels genuinely about these matters, but if hes going to act on them, then isnt that a positive.
bob brown would be the best thing for our nation, but thats not going to happen because of self interested people like yourself. look at the bigger picture....to change the world, we need people to do it....jobs!!
ps, lets look at howards new ideas about public education?? 70% of us attend public schools...generously he allows us 19billion dollars, while the 30% in private schools get 11billion...what do you think of his "funding" now. his education policy this election is parents should have the right to choose, so he is increasing funding to private schools. he visited the local private school in my town over easter, ignoring the 5 government schools in our area to give 300 million to a new science center. not all of us can AFFORD to succeed

 

[George W. Bush]

....because obviously anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot (to some of the above posters)


When it comes to moral issues, there's no right or wrong (at least, not one which we can determine, leaving the Bible out of it because many people don't accept it) - generally speaking, something is considered right if it is widely accepted (e.g. do not kill unless your own life is in danger). There's no general consensus on abortion or same sex marriages, and you're just arguing from your own moral position.