Liberal or Labor? (or other) (1 Viewer)

[tigerian]

Liberal. I really like John Howard's vision for Australia.

Ian

 

[alexvincent]

so...ummm...wtf are you talking about and why do i care?

I suggest that you reread my post. Why do you care? I'm not sure, but I know that you do care enough to post something.

Didn't you have a sufficient response to my post? Is that why you put up this "why do i care?" charade?

 

[alexvincent]

Liberal. I really like John Howard's vision for Australia.

I actually hate Howard's regressive vision. His economic growth at all costs stance is hurting this country. Handing power back to employers after so much fighting for workers' rights is a point in case of his regressiveness and blindness to the social implications of his reforms. Australia needs someone to run the country and not just the economy. And I don't know about you, but I hate being lied to. Especially by some public servant who gets his salary out of our pockets.

But then again, is any vision better than no vision? I'm not sure on what Beazley's vision for Australia is (if he has one).

 

[Generator]

The Fair Pay commission as set up in workchoices is the permanant solution to the problem of un sustainable real wage growth. This is why it is unfair to compare australia to america. America has a minimum wage which comes from a neo classical way of economic thinking (their system has long term benefits, howevor short term costs).

Australia's fair pay comission is an independant body which can adjust wages in the interests of employees and the economy. So on one hand it is going to make sure that employees get paid a decent wage, but then it isn't going to do this at the expense of massive unemployment, or the risk of a recession.

Yes, and its members are as independent as a Government-appointed Commissioners with fixed yet renewable terms can be.

 

[crazyhomo]

I suggest that you reread my post. Why do you care? I'm not sure, but I know that you do care enough to post something.

Didn't you have a sufficient response to my post? Is that why you put up this "why do i care?" charade?

but you're talking shit. you responded that all your claims weren't meant to be interpreted the way that would actually prove your point. you just hate americans because you need someone to be angry. fuckin' americans

 

[tigerian]

I actually hate Howard's regressive vision. His economic growth at all costs stance is hurting this country. Handing power back to employers after so much fighting for workers' rights is a point in case of his regressiveness and blindness to the social implications of his reforms. Australia needs someone to run the country and not just the economy. And I don't know about you, but I hate being lied to. Especially by some public servant who gets his salary out of our pockets.

But then again, is any vision better than no vision? I'm not sure on what Beazley's vision for Australia is (if he has one).

Surely the things that matter most are the economy, the family unit and the country's security. I would suggest that John Howard has these well in hand and, while he hasn't got it all right, the country is heading in the right direction.The economy means more to me than the country.

 

[Gangels]

Time will be my proof.

Your proof is eating up alot of time.

 

[ZabZu]

Surely the things that matter most are the economy, the family unit and the country's security. I would suggest that John Howard has these well in hand and, while he hasn't got it all right, the country is heading in the right direction.The economy means more to me than the country.

Johnny's foreign policy is making Australia more of a target for Islamic extremists. Australia is too close to the US at a time when the US government is dominated by hardline conservatives (rednecks).

 

[wheredanton]

Surely the things that matter most are the economy, the family unit* and the country's security. I would suggest that John Howard has these well in hand and, while he hasn't got it all right, the country is heading in the right direction.The economy means more to me than the country.

* Not all family units benefit.

It's nice to see young people, especially young BA Diped students, with such broad and progressive plans for the future.

 

[YBK]

LOAL good one.

Are you part of the Bring Back Saddam croud?

Get over yourself.

Why do you hypocrites never complain about Muslim and Arab Imperialism?

What are arabs doing in Palestine? or Iraq and Iran for that matter.

These are lands that never belonged to them until they invaded and they continue to control them with an iron fist and bloodshed.

Why aren't you protesting against Islam?

Why am I not protesting against Islam? Maybe because this topic hasn't got to do with Islam...
Damn, you need help.

 

[gnrlies]

Why am I not protesting against Islam? Maybe because this topic hasn't got to do with Islam...
Damn, you need help.

I think the point is that there is an over sentimentality towards "political correctness", such to the point where people actually forget the fact that whilst some american policies are seen as "antagonistic" and "dominant", there are underlying reasons for america's policy decisions.

I mean it doesn't matter which way you look at it, the united states is a peace loving nation. They do not want to go to war. In fact they are going out of their way, risking their own lives and spending massively on their military, to do service on the rest of the worlds behalf.

Don't forget who the enemy is here. Regimes like mr hussein's are evil. The united states just liberated a country with a repressive dictator. How is this a bad thing? I mean by removing sadam, the americans have saved more lives than they have wasted.

The only criticism I have of american foreign policy is that it lacks transparency. But thats a product of political forces which make it so. The united states has an obligation as the worlds biggest economic powerhouse, to keep rogue nations in check. Its the lack of formal responsibility which makes it hard for
the US.

Having said all of this, there is howevor a necessity for america to be cautious. The arguements that we have been made bigger terrorist targets are valid, and it would be very self indulgent for the united states to go to war with any country that disagreed with it.

 

[ZabZu]

Don't forget who the enemy is here. Regimes like mr hussein's are evil. The united states just liberated a country with a repressive dictator. How is this a bad thing? I mean by removing sadam, the americans have saved more lives than they have wasted./QUOTE]

Its great to see Saddam Hussein out of power but theres many consequences of the American led invasion:
- the average Iraqi is worse off and a larger number is being killed than when Saddam was in power
- its responsible for increase anti-western sentiment in the muslim world making it easier for Islamic extremists to recruit members
- with a Iraq dominated by the majority Shi'ites, Iran's power in the country increases dramatically and ironically the US wants to overthrough the current Iranian regime

 

[Not-That-Bright]

in the world are the ones that have adopted economically rational policy

There are other factors which corrolate between these nations.

 

[walrusbear]

I mean it doesn't matter which way you look at it, the united states is a peace loving nation

actually, that's highly contestable
it's as deceptive as saying that the US are warmongers

 

[YBK]

I think the point is that there is an over sentimentality towards "political correctness", such to the point where people actually forget the fact that whilst some american policies are seen as "antagonistic" and "dominant", there are underlying reasons for america's policy decisions.

I mean it doesn't matter which way you look at it, the united states is a peace loving nation. They do not want to go to war. In fact they are going out of their way, risking their own lives and spending massively on their military, to do service on the rest of the worlds behalf.

Don't forget who the enemy is here. Regimes like mr hussein's are evil. The united states just liberated a country with a repressive dictator. How is this a bad thing? I mean by removing sadam, the americans have saved more lives than they have wasted.

The only criticism I have of american foreign policy is that it lacks transparency. But thats a product of political forces which make it so. The united states has an obligation as the worlds biggest economic powerhouse, to keep rogue nations in check. Its the lack of formal responsibility which makes it hard for
the US.

Having said all of this, there is howevor a necessity for america to be cautious. The arguements that we have been made bigger terrorist targets are valid, and it would be very self indulgent for the united states to go to war with any country that disagreed with it.

Well, I don't think that the war was justified. People are still dying there, they don't even do proper body counts of the civilians who die there; I wonder why.

 

[gnrlies]

- the average Iraqi is worse off and a larger number is being killed than when Saddam was in power

Really? Are you in Iraq to be able to make such a qualitative assessment? How do you know whats going on in Iraq (both before and after the war). I dont know either. But I do know one thing. What you see in the media is not what is going on in Iraq. The media has a funny habbit of reporting on the bad things, perhaps this is its role to keep governments in check, but the fact is that you do not see the 1000's of other people who now "have" (and more importantly "will" after the country is stabalised) a far better way of life than they did under sadam and his sons.

Ive spoken to a number of people on the matter. Ive spoken to immigrants from iran and iraq and they all say the same thing. They all say that they are glad that the regime is gone, (in the case of iraqi's) or that they want to be liberated (in the case of iranians). Neither groups have condemned the USA's actions.

I can acknowledge that the people ive spoken to are separated from the war, and that perhaps it's hard to tell a grieving mother who just lost their child from a stray bomb, that the USA is here to save them - but it is important to acknowledge that there is a very compelling arguement to say that these people are going to be far better off as a result of the war.

As far as deaths. Heres some stats:

-Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered

-There have been documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988resulting in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths

-Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds

-The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

-Iraqi leaders privately acknowledged that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings

-Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease

-Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:

4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;"
122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.

Now as you can see these numbers are substantially more (and many times over) than the iraq war's death toll.

How much longer was sadam and his sons going to be left to continue these atrocities.

- its responsible for increase anti-western sentiment in the muslim world making it easier for Islamic extremists to recruit members

Theres only one type of terrorist.

irrational extremists who hate the west, in particular america. These people are acting on preconceived ideas, and are going to do what they do no matter what. This arguement is fundamentally flawed. If we arent going to be proactive in our approach to terrorism what are we going to do? Sit back because we don't want to offend anyone else? Let bin laden and his mates roam free to do what they wish just so that a few fringe members of society don't cross that freshold of become a terrorist?

A more effective approach is to go in and dismantle these terrorist cells, and remove the networks which allow them to perform acts like 911. I mean I dont think I can say that there is not one person who has turned against the united states due to the war on terror, but I can say that since the war on terror, the fact that al queda has been severely damaged, we are in a safer world than we were in pre 911.

Terrorist cells dont need members as you suggest, they need money, weapons and infrustrucutre, and without that they are lifeless. This is what the war on terror is trying to achieve.

- with a Iraq dominated by the majority Shi'ites, Iran's power in the country increases dramatically and ironically the US wants to overthrough the current Iranian regime

Well this is precisely why we need to be carefull with the war. Calls to bring the troops home are dangerous and severely lack an understanding of the issues.

As for Iran, Hmmm... Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad idea......

 

[Rafy]

http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/?p=333

 

[ZabZu]

A more effective approach is to go in and dismantle these terrorist cells, and remove the networks which allow them to perform acts like 911. I mean I dont think I can say that there is not one person who has turned against the united states due to the war on terror, but I can say that since the war on terror, the fact that al queda has been severely damaged, we are in a safer world than we were in pre 911.

Terrorist cells dont need members as you suggest, they need money, weapons and infrustrucutre, and without that they are lifeless. This is what the war on terror is trying to achieve.

A better way of stopping terrorism would be focusing on the issues that extremists use to attract members, eg the Palestinians. But at the same time not letting our policies be dictated by racist murderers.

I read in the paper this morning that the amount of terrorist attacks in 2005 was far greater than in 2003 or 2004. You still stand by your comment that we're in a safer world than before 9/11?

The invasion of Afghanisatan severely damaged Al-Qaeda but they are gaining strength in the propaganda war with the US bogged down in Iraq and the fact that extremists are using the war as proof that the US is engaged in a war on Muslims.

I want to see the end of al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups just as much as you but the US having a radical interventionalist agenda is only going to worsen the problem.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Really? Are you in Iraq to be able to make such a qualitative assessment? How do you know whats going on in Iraq (both before and after the war). I dont know either. But I do know one thing. What you see in the media is not what is going on in Iraq. The media has a funny habbit of reporting on the bad things, perhaps this is its role to keep governments in check, but the fact is that you do not see the 1000's of other people who now "have" (and more importantly "will" after the country is stabalised) a far better way of life than they did under sadam and his sons.

No one is in Iraq to make a "qualitative assessment" except for the media and the military. Since the military don't make a habit of carrying cameras around with them id say the media's our only real source of information.

Ive spoken to a number of people on the matter. Ive spoken to immigrants from iran and iraq and they all say the same thing. They all say that they are glad that the regime is gone, (in the case of iraqi's) or that they want to be liberated (in the case of iranians). Neither groups have condemned the USA's actions.

I can acknowledge that the people ive spoken to are separated from the war, and that perhaps it's hard to tell a grieving mother who just lost their child from a stray bomb, that the USA is here to save them - but it is important to acknowledge that there is a very compelling arguement to say that these people are going to be far better off as a result of the war.

So you're saying that because you've spoken to a few immigrants who werent in Iraq/Iran (what the hell does Iran have to do with it anyway?) during the war that that provides a compelling argument for people's livelihood being better?
Of course Saddam being gone is a good thing but that does not necessarily mean whatever happens after is conversely good.

Theres only one type of terrorist.

irrational extremists who hate the west, in particular america. These people are acting on preconceived ideas, and are going to do what they do no matter what. This arguement is fundamentally flawed. If we arent going to be proactive in our approach to terrorism what are we going to do? Sit back because we don't want to offend anyone else? Let bin laden and his mates roam free to do what they wish just so that a few fringe members of society don't cross that freshold of become a terrorist?

I think the best idea would be to actually CATCH BIN LADEN rather than invade a country that has no apparent connection with either terrorism or WMD's, oppressive dictator aside, although on that note why don't we just go around to every other country in the world with an oppressive dictator and remove them as part of the war on terror? Oh right, cos most other dictatorial nations don't have oil.

A more effective approach is to go in and dismantle these terrorist cells, and remove the networks which allow them to perform acts like 911. I mean I dont think I can say that there is not one person who has turned against the united states due to the war on terror, but I can say that since the war on terror, the fact that al queda has been severely damaged, we are in a safer world than we were in pre 911.

Absolute crap. Since 9/11 terrorist incidents have increased significantly. You're saying the Bali Bombings (Marriot Hotel and the Sari Nightclub), the London Bombings, the attacks on Danish embassies by Muslims, the Iraq war and the Iranian nuclear weapons program are all indicative of a safer world?

Keep dreaming...

EDIT: Just read an article in today's SMH saying that according to the US State Department reported terrorist incidents have increased exponentially since the Iraq invasion and largely because of it.

Terrorist cells dont need members as you suggest, they need money, weapons and infrustrucutre, and without that they are lifeless. This is what the war on terror is trying to achieve.

So instead of removing the people who make up an organisation the war on terror seeks to cut off their supplies by invading an entire country?
Good plan, i like it......

 

[Enlightened_One]

No one is in Iraq to make a "qualitative assessment" except for the media and the military. Since the military don't make a habit of carrying cameras around with them id say the media's our only real source of information.
..

How naive are you? You don't think the media isn't extrapolating and embellishing. Most war critics in the media are complete leftist pacifists (I'm not knocking the left mind), or else are hoping to sell a story. What a boring report it would be if the media reported that US Forces captured their hundredth mass murdering general under Saddam's regime and the locals praised them and all that.
Didn't you study Frontline and learn anything? It's controversy, violence and all that which sells for the media. Stop and have a clear look at the reporter whose word you're taking. He is trying to sell something, even if it's only his own agenda.