Bombertalk

for all of his anti-US presence in our country protests over the years he has Now towed the party line and is in "favour" of US bases in Australia...... shows shows personal preferences AREN'T allowed in party politics


surprised you didn't pick up on this one Filthy....... Oh hang on he's labour isn't he

I think he has recognized that the best way to effect meaningful political change is to work from within a major party.

Note: I am not a member of any political party, but I assume that is the theory...

Hmm, and what are the views of the former leader of the Australian Republican Movement now that he is entrenched in a royalist Party? You know the guy....the one that saw fit to lambast the Prime Minister for maintaining our British monarch as head of state......

Malcolm Turnbull wouldn't have sold his soul would he?

BenDoolan wrote:Hmm, and what are the views of the former leader of the Australian Republican Movement now that he is entrenched in a royalist Party? You know the guy....the one that saw fit to lambast the Prime Minister for maintaining our British monarch as head of state......

Malcolm Turnbull wouldn't have sold his soul would he?

What he and Stag said Dodge.

Any opinion on former ALP member Nelson who once boasted he had never Liberal

well replied .....


typically Dance around the question by deflecting attention onto someone else...



" US Forces Give the Nod....It's a Set-back for your Country"

dodgey wrote:well replied .....


typically Dance around the question by deflecting attention onto someone else...



" US Forces Give the Nod....It's a Set-back for your Country"

Well whatdya know....you've just discovered every politicians tactical response!

BenDoolan wrote:Hmm, and what are the views of the former leader of the Australian Republican Movement now that he is entrenched in a royalist Party? You know the guy....the one that saw fit to lambast the Prime Minister for maintaining our British monarch as head of state......

Malcolm Turnbull wouldn't have sold his soul would he?

Could have sworn he was still a Republican. Being a Lib is not a barrier to being a high profile Republican - Peter Costello anyone?

I stand corrected if he has publicly changed his views, but I don't think he has from memory.

dodgey wrote:well replied .....


typically Dance around the question by deflecting attention onto someone else...



" US Forces Give the Nod....It's a Set-back for your Country"

Of come on Dodge.... when you join a Political Party, you adhere to its rules and Policy's. Thats it. Anyway PG has ALWAYS been left of centre and his eco and environment credentials are far better than anyone in the Parliament of any Party. Joining the ALP means he is STILL centre left.

Nelson and Turnbull ratted on the ALP of which they were members and went 180* to join a Party they had previously scorned ...."John Howard has broken Australia's heart.." didn't Turnbull say after the Republic thing....so they could get Power. Power vs Principles. If they lose the next Election do you think either of them will hang around? Not likely.

Garrett is still closer to his Life Principles than either of those 2 twerps.

Staggy wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:Hmm, and what are the views of the former leader of the Australian Republican Movement now that he is entrenched in a royalist Party? You know the guy....the one that saw fit to lambast the Prime Minister for maintaining our British monarch as head of state......

Malcolm Turnbull wouldn't have sold his soul would he?

Could have sworn he was still a Republican. Being a Lib is not a barrier to being a high profile Republican - Peter Costello anyone?

I stand corrected if he has publicly changed his views, but I don't think he has from memory.

You may be right, he may not have denounced his republican ambitions, however, how does one join a political party that is ultimately monarchist after criticising and ridiculing the coalition leader for the defeat of the referrendum? Beats me. Malcolm Turncoat obviously sees more political opportunity of power than ideology on that issue.

I think it is a disturbing sign that even if the Liberals lose we may still have a lacky government.

Very much afraid you would be proven right on that score Sismis. I'm afraid this country's obsession with America stretches across all political divides...look at Hawkey, couldn't get into Gulf war 1 quick enough. I know the circumstances were different back then as that war was at least sanctioned by the UN but alas Australia still has the memory of the US ''Coming to save us'' in WW2 forever etched in our psychie.

I just wish we could be more like New Zealand, a tiny minow in the overall scheme of world significance much like us, we might not be quite as tiny, more like a fully grown minow, but still a minow. But the big difference is New Zealand knows it's just a minow, just like you or I know our place in society, so too does NZ know its place in the world.... Australia doesn't, it seems to think and acts like it's this major world power, making potential enemies of peoples all round the world. At this point in history it's the Muslims (and here we are with the country that has the world's largest Muslim population right on our doorstep) Before that it was the Commies and the Yellow peril. In future I can see the Ruskies becoming the baddies again, especially after Putin's recent comments on America. We slavishly and naively adopt the view that America's enemies (of which there are sooo many) are automatically our enemies.

It's going to take an extra-ordinary leap of faith for any future leader to have the guts to say or to clearly demonstrate, even ever so diplomatically to America...look we are still your friends, we still want to trade with you etc,etc, but the days of expecting us to automatically follow you into all your world conflicts are over. Because, one day, as sure as the Sun rises, we are going to get our noses well and truly bloodied and I'm sorry, but when that happens IMO anyone who thinks that the US will, as a matter of course, come running to save us is living in cloud cuckoo-land. Just like a NZ or a Canada or a Sweden or a Denmark, or any of the myriad other fully developed countries of this world that seem to get along quite ok without fawning over America the way we do.

But realistically, can you see that ever happening, no matter who is in power???

If it is such a crime to change your mind on an issue, Why doesn't mr Garret point out that Austrlaia has a GST? At least Garret has never lied to the electorate about his agenda.

And this Myth that Australia was "saved" by the U.S. in WWII... pffft. Anyone who has read anything about Australia's role in the pacific conflict will know that it was the political toughness of John Curtin and the determination of Australian servicemen that "saved" this country.

He's Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage. How much relevance is there between US bases & his current position?

Sounds like Howard & co. are deflecting criticisms as per usual.

Royza wrote:He's Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage. How much relevance is there between US bases & his current position?

none whatsoever...... just merely reminding the "lefties" in here that ALL Pollies from BOTH sides do backflips to suit when required

Just can't remember any other politician actually going so far as to write and record their protests

Since when is it against the law to change your opinion?

Offcourse the right-wing media will spend time on this change of opinion, to take attention away from the incompetance of the current administration.

Instead of the media, putting on a story showing the positives and negative of this issue, they spend time trying to divert attention from the Howard government.

dodgey wrote:

Royza wrote:He's Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage. How much relevance is there between US bases & his current position?

none whatsoever...... just merely reminding the "lefties" in here that ALL Pollies from BOTH sides do backflips to suit when required

Just can't remember any other politician actually going so far as to write and record their protests

True. But it was always going to be on the cards once he joined the party. & he mentioned that joining the party meant accepting the policies(agreeing with the details may be a different issue). You'd be pretty dumb to think that all Labor policies would change just to fit Garrett into the party(likewise for any politician).

If he spoke out against policy, it would've been a short stay. He'll make more of an impact being with them though. Especially in his current position & even more so if Labor get into power.

dingus wrote:If it is such a crime to change your mind on an issue, Why doesn't mr Garret point out that Austrlaia has a GST? At least Garret has never lied to the electorate about his agenda.

And this Myth that Australia was "saved" by the U.S. in WWII... pffft. Anyone who has read anything about Australia's role in the pacific conflict will know that it was the political toughness of John Curtin and the determination of Australian servicemen that "saved" this country.

While Australia was unbelieveably stoic in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. We (and the rest of the allies) would have been in real strife had the US not (belatedly) gotten involved. Their industrial might tipped the balance. Their battle with the Japanese Navy deflected a lot of attention. And in the end it was their troops who forced the Japanese back to japan.

While the current bloodthirsty regime in the white house is deplorable, you cannot deny their actions were instrumental in keeping us a free state.

Sismis wrote:

dingus wrote:If it is such a crime to change your mind on an issue, Why doesn't mr Garret point out that Austrlaia has a GST? At least Garret has never lied to the electorate about his agenda.

And this Myth that Australia was "saved" by the U.S. in WWII... pffft. Anyone who has read anything about Australia's role in the pacific conflict will know that it was the political toughness of John Curtin and the determination of Australian servicemen that "saved" this country.

While Australia was unbelieveably stoic in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. We (and the rest of the allies) would have been in real strife had the US not (belatedly) gotten involved. Their industrial might tipped the balance. Their battle with the Japanese Navy deflected a lot of attention. And in the end it was their troops who forced the Japanese back to japan.

While the current bloodthirsty regime in the white house is deplorable, you cannot deny their actions were instrumental in keeping us a free state.

I think a few Russians might argue with you there Sis. They took on and beat the major enemy....Germany....and lost 30 million doing so. US casualty's for the whole war on all fronts were 300,000 dead.

As for us being stoic...yes we were being the 1st of the allies to beat the Krauts at Tobruk and the Nips on Kokoda. And by War's end we had a million men/women under arms out of 8mil people. I think we had something like the 3rd or 4th biggest Navy and Airforce in the World!!!

Also the nips were driven back to Tokyo solely by the Yanks because politically McArthur was in conflict with Nimitz with a Political career in mind post war and didn't want us taking any of the "glory". They were welcome to their Tarawa's and Iwo Jima's...no thanks.

Filthy wrote:

Sismis wrote:

dingus wrote:If it is such a crime to change your mind on an issue, Why doesn't mr Garret point out that Austrlaia has a GST? At least Garret has never lied to the electorate about his agenda.

And this Myth that Australia was "saved" by the U.S. in WWII... pffft. Anyone who has read anything about Australia's role in the pacific conflict will know that it was the political toughness of John Curtin and the determination of Australian servicemen that "saved" this country.

While Australia was unbelieveably stoic in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. We (and the rest of the allies) would have been in real strife had the US not (belatedly) gotten involved. Their industrial might tipped the balance. Their battle with the Japanese Navy deflected a lot of attention. And in the end it was their troops who forced the Japanese back to japan.

While the current bloodthirsty regime in the white house is deplorable, you cannot deny their actions were instrumental in keeping us a free state.

I think a few Russians might argue with you there Sis. They took on and beat the major enemy....Germany....and lost 30 million doing so. US casualty's for the whole war on all fronts were 300,000 dead.

As for us being stoic...yes we were being the 1st of the allies to beat the Krauts at Tobruk and the Nips on Kokoda. And by War's end we had a million men/women under arms out of 8mil people. I think we had something like the 3rd or 4th biggest Navy and Airforce in the World!!!

Also the nips were driven back to Tokyo solely by the Yanks because politically McArthur was in conflict with Nimitz with a Political career in mind post war and didn't want us taking any of the "glory". They were welcome to their Tarawa's and Iwo Jima's...no thanks.

Yes the Russians were a glaring omision there...

Our commitment in people especially in areas which were half a world away was extraordinary. But my point was the INDUSTRIAL might of the US which turned around the war. I don't think there would be many who believe the war could have been won either front without the war machine the US became.

Filthy wrote: I think a few Russians might argue with you there Sis. They took on and beat the major enemy....Germany....and lost 30 million doing so.

Well that's not totally correct, the Russian did not take on and beat the major enemy, at least not at the beginning, they started happily sharing the spoils in Eastern Europe (Poland, Baltics, Eastern Slovakia, ...) with Hitler.
When Germany invaded Russia then they had no choice but fight for their lives. Stalin seriously mismanaged the Russian military in the pre-war years and his insane repression before, during and after did cost countless lives, possibly half the 30M.

Your point is still well taken, we owe the defeat of the totally evil Nazi Germany to the Russian armies that contributed immensely and at a very huge human cost, so thank you Russian soldiers, but no thanks to Stalin.

US casualty's for the whole war on all fronts were 300,000 dead.

Don't blame the US for losing "only" 300,000 people, the relatively low number showed that democracies with a lively public opinion have a natural respect for human life (at least in their own country). This said I find no excuse whatsoever for Hiroshima.

As for us being stoic...yes we were being the 1st of the allies to beat the Krauts at Tobruk and the Nips on Kokoda. And by War's end we had a million men/women under arms out of 8mil people. I think we had something like the 3rd or 4th biggest Navy and Airforce in the World!!!

Totally agree with this!

This said this is not because there is a dangerous idiot in the White House that you should totally revile the US - I know you don't. The US is quite similar to Australia in many ways and should always be viewed as a friend (but not as a master)- the issue is that good friends are allowed to criticize each other when wrong. Good friends also accept criticism.