1. I don't rate Shorten
2. "lack of balls" means your lack of understanding I suspect unless you are calling for an all out NATO offensive against Russia.
If NATO had stepped in when Russia invaded Ukraine (took over the Crimean peninsula/area), the MH17 disaster would not have happened in the first place.
From most of Europe getting their energy from Russia, to the French supplying them warships. Yes, it is a complex situation, but a naughty child sometimes needs a smack on the bottom to keep them inline.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404
European leaders who are also involved should be holding their heads in shame - the term "lack of balls" quickly comes to mind.
Obama is, for a better word, a pansy. What is need is leadership during a crisis like this. Someone like JFK during the Cuban missile crisis needs to step up and tell Russia to piss off!
Agree. Obama is big on the fancy rhetoric and small on real action.
Perhaps an influencing factor is that there were (I think?) no Americans on board MH17?
Also that America has done more than its share of trying to run other nations?
Also that Obama is actually a bit scared of Putin. Putin is a bully. Someone like JFK would have stood up to him, but I don't reckon Obama has the b***s.
I'm sure the differing responses from TA and obama have nothing do with the fact that Australia has close to zero trade with russia and so can afford to burn fences whereas Obama needs Putin for the Iran negotiations etc. If only Obama would harden up like TA.
See above,Feel free to explain why the Coalition opposed the move for a seat tooth and nail, I'll give you a hint political bastardy of which Abbott is the master .
If NATO had stepped in when Russia invaded Ukraine (took over the Crimean peninsula/area), the MH17 disaster would not have happened in the first place.
From most of Europe getting their energy from Russia, to the French supplying them warships. Yes, it is a complex situation, but a naughty child sometimes needs a smack on the bottom to keep them inline.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404
No room to move there for Bill.
What though was Labor's motives for that UN seat ?
It took a Coalition government to put it to practical use.
I have been thinking the same and wondered if any others would say some thing.
What are a couple of hundred lightly armed Aussies going to do against thousands of armed lunatics fighting a war.
I wonder if the Coalition arrogance extends to pushing Russian armed militias around in its back yard?
Abbott's mission to Ukraine branded 'nuts'
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...randed-nuts-20140726-3cm8r.html#ixzz38cI4Gywl
This is a bipartisan operation, and any PM in this position would receive the support of the opposition.
It's worth mentioning that it's a lot easier to get a resolution into the UN Security Council when you actually have a seat on it, which is something the Rudd/Gillard governments worked very hard for.
If you want to be that mendacious, it could be said that Abbott and Bishop used the Council seat to make themselves look good in the eyes of the electorate. Now I hope you won't drag this incident down any further than you already have.
I think Tony Abbott is going to get some good recognition for the way he has initially led world outrage on the issue and then worked the UN to make effective security council resolutions on investigating the disaster.
I think the war talk rhetoric has subsided and been replaced with the personal horror of the loss of life and determination to have some sort of justice.
Good work..
Rudd desperately want that UN seat with the prospects of occupying the seat to big note himself with his BS spin and rhetoric to impress other nations that he should eventually be the UN Secretary General.
I just can't help contrasting the above remarks of Labor acolytes, with their grudging, critical tone, with that of basilio, someone very clearly of the Left in most of my observations, who said on the MH17 thread:
Do you have anything other than baseless conjecture and BS rhetoric to support your claim that Rudd supported a UN security seat because he wants to be UN Secretary General? Or do you just like to spout random hyperbole?
Can't you recognise that it's a pleasant change to have someone acknowledge the efforts of a PM he otherwise probably dislikes, just for that behaviour itself? I'd love to see more of this. There are good people on both sides of politics, and good ideas on both sides.I notice you don't criticise the grudging critical tone of people who can't bring themselves to acknowledge the work done by the previous Labor governments in getting a seat on the security council.
Yes the government has done all it could in this crisis, but it couldn't have done as much as it has without the previous work by Rudd and Bob Carr, so why not give some credit where it's due ?
DB008 seems the only person on this forum capable of being fair minded enough to simply acknowledge that that work gave us an advantage in this situation that we would not otherwise have had.
A quick glance to me suggests that main theme is public vs private funding.
A quick glance to me suggests that main theme is public vs private funding.
He's offering to fund a greater proportion of national road projects relative to the states leaving state governments with more to invest in public transport such as urban rail but that's another story.The PM wants to be know as Mr Infrastructure, and he's flat out refused to invest in public transport, disregarding that this might produce the biggest returns on investment.
Fairer path to a balanced budget
Date
July 28, 2014 - 12:24AM
Ross Gittins
Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott are perfectly right in saying we need to get the budget back into surplus, we need to make a start now and that this will inevitably involve unpopular measures.
But this makes it all the more puzzling that, lacking a majority in the Senate and being unable to claim a "mandate" for breaking many election promises, they should adopt such a highly ideological and unfair collection of budget measures.
In a three-part essay on John Menadue's blog last week, Dr Michael Keating, former senior econocrat, argues that as a nation we're "unlikely to succeed in charting a viable way forward to fiscal sustainability until governments are prepared to subject their views to a proper conversation based on a clear appreciation of the pros and cons of the different alternatives.
"Only in that way can the public support be built that is required to achieve future fiscal sustainability. In present circumstances it is hardly surprising that this necessary support is not forthcoming, when less than 12 months ago the government promised in the election to both spend more and tax less and now seeks to impose a most unfair budget on the community with no prior warning nor any such mandate."
If we are to chart a way forward and establish the necessary public understanding and consensus, he says, we particularly need to drop the ideology surrounding the merits of taxation versus expenditure and consider the claims of each tax and expenditure proposal on its merits.
You think simplistic slogans are limited to one of politics or just Tony Abbott.I have very little time for Tony Abbott. I think he has singlehandedly destroyed the capacity of the Australian community to have sensible discussions on complex political issues. His use of simplistic slogans like Stop the Boats , and Abolish the Carbon Tax as policy has made intelligent debate very difficult.
No qualifiers. No criticisms. Simply an acknowledgement of good handling of a crisis situation.
I have little in common with basilio's world view, but do appreciate the simple generosity of spirit shown in this post.
I agree strongly with that Ross Gittens article.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?