I'm buggered if I know.
Who to vote for? I can't think of a reason to publicly support anybody in this election. Howard is an arse-licker, which in itself is no reason to dismiss him from contention. Trouble is, he's reckless to boot. He committed us to a war in which we had no rational reason to participate and then was surprised when this participation brought unwanted attention from (may as well offend everyone) the 'towel-headed camel-fuckers'*. Nobody is suggesting that these people are right - or even rational - but to deny the connection is to deny reality and I don't want a delusional leader who is channeling Menzies. Remember, Menzies was dumped for a lefty during the war. As an aside, a lot of allied leaders were lefties during the war, Curtin ( and later, Chifley), FDR, even Stalin. Of course, the dopey right will also tell you that because he led the National Socialist Party, Hitler was also a lefty, which must mean that Kim Jong-il is a great democratic leader, after all, it is the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (or something like that). On top of this, I can't think of one way that the policies of the Federal government have improved my life.
Which leaves Latham and the Diet-Liberals. We shouldn't have gone to Iraq, there are other priorities that we should have been attending to, like South-East Asian security; but now that we are there, we should stay there. Not because of any 'message' we might be sending, or any perceived appearance of 'weakness' but because it is only fit and proper that, when you contribute to making a mess, then you contribute to cleaning it up again. 'Bring the boys home' is a stupid policy. At least a labor government may delay the sale of Telstra, but it was those bastards who started the whole privatisation thing in the first place. As I have said before, I can think of no single instance when the privatisation of anything has improved my quality of life.
As I live in the bush, I suppose I should mention the Nationals. They are alleged to represent the bush (I'm not sure that it needs representing) and yet roll over on every major policy in order to preserve the coalition. I wouldn't vote for them anyway, but that's another matter.
The Greens seem to have some sort of ethical standards, but the talent pool could use some chlorine. The Democrats have pretty much used up all the good-will I may have had for them and I can't think of anybody else. If Screaming Lord Such hadn't died he could have started an Oz wing of The Monster Raving Loony Party. Perhaps we could get an Oz version of Jello Biafra's 1984 California Gubernatorial thing happening with Jay from Frenzal Rhomb. USAnus instead of California Uber Alles. Even revive one of the parties from the first ACT self-government elections, The Vine-Ripened Sun-Dried Tomato Party, or my personal favourite - The Party, Party, Party Party.
*Quote from a George Clooney movie, Three Kings(?).
posted by Dirk at 11:49 am
6 Comments:
We shouldn't have gone to Iraq, there are other priorities that we should have been attending to, like South-East Asian security;I hear this all the time but what does it actually mean. Are you suggesting that the contingent we sent to Iraq should have been located in SE Asia ? Where and to do what exactly ? Over and above what limited scope we already have there ?
The only thing I can think of in what you suggest is putting more undercover spooks there. Otherwise, we already are surely doing as much as we logistically and diplomatically can in SE Asia...
Jafa
there's no point putting more spooks anywhere, our leaders don't appear to be listening to them anyway. sure that could be just the benefit of hindsight, but they've certainly got a pretty good reputation for ignoring them and then rattling off any old rubbish, like the sms warning for the bombing in indonesia.
it would be nice if they didn't feel the need to put the right "spin" on every goddamn thing, and when (and if) they get the facts, they actually publish them somewhere. ok, sure half the spin we get is out of control newspapers, but by the same token, downer never does himself any favours. surely he can't be as inept as he's portrayed?
- sorry, that's my ignorant rant for today.
Jafa,
Australia is not located in the middle-east, nor are we a world power (being a world powers bum-boy is not the same). We are located in South-East Asia and that is where our defence forces should be. Doing what exactly?... defending US, Australia, hence the name, defence forces. Invading another country on the basis of hearsay and innuendo for reasons which, even now are subject to change does not qualify as defending our sovereign nation. I would ask you, since I hear your argument fairly often, why we invaded Iraq and not Liberia, Sierra Leone or North Korea. Incidentally if GWB wins, which seems likely, I have a feeling, totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, that the U.S. will give North Korea a bit of a touch-up. Dubya and, more importantly, the brains behind Dubya are the sort of people who keep score and they lost that one the first time. I have heard no credible explanation that would have given Iraq any more importance than fifty or sixty other countries, certainly nothing by any politician of any country.
talent pool could use some chlorine.Like it. Don't like it that you don't like the Libs. But like it. I will steal it.
Bugger Liberia, what about Zimbabwe first... Don't write off Iraq just yet, the jury is still out. It's a worthwhile exercise, if only to demonstrate to terrorists and arseholes we ain't going to allow murderous dictators threaten peace and liberty. North Korea ? cool... Jafa
Jafa,
been thinking about this a bit more and I've come to the conclusion that the reason the world's policeman hasn't invaded North Korea is the same reason they gave for Iraq, WMD... North Korea actually HAS them.
Still waiting for reasons to invade Iraq and not (insert third world nation of choice here).
Post a Comment
<< Home