Brendan Nelson new Opposition Leader (3 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

http://www.nelsonfacts.com/

“Mother of all scare campaigns”

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Well I believe that's mostly his wife's work, right?

 

[withoutaface]

He's the second richest, but he still can't manage money right?

His woman balances the books while he slaves away in the kitchen and drives the kids to school.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Well I think he was brilliant as Education minister, he gave us VSU.

Which I suppose is unfair on non-working families

That scare page has more Labor 07 campaign cliches than you can poke a stick at (without throwing a fair go out the back door)

 

[jb_nc]

Seing the lying fucktard loose his seat was nice, but personally I would have prefered to see him leave office in a wooden box.

Calm down

 

[_dhj_]

His background? You do realise we just elected the second richest man in parliament prime minister, right?

It's not about the net wealth but about the image he resonates. There are many insurmountable problems with that image, but they are basically caused by the fact that he's achieved too much in his life. Of course it sounds illogical, but people do not reason logically when it comes to forming impressions.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Awesome man meet you on the Grassy Knoll. You're doing one for the greater good.

Well I don't believe in the eye for an eye thing myself, but he raises a valid point. The man should still be held accountable for murder while in office.

 

[morganforrest]

Do we then do the same for Churchill, JFK etc....other leaders whose decision to go to war also directly cost lives??

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Unless you want to go and retroactively assassinate every prime minister because people have died under the watch of every single one through some form of miscommunication of governmental directive, then don't post retarded bullshit.

Miscommunication of government directive? He made a conscious decision to invade a country. That's killing, it ought to be punishable by law.

Do we then do the same for Churchill, JFK etc....other leaders whose decision to go to war also directly cost lives??

Did they invade the country at first? Did they do so for a valid reason?

 

[withoutaface]

Miscommunication of government directive? He made a conscious decision to invade a country. That's killing, it ought to be punishable by law.



Did they invade the country at first? Did they do so for a valid reason?

I believe the Bay of Pigs and the bombing of Dresden would both fit the bill.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I believe the Bay of Pigs and the bombing of Dresden would both fit the bill.

Was the bombing of Dresden in response to a direct threat from Hitler? Like...he was actually invading other countries and visibly massing weapons of...attack. If that's the case with Kennedy then I offer no defense for him either.

 

[walrusbear]

a shitload of people didn't need hindsight in this particular case

 

[Enteebee]

Whatever, if Rudd was PM at the time we would have gone to war, the whole issue is for all practical purposes moot unless you truly supported the election of an anti-war candidate.

 

[Iron]

That's a pretty unfair comment considering that Labor opposed the war based on the insufficient case and public sentiment

 

[Generator]

That's a pretty unfair comment considering that Labor opposed the war based on the insufficient case and public sentiment

Re-writing History, Iron? If my memory serves, the ALP supported the war (with reservations) and none more so than Kevin Rudd.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Whatever, if Rudd was PM at the time we would have gone to war,

Wow. Now there's a statement drenched in factual evidence!

the whole issue is for all practical purposes moot unless you truly supported the election of an anti-war candidate.

Which I did. I voted Greens. Nyah.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Moderator and Revisionist I see. I'm fairly certain Rudd when he was Foreign Minister was for the War.

It appears the internet has been whitewashed and all of Rudd's stances are on the war retrospectively from what I can garner.

From wiki...

In this role, he strongly criticised the Howard government over its support for the United States in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent operations there, while maintaining Labor's position of support for the Australian-American alliance.

"Well, what Secretary Powell and the US seems to have said is that he now has grave doubts about the accuracy of the case he put to the United Nations about the claim that Iraq possessed biological weapons laboratories - the so-called mobile trailers. And here in Australia, that formed also part of the government's argument on the war. I think what it does is it adds to the fabric of how the Australian people were misled about the reasons for going to war."[14]

 

[Generator]

From wiki...

Neb, note the date of the article/transcript listed as footnote 14.

Edit: In my previous post I should have said the invasion and to a lesser extent the war that followed, but my point still stands.

Also, for those arguing that the ALP of 2007 was/is in favour of a withdrawl from Iraq, please take note of the fact that the ALP will only be withdrawing the combat component from Iraq. The security detachment will remain (few would dispute this), as will the naval and air forces stationed in the Middle East at large.

 

[Iron]

http://australianpolitics.com/news/2003/03/03-03-20a.shtml

I strongly resent the attacks on my character and heads will subsequently rofl

 

[Generator]

Parry and retaliatory slash noted, Iron, however, it would be best to remember that Labor's argument was based on the need for the issue to be dealt with by the UN, not the matter of intelligence and weapons of mass destruction.