What a shallow election discussion from Labor! What stupid four slogans from the Liberals!

Honest - even being a member of the ALP - I love the result and I like the aspect that the Greens had much gains. Maybe their influence will move Australia forward.

Hopefully this is a wake-up call to move away from shallow arguments, away from stupid slogans towards concrete policy with vision to maximise future outcomes for Australia and not just to try to win the next election.

History:

1950 Robert Menzies (founder of the Liberal Party) sent Australian troops to Korea on request of the UN Safety Council.

1962 Robert Menzies (Liberals) sent Australians for no good reasons to Vietnam.

2001 John Howard (Coalition) sent troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden. Now suddenly the goals have changed. Now we fight the Taliban while Osama nearly is forgotten.

2003 John Howard (Coalition) repeated the axes of evil slogans of his mate Bush like a parrot and followed him to the Iraq war without a UN mandate and based on lies.

Questions never asked:

Q1. How much did the Iraq and Afghanistan involvement cost the Australians in comparison to normal army duties?

Q2. What daily additional costs currently apply to support our troops in Afghanistan in comparison to keep our borders safe?

Q3. Why should Australian soldiers defend our country in Iraq and Afghanistan to make Australia a safer place, instead of protecting our real borders?

Q4. Why is this topic taboo to talk about in general and in an election campaign?

Who has the answers?

The Liberals are responsible to have initiated the cause for all life's lost in these wars.

These wars have probably cost Australians financially more than ALP ever has wasted with alleged economic miss-management.

Unfortunately the ALP has not the guts to end our involvement in the middle east.

The only party which would support this idea and would oppose involvement in wars are the Greens.

Based on these historical records I never will vote for the Liberals or for the Nationals.

Chris

Strong comments Chris, but don't you feel that despite the lib's starting this we still have a responsibility to exit in a way that will do the least amount of harm for the real victims of these conflicts, that being the innocent peoples of Afganistan and Iraq.
I don't disagree with you over the wrongs nor the gravity of those actions taken by the former government. The electorate have been so lost in their own greed for so long that what we have done in the way of foreign policy for many years has been meaningless to them.

Our current situation in our relationship with the US is with out doubt unhealthy. We have become scared and dependant on the might of the US and the ANZUS treaty. A true friend would have stood up to them and pointed out the folly of the actions and been a good mate. I have said before our actions over the current wars have been more like a friend that let's their best mate drive drunk.
Has anyone else noticed that these conflicts have gone on longer than either the first or second world wars.

Just reflecting on Anzus, the US originally had no interest in a formal treaty alliance with Australia and New Zealand, what bulldozed Anzus through to fruition was the victory of Mao Tzu Tung in China and Communist North Korea’s invasion of South Korea. Those two events heralded the beginnings of the Cold War and it was only then that the US decided that it needed a NATO equivalent alliance in the Asia/Pacific Region to contain the spread of Communism in Asia.

The US decided on an alliance with Japan, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand as the combination that could best mirror NATO in the Asia/Pacific. However Phl, Au and Nz were fearful of a rearmed Japan and so the US compromised and offered a multiple of bilateral treaties with those nations and in the case of Au/Nz a trilateral treaty was formalised in 1951 with Anzus.

Australia expected that the treaty engendered equality in that Australia would be an equal partner thus granting free Australian access to the Pentagon and CIA planning and Intel. For the US however it was inconceivable that a foreign much smaller power be granted such open access and that remains so to this day.

So from conception there existed feelings of political polarity, of opposing attributes and tendencies felt by Australia to the treaty. I assume the same for Nz because they weren’t shy about enacting their own policies knowing full well that they would be at odds with Anzus, vis a vie the expulsion of Nz from the treaty by the US for enacting its policies of a Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific and Nz in 1984.

The wording of Anzus is somewhat obtuse and there are no bullet proof guarantee’s that the US would commit to the defence of Au or Nz should they come under direct threat or even attack. It only states that “Any response to a threat would be in accordance with the constitutional processes of each side”. What does that mean? I dunno but it sure doesn’t look like a guarantee of help to me.

Greens represent no more than 15% of Australians.
Single issues in single seats,states in the case of NSW may lift them some times.
But always they will fall back, maybe if left alone to talk as that foolish woman has much lower.
I am content not to have greens control our defense policy's.
In fact lets get back in to Parliament, put the hard bills up, and hold the DD election, except the winner and save us becoming an international joke.

If you want to know what and why, It's in earlier news papers and on the internet.
In the late 1970's, A map of the middle East appeared in our newspapers, showing oil wells in Iraq put there by the US and oil wells in Afghanistan, put there by Russia. A note with this map read “US Congress has provisional plans to take over the middle east oil fields if there is any further reduction of supply”

When the attack on the twin towers was being shown, or possibly the next day at the site, a man who seemed to be a reporter, could be heard saying something like “they supplied them with weapons”. I must admit that what I heard then was probably not anything like those words, but they made me take a bit of notice at the time.

Jan 11th 2004. O'Neill tells '60 Minutes' Iraq was ' Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11.
According to documents provided by former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush, 10 days after taking office in 2001, instructed his aides to look for a way to overthrow the Iraqi regime. A secret memo entitled “Plan for post-Saddam Iraq” was discussed in January and February 2001, and a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield contracts”, included a map of potential areas for petroleum exploration.[84]The US congress supplied weapons to Afghan forces to take over the Middle East Oilfields, and this was the precedence to the attack on the Twin Trade Towers and the White house. Lookup “Bush sought way to invade Iraq”, Look up "60 Minutes" on the internet.

Belly,
The Greens represent the 13.9% of the vote they got. As a result they only have is it 8 seats in the senate? Not many really.
The powerful position they now have in the balance of power role is only existing because of the childish immaturity of the major parties. If they would vote together on well structured legislation instead of being negative for no other reason than to be negative then the who debate may well become more balanced.
A good example was the ETS, we had agreement then the opposition had to do the dirty and fail to be good to their word. This left the whole ETS open to the greens to demand unsustainable outcomes. They now have an even better position with which to pressure for those outcomes thanks to pig headedness.

Thanks Westralis for the good information and pointing to trilateral ANZUS treaty as well as pointing out the importance of having access to intel and Pentagon planning.

It only seems that the intel received from the US in regards of Iraq for sure was distorted, false and misguiding. Andrew Wilkie even warned about the misleading information – good on him. I am also not convinced that all US information about 911 fed to the world is correct and could be held up under independent scrutiny.

Having a treaty doesn’t mean that the small brothers have to accept everything what big brother is saying. Only because the US have carried the biggest burden during WWII in the region does not mean that we have to be thankful in such a submissive way that we are unable to criticise US policies when they turn evil.

New Zealand took its stand. Its female prime minister faced the challenge and said no to join the states of the willing. If our tiny neighbour – also a member of ANZUS - had the guts to oppose US policies then why not Australia as well? Did the planned free trade agreement play a role or was it just mate-ship between Bush and Howard?

I am sorry Belly.
Australia does not have to be an international joke due to the lack of a single party majority in parliament.

I am not convinced that a political system with two domination big parties is the best way for democracy. Switzerland has a hung parliament since 1852 and its government is absolutely stable :-).

Australia’s reputation took big hits in Europe some years ago due to per capita pollution and especially John Howard’s immigrant policies breaching basic human rights. No wonder Australia does not want to sign the Human Rights Charter because we are on the best way to re-implement these bad policies.

The only Australian joke is called "fair go". It doesn't exist - at least not for everyone.

Chris

Well belly, on this occasion I say I have to agree with you.

Bally; Sound like the grumblings of an old man, dd election.
There's no reason we can't have a functional govt;
It probably goes in favor of a republic if we do have stupid blockages in parlament.
The GG is on Jules side anyway.
Could you imagine Tony as prime minister really.

Could you imagine Tony as prime minister really.
579,
easy, considering the alternative. How much more damage do you want before you can see what's being done ? Just utterly puzzling !

Some say, can we trust abott as Pm. Fair question, but, considering the two people who led labor on a path of 'continued waste' are still there and watched over projects, such as fuel watch, grocery watch, the solar and pink bats debarcles and who can forget the Copenhagen adventure, can we really expect them to roll out a $43billion NBN plan and not stuff it up.

You're kidding!

Tony as PM?

I would like to have him as training partner in sports and that would probably be fun. Considering him as an intellectual sparring partner makes me feel annoyed and bored already in advance and up to now I never heard from him a fluent longer speech without interrupting a a a's.

Julia in this respect is a bit better, but she reminds me of a radio series we listened to before going to bed - soft spoken fairy tales - making us feel sleepy and sending us to dreamland

[“Having a treaty doesn’t mean that the small brothers have to accept everything what big brother is saying. Only because the US have carried the biggest burden during WWII in the region does not mean that we have to be thankful in such a submissive way that we are unable to criticise US policies when they turn evil.”]

Yes you’re right in that the minor signatories to an alliance with a much larger global superpower should not have to prostrate themselves to the superpowers every whim. Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam have always championed a policy of an independent Australian voice in the alliance; mind you Whitlam paid the price when he became an active CIA target.

Gough got the call “onya bike” from the GG just as he was about to table in Parliament the results of an investigation into the CIA’s covert activities in Australia. Funny that, but in politics, personal and governmental moralities fly out the window as cunning and sly take root.

The public relations arm of Gov’t’s always display a shop front agenda for the consumption of the morally righteous and for the portrayal of an altruistic nature. But behind that shop front are the true lies and motivation’s that belie that which is displayed.
New Zealand has consistently shown a spine that displays neither fear nor favour to any above the needs of her own people first. Sticking to her own imperatives resulted in the US expelling New Zealand from the Anzus Treaty but legs of lamb stamped product of New Zealand still populate the supermarket freezers of the US.

That’s something to be admired (the plucky spirit of defiance not the legs of lamb) and Australia’s wishy washy wannabe pollies need to take heed of our tiny cousin’s example and grow some gonads.....oh err...ovaries. Is the treaty valid if one tripartite-ee is expelled? Defunct I would have thought? I hope so course that would put Howard in an even worse legal situation.

Continued............

...............continued.

As to the overall perception of the Australian populace regarding the motivation’s of the US in Asia Pacific Region during WW2 – much of it is total fantasy. The US did what it did in the WW2 Asia Pacific Theatre for its own reasons, its own agenda not because it was helping Australia out by stopping a Japanese invasion.....no, my goodness far from it.

The US priority was the return of the Philippines which would be followed by direct non-stop firebombing of Japanese cities in a vengeful blood lust payback for Pearl Harbour. There was never any Allied strategy for the defence of Australia because Australia was never under a threat of invasion; it was never a concern of Churchill or Roosevelt.

PM Curtin’s pronouncement of “The Battle for Australia” after the fall of Singapore was a myth that existed in Curtin’s mind and those of the larger Australian population that he was able to convince with propaganda that utilised hoax materials such as Japanese maps captured from Japanese troops in China (unauthenticated) that showed arrowed invasion points circling the Perth Region and Northern Australia resplended with Japanese writing. Hoax panic sightings of Japanese sailors/troops in northern Queensland and the NT, even the Brisbane Line was pure fantasy, displaying forged currencies intended for use in Indonesia and New Guinea etc. etc. etc.

Curtin disseminated his evidence of the impending invasion behind “closed door” press briefings and the public swallowed it all up.
PM Churchill and President Roosevelt conferred with PM Curtin on the fact that there was not one piece of evidence to confirm a Japanese plan to invade Australia and that such a huge undertaking was beyond Japan’s military capabilities, but to no avail Curtin was convinced otherwise.

Continued.....................

…………………continued.

With time and Allied victorious advancements pushing the Japanese back further and further Curtin finally succumbed to reality and recanted in 1943.

There’s every possibility that Curtin’s great anguish, his worry over his charge of - Australia – overtaxed his physical abilities contributing to his early death in July 1943. His body was returned to his adopted Perth for burial at Karrakatta Cemetery.

The oft quoted “Battle of the Coral Sea” as the battle in defence of Australia is a fantasy. The battle was to stop a Japanese Navel Task Force from attacking Port Moresby from its sea approaches, the US believed that the Japanese control of the whole of New Guinea was not in the US interest. Australia didn’t factor into the effort other than its military support for the US defensive counter attack. Another oft quoted fantasy is the litany of US boys who paid the supreme sacrifice in the defense of Australia that liter the beaches of islands from Australia to Japan.

The last time I heard that one was when Joe Hockey regurgitated it sitting next to the new US Ambassador to Australia during Q & A on the ABC. Talk about cringe factor!

The Japanese attacks that did occur on Australia were hunts in search of US military assets thought to be in those areas. Some US assets were found and bombed such as those in Darwin Harbour but in general there was nothing in the target areas to bomb so aircraft made the return journey to their bases in Indonesia with their ordinance still on board. To lighten the load and thus increase range, they dropped their bombs anywhere for instance the bombing of Exmouth WA was ostensibly to sink US submarines based there, when none were found they dropped their bombs on opportunistic targets on their way back to Indonesia. Onslow, Port Hedland and Broome were some of those opportunistic targets that were bombed just because they happened to be on the way back to base.

End....