Yes, runner, I realise you have deputised yourself as the official Abbott protector on OLO.

What I'm talking about are debating skills on this forum - as opposed to your handy little knapsack full of nasty epithets you sling at your fellow posters in lieu of real argument.

Political figures are lambasted all the time on this forum.

Calling your debating opponents "sick" and their views "corrupt" is what people do when they don't have the capacity to state their case otherwise.

Paul - I just don't get your position

How do you know exactly what level of deliberation occurred before Australia committed to the European and Pacific theatres of war (and if it was enough)? There are times when important decisions need to be made expediently. Just look at the current outcome of Obama's deliberating/dithering.

Regarding the Japanese expansion in the Pacific, how much more deliberation was required? Or perhaps maybe you think Australia should have sided with Japan against the Imperialist Yanks?

http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2014_03_20_Treasury_Bail_In.html This may be about a campaign to get rid of Abbott and he may be reluctant to bring in "bail in" ie a Cyprus style confiscation of bank deposits. If this happens they will have to bring in martial law to cope with the riots.

I think Malcolm Turnbull the ex- Goldman Sachs CEO of Aust will be far more ruthless than Abbott when it comes to economic fascism issues like "bail in".Remember our Govt has already confiscated $360 million in accounts not used for 2 yrs.

People are getting very nervous. The RBA reported last week that $10 billion has been withdrawn from our banks and held as cash at home. A further $ 15 billion it being held as cash overseas. This could OS people seeing our $ as a safer haven than US $.

ConservativeHippie; <<Paul - I just don't get your position>> I only gave you my interpretation of events in the first half of the twentieth century. As I took your <<What about the war against Fascism - World War II.>> as you offering an example of "deep deliberation" by Australia. I do not believe there was any such thing.

Before the outbreak of war in 1914 both the Labor Party and the Conservatives had committed Australia to the 'British Empire'. Even though war was declared during an election campaign which resulted in a Labor victory there was no "deep deliberation" by politicians as to what position Australia would take. Australia at the time did not possess an independent foreign policy. Again in 1939 PM Menzies did not need "deep deliberation" to declare war on Germany. Menzies famously said;
" Fellow Australians. It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war."
Australia's entry into WWII was the result of Great Britain declaring war. Australia's virtual non existent foreign policy at the time, had no bearing on Menzies decision.
With hindsight and given subsequent events some may say Australia's response at the time was fully justified, but that does not reflect any notion of "deep deliberation" on our part.

Dear Foxy,

I'm not sure the Russian military forces can be directly blamed for the shooting down of the Malaysian Airliner.

Here is a recording of the telephone intercepts made of the initial conversations between the rebel commanders soon after the plane came down.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003007434/intercepted-audio-of-ukraine-separatists.html

That is not to say there is not a degree of Russian culpability because there is.

Dear Arjay,

I saw Bob Carr at a library event which was part of writers week so it was more about his book than a speech but it may well have been recorded. I will ask for you. He was in fact directly challenged about his regard for Kissinger to which he offered a fairly unconvincing excuse about Kissinger's involvement in Chile. He did go on to acknowledge the US involvement in may coups particularly the overthrowing by the CIA of the democratically elected President of Iran. He said he had been told by a Saudi prince that until that moment tensions between Sunni and Shia were minimal.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Did Abbott plan to put armed Australian troops into rebel held territory to secure the crash site? Yes.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Australia-to-send-troops-to-MH17-crash-site-in-Ukraine-Tony-Abbott/articleshow/38991080.cms

Am I certain of the number? No, but it would have needed to be substantial.

Did Abbott negotiate with Russia or the rebels? No. He was in talks with the Ukranian government who didn't hold the territory.

Did Former Air Marshal Huston rule out Australian troop deployment within a couple of days after Tony's announcement? Yes he did.

“AUSTRALIA'S special envoy to the international MH17 mission has said military personnel will not accompany Australian Federal Police members to recovery bodies from the crash site in eastern Ukraine. Former Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston said it would be a non-threatening force that will be going in to the crash site, which is in the middle of a war-zone, led by civilians and police.”
http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/AFP-wont-be-joined-by-military-in-Ukraine-recover/2330663/

The facts fit Carr's version. It is over to you to furnish yours.

And what on earth do you claim as Abbott's diplomatic achievements?

Dear SteeleRedux,

I would like to quote to you parts of an article
written by Dr Al Kabaila, "Should We Care about
the Ukraine," which was published in the
Lithuanian newspaper, "Musu Pastoge," Nr. 12,
and which I have previously cited on this forum:

"What happened after World War II that enabled the
countries of Europe to develop in relative peace?"

"It was an agreement, often a tacit agreement, to
regard the territories of all independent states
as "exempt" from being taken over by their
neighbours in "small wars,"
small wars that often ended up by dragging other
neighbours in ever bigger and bigger wars."

"What happened now in Ukraine, breaks that tacit
agreement not to invade neighbours. The tacit
agreement that kept at least Europe in relative
peace for nearly three quarters of a century was
broken. The "Greater Russia," as the current leaders
seem to like to call the remnants of the Soviet
Empire, has invaded a part of another independent
country. Ukraine, and absorbed that part -
the Crimea, in to the "Greater Russia."

"The "referendums" to join up with the invading state
were taken after the invasion. It matters not that
the soldiers of the invading country removed insignias from
their uniforms. It does not matter how farcially unbalanced
the referendum questions were, it does not matter how
jubilantly the crowds in the capital of the "Greater Russia"
greeted the "new era" of expansion."

"What does matter is that this breach of the territorial
integrity of another country has started the new era. We are
returning to the pre-World War II behaviour of some
nations. It is a start of expansionism, ignoring all the
norms of international treaties and agreements."

"It is too easy to brush aside the events that are unfolding,
events which have in the past involved most countries of the
world into endless conflicts and horrific wars."

"Therefore it is not wise to ignore the fire that has already
started as nobody can predict where it will end."

cont'd ...