The Australian reports the latest Newspoll has Labor’s two-party lead steady at 56-44. Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is up four points to 65 per cent, and Malcolm Turnbull’s is down one to 21 per cent. More to follow.
Also today was the latest weekly Essential Research survey, which has the Labor lead widening from 58-42 to 60-40. Also featured: “how important are the following issues in deciding how you would vote at a Federal election?” which party do you think best at handling them; the global financial crisis; climate change; and a broad-brush question on “independent Senators and government legislation”.
[New Zealand is an international parasite, relying on the US and Australia for protection]
This is a joke. What does NZ need protection from? And what would Australia need protection from if not for our adventures around the world? The evil Indonesians!?
[You know what will happen to people if the Taliban return to power so why the *bleep* are you proposing a strategy that will achieve just that?]
What you haven’t yet grasped is that simply sending in more troops isn’t going to make the Taliban go away.
The issues in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, for that matter are far broader then “Oh there’s a few bearded guys with guns, let’s ‘flush them out'”.
I agree with Diogenes that the war will continually get more unpopular but with bipartisan support for it I don’t think it’ll have any effect in changing anything. I don’t expect people a great many people will vote Green in 2010 because of their opposition to the war in Afghanistan.
1. It is no fluke that this Fitzgibbon debacle has surfaced at the time where the PM is meeting the President and is overseas for G20 talks.
2. Which one is Bolt trying to pull? There is no good war and bad war. One was justified and met with UN approval and the other was unjustified, with no UN approval and was therefore illegal.
3. The PM is acting in the best interests of Australia and those accusing him of acting in the interests of another country, such as Foreign Minister for China, should not be employed in the media and should be sacked instantly.
4. The Liberal Party cheersquad in the MSM will get their wish one day. Gillard will be PM but only after Rudd breaks Hawkies record. 😉
Turnbull and hokey have gone some way in taking Damien Hale’s Darwin marginal seat and making it safe. Guess it would be the same. Not a good idea to try and demonise our major job and revenue provider
[I’m not surprised that Gusface is opposed to the US alliance, but I am surprised to learn that he is also opposed to international trade. Perhaps he should join One Nation if they’re still around.]
WTF
Did your milk and bikkies sour this morning Adam???
I think this wins the award for greatest understatement in the history of the world:
[He(UK Defence Seceretary) indicated that Britain, which has deep historical ties with Pakistan]
Deep historical ties is a euphemism for being Pakistan’s colonial masters.
All in all though the West’s new strategy in AfPak makes more sense than the last one.
It took them 8 years but they finally figured out that drone missile attacks on random villages in Pakistan was making the problem worse and political and economic aid is the only thing that’s going to prevent people from running into the arms of the extremists. It’s a shame though that the aid is being filtered through extremely corrupt people and organisations.
[Deep historical ties is a euphemism for being Pakistan’s colonial masters.]
Isn’t that what he was referring to?
This http://media.theaustralian.com.au/multimedia/2009/03/28-g20/index.html makes it possible for Liberal hacks to compare Australia’s economy against the other G20 members.
I think it’s time for businesses to state outright that the Libs are trying to harm them and the economy with their block everything approach
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/29/2529049.htm?section=justin
[Isn’t that what he was referring to?]
Obviously, but it’s a very positive way of putting it.
Hockey was saying a few weeks ago that there was no need for the “RuddBank” because no banks were pulling out of the country.
[The Royal Bank of Scotland is one bank to announce it will be pulling out of project financing in Australia.]
Evan14 @ 1471,
[
evan14
Posted Saturday, March 28, 2009 at 11:01 pm | Permalink
A pathetic effort from the Swans tonight(after the first quarter).
Methinks it’ll be a bad season for them.
]
Agreed, not a good look to start the season, just saw on the sports ticker that they went 78 minutes without scoring a goal in the game. Ouch!
Adam suggested
And fredn who is not a New Zealander was incensed that someone who claims to be politically aware should write such rubbish, writing.
I suggest you go and look at the figure of troops and equipment supplied for INTERFET operation, and take particular note of who was the second largest contributor.
Ms Party
[You know what will happen to people if the Taliban return to power so why the *bleep* are you proposing a strategy that will achieve just that?]
1. Australia isn’t an international policeman.
2. Even if we were, you can’t change a country by invading it. It doesn’t work.
Centre
The UNSC never approved the invasion of Afghanistan. The US asked the Taliban to hand over various people. The Taliban asked what evidence the US had that they had done anything wrong. The US didn’t have any evidence so they invaded.
Ten years is a long time for the War to become unpopular.
[AUSTRALIAN troops are likely to spend a decade in Afghanistan by the time the war against the Taliban is over, an academic says.
Australian National University visiting fellow on defence studies, Clive Williams, says the fight with the Taliban will go on while US-aligned troops train an Afghan army.
”We’re there for probably a 10-year period,” Professor Williams told Channel Ten. ]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25258807-5005962,00.html
[In late 2001, the Security Council authorized the United States to overthrow the Taliban government, as an offensive against the terrorist al-Qaeda organization, said to be based in the country]
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/afgindx.htm
[ Oz
Posted Sunday, March 29, 2009 at 12:37 pm | Permalink
I think this wins the award for greatest understatement in the history of the world:
He(UK Defence Seceretary) indicated that Britain, which has deep historical ties with Pakistan
Deep historical ties is a euphemism for being Pakistan’s colonial masters.]
Techically, Pakistan was only formed as a consequence of Britain relinquishing it’s power in India. Britain was never the ‘colonial masters’ of Pakistan.
Tom.
PAAPTSEF
[The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom). There is some debate as to whether UNSC authorization was required, centered around the question of whether the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or an act of aggression.
Also, the U.S. Administration did not officially declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position has been successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.]
The UNSC authorised the International Security Assistance Force to take over AFTER Afghanistan had been invaded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
Centre at #1553
Its amazing to hear your point #3.
THe Chinese Minister for Propoganda and Ideology would be very pleased to hear your views. I can hear him now,
“Kevin, your mission is to silence the voices of disagreement in the Australian media”…
“we view these elements of the Australian media as dissidents and they must be stamped out…just look at how peaceful it is in Tibet now”
Showson @ 1558
Three cheers for MSM accuracy!
I think the citizens of South Africa might be surprised to note that their political leader is King Abdul Aziz al Saud. But not as surprised as the Saudi Arabians, who are -according to the mighty OO- led by Cristina de Kirchner.
Did noone think to check that their you-beaut, whizz-bang graphic contained actual facts? Clowns.
Diogs they had more authorisation to go into Afghanistan than Iraq.
Afghanistan is a mess because Dubya, supported by Howard, failed to finish the job. They who warned us all about cutting & running, did just that. There is no way Obama and Rudd will be making the same mistake. They will fix the mess that Bush & Howard left for them, no matter how long it takes.
[What does NZ need protection from?]
Just what they said in Norway and the Netherlands in 1939. What indeed?
INTERFET was a peacekeeping operation, not a defence operation.
Centre
It’s true they had more reason to go into Afghanistan but they treated the whole country as a terrorist state and pissed every Afghani off. They’ll never fix the mess. Afghanistan is unwinnable.
[Techically, Pakistan was only formed as a consequence of Britain relinquishing it’s power in India. Britain was never the ‘colonial masters’ of Pakistan.Tom.]
Technically, that is, if you’re into splitting hairs. Will ‘colonial masters of the territory now known as Pakistan’ make you happy?
Squiggle, yeah been given a mission by their Propaganda Minister LOL.
Can’t you see what a laughing stock the Liberals and their MSM cheersquad have become?
Diogs, does this sound familiar:
YES WE CAN
Btw, I hope that you will be prepared to be as hard on Obama as you were with Rudd on the ETS?
Centre
[Btw, I hope that you will be prepared to be as hard on Obama as you were with Rudd on the ETS?]
Of course. Obama has less of an excuse than Rudd. Rudd has a union lawyer with no understanding of science running his CC strategy. Obama has a Nobel Prize winning physicist with expertise in renewable energy. I’m expecting a lot more from Obama than Rudd.
That’s good Diogs. Don’t forget though, Rudds targets were for between 5% and 15%.
Centre
Rudd’s target was 5%. It can be increased if other countries do more than that. And Rudd hasn’t passed any legislation yet.
[Rudd’s target was 5%. It can be increased if other countries do more than that. And Rudd hasn’t passed any legislation yet.]
Centre, we’ve got to assume no other country will do more and be the ones who go to 25% to 40% to show them all how to do it. They will be so impressed they will move too. You just don’t get it.
Is Squiggle for real?
“It can be increased if other countries do more than that”
Sure, and to do more than what other countries are prepared to do, for a country like ours, would be irresponsible.
I think that’s a victory for Rudd over the Greens like a stroll in the park 😀
Abbott tries this line out for the 12,645th time:
[“I think Kevin Rudd is going to come back crashing to earth very quickly.”]
would be interested to know his definition of “quickly”
http://www.theage.com.au/national/costello-only-interested-in-being-a-good-mp-abbott-20090329-9f6c.html
“Is Squiggle for real” I hope not.
Or maybe the whole Labor Party are really Chinese spys.
No GB, we should set the most aggressive targets because we, and only we alone, can save world!
Diogenes, one websites word against another?
The Wiki citation for their claim is a dead link, which doesn’t help much.
[ 39(^ “Security Council Resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001): What They Say and What They Do Not Say, European Journal of International Law”. http://www.ejil.org/forum_WTC/ny-stahn-01.html. ]
Perhaps the Murdoch press could investigate another Chinese connection – that between a certain media mogul and his oriental wife.
[The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)]
Of course the U.S. didn’t need UN security council authorisation. Part of the U.S. was attacked by members of an organisation based in Afghanistan that openly admitted to organising the attack.The then Afghanistan government (i.e. the Taliban) refused to hand over the people who admitted organising the attack, therefore the U.S. could assume that the Taliban was an accessory to the attack.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are the guilty parties here, not the U.S. government. Also the General assembly of the U.N. voted almost unanimously condemning the September 11th attacks, a few miscreant states like Cuba and North Korea abstained.
In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit I’m thinking of eating some beef and black bean tonight.
ShowsOn – and the whole basis of Australia going in to Afghanistan was our ANZUS treaty wasn’t it?
It wasn’t because our PM liked getting scratched on the belly by George W (that was another war).
[Diogenes, one websites word against another?
The Wiki citation for their claim is a dead link, which doesn’t help much.]
It’s a pointless argument, when terrorists based in one country attack another, the country where the terrorists reside must do everything possible to bring the terrorists to justice. The Taliban OPENLY said they would not assist the U.S. in hunting down Al Qaeda operatives. Given those circumstances the U.S. was effectively COMPELLED to get rid of the Taliban because they couldn’t allow any bad precedent to be set that countries could harbour terrorists and get away with it.
The bigger question is why the hell did the international community allow the Taliban to government Afghanistan for YEARS before September 11th? While they were blowing up ancient relics and funding narco-terrorism, the international community were doing NOTHING.
[ShowsOn – and the whole basis of Australia going in to Afghanistan was our ANZUS treaty wasn’t it? ]
Even if Australia didn’t have a formal treaty with the U.S., we would’ve helped an ally given that it had just been subjected to a horrific terrorist attack.
If memory serves, an attack on U.S. territory counts as an attack on the metro area of an Australian city (and vice versa). Australia must aid the U.S. until the UN Security council formulates a more cohesive plan. So if you want to minimise Australia’s responsibility in the circumstances, then it is best for the UN security council to come to a solution to the problem.
UN might be the way to go for tackling emmisions trading too, according to ObamaUS President Barack Obama is launching a Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate to help facilitate a UN agreement on global warming, the White House says.
Leaders from 16 major economies, including Australia, have been invited to a preparatory session on April 27 and 28 in Washington to “help generate the political leadership necessary” to achieve an international pact to cut greenhouse gas emissions later this year, it said in a statement.]
“Mr Obama wants to cut US emissions by roughly 15 per cent back to 1990 levels by 2020”
That falls within the range proposed by the Aus. government doesn’t it?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/29/2529056.htm
[
[In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit I’m thinking of eating some beef and black bean tonight.]
Grog, that’s alright. as long as you dont mix it with the Red Shezuan Hot Bean Paste. Methinks the Iron Chef Chen Kenichi is in big trouble.
Diog, what is happening with the love-in Obi has with the Europeans? You know, Berlin is mine stuff. that was not even a honeymoon, let alone consummation between Obi and the Europhobes.
PAATSEF
This is the NATO document outlining what their mandate was from each country and organisation for invading Afghanistan. They specifically say that the UNSC “has not authorised any military response”.
That’s two chocolate milk vodka smoothies you owe me. 😀
[United Nations. The U.N. Security Council has expressed “readiness to take all
necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks,” but has not formally authorized
any military response. U.N. officials condemned the reported U.S. attack on a facility
housing U.N. aid workers, killing four and injuring others.]
http://www.nato.int/isaf/topics/mandate/unscr/resolution_1563.pdf
Finns
What can I say? Hillary has done an enormous amount of damage in Europe and I’m sure Obama will be able to win them over with his intelligence, wit and charm. 😉
Whoops! Wrong link. It’s the Congress report.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/RL31152.pdf
Isnt it odd, everyone slavishly got behind the Bush agenda of fear and hate but now with a POTUS with a agenda of repair and intellectual rigor? Some are only happy if they can have leaders they hate in power. The others the will seek ways to undermine. This is a sickness of the left.
Centre it wouldn’t have mattered if Canberra had won now, ’cause those mighty Rabbitohs got up yay!! 🙂
I might as well link what we’re all talking about. There’s a good article at the NYT about it. I’m surprised that the Europeans are upset about the Stimpac which will help them. I think it’s more the idea that the US are going to try to make them do the same thing.
[The challenges stem in part from lingering unhappiness around the world at the way the Bush administration used American power. But they have been made more intense by the sense in many capitals that the United States is no longer in any position to dictate to other nations what types of economic policies to pursue — or to impose its will more generally as it intensifies the war in Afghanistan and extracts itself from Iraq.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/washington/29global.html?hp
Finns
Your repeated prophecies about declining US power in economic and foreign policy seems to be becoming true. Adam will not be happy. 👿
1598,
Vera, good on you, the Kangaroos (AFL) got up too to the tune of 34 point margin. Pending the result of the last two games, we are second on the ladder (out of 16). This is the first weekend of our season 🙂 ……