MRAA (ie MRAV) bashing

X-No-archive: yes
Boxer wrote in message ...

Damnit; I didn't realise those bastards had weapons of lass-destruction!

 

You do know that someone has already done a pilot on these changes for
us, don't you ? It's NZ. No, unemployment won't worsen, highly unlikely
so your party membership is safe (as I'm sure yuo knew it would be), and
I don't recall anyone suggesting it would worsen.

Here's what it will do, it's very simple, it entrenches poverty because
it removes loadings and hence will drop the incomes of certain people
(particularly students and single mothers)

It reduces quality of life for a number of people by reducing
disincentives to employers to trade and operate 24x7.

It reduces the average wage of the bottom 15% (+/- 2%) of the population
by income.

It may reduce GDP by a small amount because low income earners tend to
spend all their income.

It's not the end of the world but it's not a particularly good idea

JL

 

You tend to oversimplify Nev. We are involved in a worldwide war on
terror that will not end anytime soon.

Do you call for the police to be disbanded because crime is still
happening? Of course not.

There is no one battle that we can fight to stop terrorism.

I'm not, contrary to your assertion, scared of a terrorist attack. I
recognise that it's likely to happen here. There's a big difference.

My job is to be prepared in case the shit *does* hit the fan. My job is
to help save lives in the event of an attack.

Yet, I've more than once been accused of not having any regard for human
life. I'll tell you a secret. I don't do my job for the money.

Yes. They were and still are. You're starting to get it. Try reading a
few Iraqi blogs.

So who are the Iraqi Army defending themselves against? They're not an
invading force. What about the Iraqi police? Are they an invading force?

How is suicide bombing a hospital "defending themselves from the
invading forces"?

How is deliberately detonating a car bomb among a crowd of children
"defending themselves from the invading forces"?

How is Zarqawi's latest bombing in Jordan which killed a senior
Palestinian minister "defending themselves from the invading forces"?

Zarqawi recently called for all shiites in Iraq to be killed. He must be
"defending themselves from the invading forces", eh?

Nev, You need to differentiate the average Iraqi from the animals that
only want to kill anyone, whether they be coalition forces, Iraqi army,
Iraqi police or even any Iraqi, "regardless of their gender, age, or
occupation."

 

X-No-archive: yes

What's Bin Laden got to do with us attacking Iraq? Our "reason" was the
imminent threat from the WMDs wasn't it?
~

God I hope you feel as silly as you look then!
Our nation's security has never been even slightly threatened (except in the
rhetoric of the scare-mongering pollies) while our job and financial
security is in clear-and-present-danger!

 

X-No-archive: yes
Tim Moran wrote in message ...

~
This is serious Moran!

 

Lucky you...

JL
(crime rates must be low in Canberra)

 

<applause>

Yes, that's it, and that's what happened in NZ - what you can do is look
at average wage, and in particular average wage of the bottom 10 or 15%
of wage earners - it'll be heading downwards shortly

JL

 

Yeah I'm full time and I was hoping that would be the case - being ex
govt. owned I figured they would

JL

 

You got a reliable objective metric that Boxer would accept?

Has he got one that you would accept?

Moike

 

You have to listen to Clem on this one, after all he is the master of the
butt ring pucker (blame the gravel on the terrorists Clem).

Boxer

 

Had a look in the pantry, all out of "reliable objective metrics" got an old
bottle of pickled onions I could let you have.

Boxer

 

so
"If in 18 months time unemployment has risen substantially and living
standards have dropped as a result of these IR changes I will be at the
front of the picket line and burning my party membership card. "

is a nicely avoidable committment.

Moike

 

You tied the invasion of Iraq to the liklihood of us being at a higher
risk of terrorism within Australia.

If we are *more* at risk, given our involvement in Iraq and given we
were a target even before September 11 2001, can you quantify just how
much *more* at risk we are than we were before we went into Afghanistan
or Iraq?

10%? 100%? 911x1000?...

Let me know when you can agree on a figure.

No it wasn't. We didn't go to war for just one reason.

I feel vindicated as a matter of fact, Clem.

 

I'm just asking the question.

 

That's pretty low grade sophistry, even by your standards, Doug. If it
can't be quantified it must not be true.

Yeah, right.
There was the oil.
There was "Ahhm gunna git thet man what got away frum mah paw"
There was GWB's desperate need to be seen to be doing something about
terrorism. (Witness his frequent juxtaposition of statements about 9-11
and Iraq that had a majority of septics thinking Iraq was behind the
attack.)

Of particular interest is the fact that the septics had teams scurrying
around Iraq desperately trying to find evidence of WMDs (how many false
alarms did we get?) but hadn't bothered to put in place any plans for
how the country might be managed once they had taken over. That really
doesn't make me comfortable with the assertion that getting rid of the
tyrant was anywhere near the top of their list. Remember Colin Powell's
nervous presentation to the UN? It was all about evidence of WMDs, not
about the oppression of the Iraqi people.

And if tyrant eradication and the liberation of oppressed people is the
real underlying agenda, why are so many still dying in N. Korea,
Somalia, Uganda.....

Your reasoning sounds like the sort of logic you get from a fanatical
football follower, or a petrol-head on one side or the other of the
Ford/Holden divide. You have stated your position, taken a stance, and
nothing will ever make you see the need to question it.

I suppose it's comforting to have an unshakable faith, even if it
requires self-delusion.

Moike

 

Lies I tell you! All lies!!

It's really vegetables....


G-S

 

Clearly it is impossible to please you, perhaps you should go and get a
"reliable objective metric" to satisfy your needs.

Boxer

 

It isn't a 'war', a war has defined governments on both sides. When
people talk about 'the war on terror' or 'the war on drugs' it isn't a
literal war.

To then later claim that actions that are used sometimes in a real war
are justified because some people use the word is disengenuous.

Red herring.

Of course there no one 'battle' because there is no 'war'.

It's not likely, it's remotely possible... hardly the same thing. And
even if it did happen then it makes more sense to prioritize responses
to problems according to the number of people killed and/or injured by
that problem.

By that (logical) premise terrorism would be fairly low on the agenda
but according to the government it is in fact the number 1 problem.

Of course, but as a policeman it is also your job to attempt to keep
drunk and drugged drivers off the road.

You are much more likely to save lives by doing that than by 'being
prepared for a terrorist attack'.

It seems sensible to have our limited emergency services personal
concentrating on the areas where they can create the best effect.

I would not accuse you of that... I believe (as far as it is possible to
judge from newsgroup posts), that you are well intentioned but mistaken
(and mislead).

That is relevent to the situation in Iraq, it is very much less relevant
to the situation in Australia.

Yes they did. But they are over there... not here.

That country is a mess, it's been a mess for years. The western
countries going in was never going to stop it being a mess.

It isn't... it never was. But it isn't happening here, and is unlikely
to happen here.

See above.

Again see above.

And again...

Nev may or may not... I however do differentiate between them, and I
have no problem with them being shot down like the animals they are.

I do have a problem with innocent people being shot down however... a
very strong problem. The guy on the subway in the UK was an innocent
victim.

I also have a strong problem with taking away people liberties in the
vain hope that somehow that will make it less likely that an (already
unlikely) terrorist attack here will be stopped.

G-S

 

The government rated our terrorist threat before then as 'low' it is now
rated as 'medium'.

Is that quantified enough?


G-S

 

He's a firey not a copper - he can spell (even if he can't think rationally)

JL