Should Australia develop nuclear weapons ?

nice Mr G nice

thanks man not sure what exactly goes withit all but did find it ammusing in a weird sort of way.

take it ez man

Zak

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wait females can climax no way i thought they were just sperm recepticles

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Keep Oz nuke free. Who do we need to deter anyway?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes we definately should have nukes rather than be dependant on the yanks for our national defence. Will it happen? Not likely any time soon with this moronic labour government. With idiots like Peter Garrett running the country there will be very little progress in this country for the next few years. The clown calls himself an environmentalist but he can't even ban plastic shopping bags. This is the minister for the environment. He should have stuck with singing for midnight oil.

The Howard Government wanted very sensibly to go nuclear like every other advanced nation has to date. Unfortunately they lost the election. That weasly little rodent Kevin Rudd made a stack of false promises as politicians like to do around election time and the public as usual was gullible enough to swallow his BS. So far labour has done nothing since winning.

Until we build our own nuclear arsenal we will always be slaves to the American Empire.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Either we go along with everything America wants or they withdraw their nuclear umbrella and then we're stuffed. China, Russia, N.Korea and god knows how many other nations in our region already have nukes.

 

siliconshrew grow up. There are no barbarians waiting to atack us, and even if there were china is so reliant on australia they would defend us to defend there own economic intrests

 

I think Labour needs to do more to show that it is Independent of America, than howard did .

 

...not exactly sure..."ammusing"...wired sort...

You're closer now.

Which of the voices in your head have the more compelling dialog?

The voice of the collective?

 

The singer from Midnight Oil

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

is the minister for the environment?

 

unfortunatly (because he backed down on all his issues) yes but then the US cant talk. You had an actor as president and have the terminator as govonor

 

We, the People.

We elect people to office.

We don't elect royals.

And you are just more background noise.

 

Hey, don't forget that Reagan was president of the screen actor's guild and governor of California before becoming president. Sadly, the Terminator won't get the chance to run for president as he's not a natural born US citizen.

But the singer from Midnight OIl, that's funny!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i agree bells. I was so happy when i saw that he was pre-selected because i thought that ment the ALP were putting the enviroment as a high priority. Insted Garret has sold out everything he stood for.

Of course nither of the enviroment ministers covered themselves in glory in the last election campaine. The irony is that Turnbul would be better as leader of the Libs than he ever was in his former portfolio. At least he would be better compared to Nelson

 

An easy solution for the nuclear problem would be for the United States to annex Australia. YOu could be the 51st state! But you guys would have to learn to drive on the right side of the road. If you guys learnd the proper side of the road upon which to drive, I would welcome you into the union...even if you talk a little funny.

 

That pretty much is the gist of US foreign policy.

 

And why shouldn't it be? We have a common ancestry, culture and language. If nothing else, the USA should never forget who it's allies are (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and for the most part Western Europe). Bush has been an aweful friend to these people. In the end, this is not how one should treat one's friends. That, at least, should be taken out of the last eight years.

~String

 

So actors are somehow, in your twisted mind, incapable of being effective at, or are illegitimate as, elected officers? Huh? Electoral politics are never neat, and they shouldn't be. Reagan was totally qualified and Schwarzenegger, has proven himself a capable politician. Why focus on them only? There's also Sonny Bono and Fred Thompson and a host of others (Actor Politicians). You may not like their politics, but they weren't altogether ineffective as elected officials.

Would you PREFER someone a little more lawyer-ish?

~String

 

What did he do that was so bad?

 

mad during the election campaine all major decisions must be aproved by both the current minister and the presumptive minister (its called care taker goverment). This is so that decisions dont have to be over turned as soon as a new party takes office (well thats the idea). During the campaine both enviroment "minsters" aproved a pulp mill in tasmaina which will dump huge amounts of dioxins into the water ways and out into the ocean around the mouth of the river. This destroy huge amounts of buinesses both in the fishery industry and in the tourisium industry.

Wether you agree with the decision or not it is a compleat abandonment of his pre political priniciples which most people assumed he would take with him when he went into politics.

String i wasnt really saying that either of them were good or bad political figures. There have been a lot of things Schwarzenegger has done that i compleatly agree with and as for Reagan though i disagree with most of his policies i wont ever say he wasnt a better president than the current one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(though the way he handled health care was dispicable, or was that Nixson)

I was more pointing out to mad that he really shouldnt laugh because we have a singer (who USED to be all about the enviroment) as enviroment minister when the US likes to put celebrities into political office as well.

There was a rugby player who wanted to start a political caree and he called a press comfrence to say that he was running in the election (i think as an independent). Basically as soon as he was asked "ok what policy will you be running on?" he quit (his political caree lasted literally less than 15 min). Now he may have been a great polition and worked for his electret (or state, i cant rember wether he was runing for the house or the senate) but he couldnt handle the fact that his name alone wasnt going to get him there. Its POLICY that is important not a persons name, at least thats the way it is in Australia (in most cases, name doesnt hurt as shown by the ABC reporter who was pre-selected for the labor party).

People were hopeful that peter garrot would bring his ideals into a practical role in goverment but that just hasnt happened and now he has been striped of most of the rolls of the enviroment minister. Penny wong (a senater from south Australia) has taken over the roles of water and climate change because Garrot showed himself to be incopitant during the election campaine (infact he cant even answer questions on her behalf in the house, they are directed to the tresure). This is why people are so disapointed with him

 

How would you know?

One has to wonder why you spend so much time looking for flaws in America and spend so little time applying what you would have us believe is a superior intellect's abundant abilities to fix the more numerous and more obvious domestic flaws inherent in your very own country.

One might suspect that you psychologically mask your own personal ineptitudes by seeking out any opportunity to point out the apparent retardations of others as if they are your natural equals.

That is pretty much the gist of your own foreign policy.