Maybe the U.S.A. should just tax the rest of the world.

[Sean]

Quite right Hen!

I'm glad that you have finally realised that Andrew is THE last word when it comes to Australian politics. I mean, what could you possibly know about it... sat there in your office in Canberra.

[Guinevere]

Hey, Andrew only asked for information, and explained the basis for his conclusions. He certainly never said he was an expert. And if there are specifics of the treaty that Hen can point to to guide him, what's the problem with that? No one was challenging her authority as someone with more knowledge of OZ government, what's wrong in educating him further? Isn't that the whole point of this place??

[Sue U]

Guin, didn't you see the mission statement under the site name?

[Guinevere]

You know what, if you, or I, or Andrew jumped into a thread and stated that because we are lawyers we know the Constitution better than anyone, so we are right - and didn't provide any specific details in support of our position - we would be excoriated.

So let's hear the details as to why he is wrong (and I'm taking no position that he is or is not) and then we can have an actual argument.

[Lord Jim]

Gee whiz, Steve only had Gwen to leap into the breach and try to re-interpret his words and extricate his foot from his mouth....

Andrew is doubly blessed; he's got two Gwens....

But then, since he often gets both feet so deeply lodged between his molars, he can use all the help he can get....

But I must say that to look at this remark of Andrew's that Hen quoted:

Australia wants U.S. forces to keep coming to Australia.

And be able to conclude:

Hey, Andrew only asked for information

Represents a level of creativity in re-interpretation that would put dear old Gwen to shame....

[Guinevere]

Of course, anyone who isn't disengenuous understands my post above is referring to the later discussion where Andrew explained his position and asked Hen some questions, which she declined to answer with specifics.

[Lord Jim]

BTW, on the substance of the question of Australian support for the military arrangements it has with the US:

It would seem to me that logically it would be the case, (as it would among Americans if similar questions of support were asked) that some Australians support it, some oppose it, and some oppose or support it in part...

Peoples do not think monolithically; particularly free peoples.

But it is obviously indisputable, regardless of the ups and downs of public opinion, that successive elected Australian governments have seen the security arrangements that exist with the US to be in the best interests of the Australian people; otherwise they would not exist....

Currently, Australian popular support for our defense relationship would appear to be substantial:

The public also is eager for U.S. defense commitments, said Fergus Hanson, a pollster and analyst at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, an influential Australian think tank. In a 2010 Lowy poll, 55 percent of Australians favored having a U.S. military base in the country, Hanson said. This year, a record-high 59 percent of Australians ranked the alliance with the United States as “very important,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/oba ... story.html

And overall support for the US-Australian relationship is even higher, as this poll from just four months ago indicates:

ALMOST three quarters of Australian voters are happy with the US alliance, a far cry from the peak of the Iraq war.

With the US President, Barack Obama, to arrive in Australia tomorrow for a 26-hour visit, the latest Herald/Nielsen poll shows 71 per cent of voters feel the relationship is ''about right''.

Only 24 per cent feel it is too close, while just 3 per cent say it is ''not close enough''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/poll-sho ... z1ltFJfcrz

[Andrew D]

Hey, Andrew only asked for information, and explained the basis for his conclusions. He certainly never said he was an expert. And if there are specifics of the treaty that Hen can point to to guide him, what's the problem with that? No one was challenging her authority as someone with more knowledge of OZ government, what's wrong in educating him further? Isn't that the whole point of this place??

Evidently, and lamentably, not.

As shown by Little Jimmy's latest excrescence, at least part of the point of this place is to enable people for whom arguments constitute insurmountable obstacles to shit on people whom they do not like.

Fortunately, the "above all, argue" portion of the point of this place is not entirely dead.

In connection with which, as observed above, both Australia's governing party and Australia's principal opposition party favor the new increase of U.S. troops in Australia; the Greens, however, do not. Is it possible that both the governing party and the principal opposition party are acting against the wishes of the majority of Australians? Of course it is. But shouldn't there be some evidence to support that proposition?

When the party which speaks for Australia favors the U.S. military presence in Australia, and when the principal party which speaks against the party which speaks for Australia favors the U.S. military presence in Australia, it seems reasonable to conclude that Australia wants the U.S. to continue its military presence in Australia.

I make no claim to be an expert on Australian politics. But it bears noting that according to last year's Lowy Institute Poll, 55% of Australians favor allowing the U.S. to base troops in Australia, which is much further than the present agreement goes.

So the governing party in Australia favors the new agreement. The principal opposition in Australia favors the new agreement. And a majority of Australians favors even more U.S. military presence in Australia than is contemplated by the new agreement.

If there is contrary evidence, let's see it.

[Andrew D]

As I've said before, as I view it, the Foe Feature is not a "get out of jail free card" for bad actors...

Unless you are Little Jimmy. In that case, the Foe Feature is a free pass for spewing shit without bothering to read what you are responding to ....

[Andrew D]

And, of course, contrary to the fulminations of this board's most consistently cowardly and dishonest poster, Guinevere did not construe this:

Australia wants U.S. forces to keep coming to Australia.

as a request for information.

Rather, she quite correctly construed this:

Actually, the agreement we signed in the 1950's means we have no other option than to say we welcome it. We don't. Beleive me, but we have no option.

What agreement is that? I'd like to see what it says.

* * *

I am interested to see the agreement to which you refer. Have you (ideally) a link directly to it? Or a link to some source which has it somewhere? Or its name that I can use to search for it myself?

as a request for information.

Which Little Jimmy would be able to acknowledge if he were not so invested in the lie that he ignores my postings in the first place.

[rubato]

Y'know if we brought the rest of NATO in as non-voting jr partners we really could make this tribute thing work out.

If OZ don't like us we can just sell them to China! Give 'em a deal on OZ and Antarctica as a matched set, hot nasty useless place + cold useless nasty place. Yah, sure there's a few nice parts but its like putting frosting on a road apple and calling it a cupcake.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

Actually Andrew, if we show the whole post rather than the bits you cherry-picked it looks like this:

Actually, the agreement we signed in the 1950's means we have no other option than to say we welcome it. We don't. Beleive me, but we have no option.

What agreement is that? I'd like to see what it says.

The statements quoted in the linked article -- statements by government officials and by the "[o]pposition defence spokesman" -- give no indication of any agreement requiring Australia to permit the presence of U.S. troops on Australian soil. The ANZUS Treaty does not appear to impose any such obligation on Australia. And the statement by the leader of Australia's Green Party indicates that whether to permit the presence of U.S. troops on Australian soil is a matter for parliamentary determination, not a matter already concluded by treaty:

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said any proposal for a US base should be debated by parliament.

"The proposal for Darwin needs to be clearly qualified and quantified by the Gillard government," he said in a statement.

The Greens want to end foreign troop deployment, training and hosting on Australian territory.

It strikes me that if Australia were bound by an agreement to host U.S. troops, one or more among:

--> The Prime Minister of Australia

--> The Defence Minister of Australia

--> The Australian opposition defence spokesperson

--> The leader of the Australian Green Party

--> The President of the U.S.

should have given that agreement at least a passing mention.

But maybe one or more of them did, and news.com.au failed to bring that to anyone's attention. I don't know.

Regardless, I am interested to see the agreement to which you refer. Have you (ideally) a link directly to it? Or a link to some source which has it somewhere? Or its name that I can use to search for it myself?

There's a tad more in there than simple requests for information. Wouldn't you agree?
You could almost replace the entire text with, "I know I'm right but I'll humour you for now".

[Andrew D]

Yes, the posting includes more than just requests for information. It also includes my statement of the basis for my conclusions.

By no coincidence at all, that is exactly how Guinevere described it:

Hey, Andrew only asked for information, and explained the basis for his conclusions.

It was Little Jimmy who misleadingly truncated Guinevere's accurate description of my posting.

So why aren't you going after him?

Or do you need a napkin first?

[Guinevere]

Sean, in the longer portion you linked, Andrew specifically said, at the end, "I don't know.". How you can turn that into a statement of "I know I'm right but I'll humor me" is beyond me.

[Gob]

So., when do the campaigns kick off Andrew? You canvassing for donations?

[Gob]

71 per cent of voters feel the relationship is ''about right''.

Only 24 per cent feel it is too close, while just 3 per cent say it is ''not close enough''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/poll-sho ... z1luvLujrR

So 71% want no more or no less, 24% want less, and 3% want more. I wonder how those figures would change if Andrew's "tax the world for American interference warmongering in Asia plan were to go further than his desk?

[dales]

Anyone here remember S.E.A.T.O.?

[Gob]

The Navy may cut nine cruisers and three amphibious ships as part of its soon-to-be released budget blueprint covering the next five fiscal years, sources say.

The Navy plans to deactivate four cruisers from the fleet in fiscal year 2013, with another five cruisers coming out of the fleet the next year, according to a preliminary version of the spending plan. The three amphibious landing ships will be deactivated along with the five cruisers.

The Navy is also considering changing its original strategy of buying one aircraft carrier every five years. It would instead buy one carrier every seven years.

Maybe Andrew's tax plan would halt these cuts?

[Lord Jim]

I can think of one sub I'd certainly support de-commisioning:

[Sean]

Sean, in the longer portion you linked, Andrew specifically said, at the end, "I don't know.". How you can turn that into a statement of "I know I'm right but I'll humor me" is beyond me.

Guin, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I've seen enough of his posts to recognise when he's acting the cock. He's quite clever about it, just not quite as clever as he thinks.

You know the expression about fooling some of the people some of the time...