Australian Politics Forum - Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal

bogarde73 Gold Member Offline Anti-Global & Contra Mundum Posts: 18443 Gender:	Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal Reply #60 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:18pm It could if we had nuclear weapons . . .and we could.
Back to top	Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism. IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #61 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:27pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

I'm arguing the facts,

No your arguing that in your opinion we do not have a robust National Security.

You may well have a point, its been well know since the end of WWII Australia could not defend itself against invasion of a larger force & we have always counted on 1st the British & now the Americans will come to our aid.
We made the down payment for that with blood by supporting every British & every American armed incursion into foreign lands, from the Boer War right up to Afghanistan.

However where you come unstuck is attributing this to Rudd only, every PM has declared we have a "Robust National Security" but in the spirit of the game I give it to you, its a LONG bow but yes Australia cannot defend itself alone.

Would one suggest though that a robust national security means one can defend themselves alone? I'd argue that given our population we would never really have certainty of defending ourselves on our own. But with the number of treaties we have, I'd say that's what makes us robust.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #62 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:30pm

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

It could if we had nuclear weapons . . .and we could.

for what purpose? To be seen as aggressors? Nuclear weapons don't underpin national security. They only seek to aggrevate a situation, as was shown during the cold war (along with all the wasted money that was spent on them), as is shown with countries now trying to get them.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #63 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:33pm

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

Anyway, moving along. I'm going to assume you think that our national security is not strong and robust because we don't have weapons of mass destruction and we have asylum seekers arriving by boats, each a terrorist in disguise eager to blow us all up.

As smithy mentions, Rudd did not give you factual information with regard to our national security. He simply raised an opinion that Australia's national security is strong and robust. And given that Australia has been a nation relatively free from war and terror, I'd tend to agree with that OPINION.

What else you got? 60 to go.

You'd assume wrong, but our national security would be more robust if we did have them. Not something I advocate at this time.
Are you agreeing with me that we do not have robust national security... I mean it is hard to back up when hundreds of wooden boats arrive continuously with unidentified people on board.

As for your squirming re the FACTS... Rudd said and i repeat...

And the core fact is this: Australia is seen around the world as one of the strongest economies, one of the most stable societies, as well as a nation underpinned by a robust national security.

Well... are we? I posted facts that both show we are not and that even an ally disagrees.

Seeing a fact is a truth and what he claimed was a fact was untrue... then he lied.
let me know when the penny drops.

Rudd is saying that iother countries around the world have that opinion of Australia. He isn't saying himself that it's a fact that Australia has a robust national security. So again, whilst you're arguing that Australia doesn't have a robust national security, Rudd never laid claim to that being a fact.

And robust national security prevents attacks on Australia. Last I checked no asylum seeker has attacked Australia.

And it's not a fact that nuclear weapons make a robust national security. That's your opinion.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #64 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:36pm

Quote:

However where you come unstuck is attributing this to Rudd only, every PM has declared we have a "Robust National Security" but in the spirit of the game I give it to you, its a LONG bow but yes Australia cannot defend itself alone.

I did not attribute it only to Rudd. That is a lie.

Remember we are discussing his speech and the lies therein. Not anyone or anything else.

He made a claim and it was false.
I don't care who makes such a claim, at current levels of our defence force it is a lie.

If China or Indonesia decided to invade we'd be in all sorts of trouble. The US are good friends to Indonesia too you know. They'd probably delay any direct action and try talking Indonesia out of invading us. As for China that is a completely different ball game. Remember the UK have abandoned us before and we had to go to the US for help.

Our geography is in our favour in some respects, but given the right planning by an invading force that advantage can be negated.

Back to top

IP Logged

bogarde73 Gold Member Offline Anti-Global & Contra Mundum Posts: 18443 Gender:	Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal Reply #65 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:37pm as was shown during the cold war What was shown in the cold war - apart from the fact that Alec Guinness made a great spy chief - was that democracy prevailed and the great experiment of the socialist world failed. As it will fail whenever and wherever it is attempted.
Back to top	Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism. IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #66 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:37pm

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Quote:

However where you come unstuck is attributing this to Rudd only, every PM has declared we have a "Robust National Security" but in the spirit of the game I give it to you, its a LONG bow but yes Australia cannot defend itself alone.

I did not attribute it only to Rudd. That is a lie.

Remember we are discussing his speech and the lies therein. Not anyone or anything else.

He made a claim and it was false.
I don't care who makes such a claim, at current levels of our defence force it is a lie.

If China or Indonesia decided to invade we'd be in all sorts of trouble. The US are good friends to Indonesia too you know. They'd probably delay any direct action and try talking Indonesia out of invading us. As for China that is a completely different ball game. Remember the UK have abandoned us before and we had to go to the US for help.

Our geography is in our favour in some respects, but given the right planning by an invading force that advantage can be negated.

He made a claim that Australia is seen around the world to have a strong economy and robust security. That may explain why we have such a huge foreign investment? Perhaps because there is truth to that claim?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96815

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #67 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:37pm

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

Anyway, moving along. I'm going to assume you think that our national security is not strong and robust because we don't have weapons of mass destruction and we have asylum seekers arriving by boats, each a terrorist in disguise eager to blow us all up.

As smithy mentions, Rudd did not give you factual information with regard to our national security. He simply raised an opinion that Australia's national security is strong and robust. And given that Australia has been a nation relatively free from war and terror, I'd tend to agree with that OPINION.

What else you got? 60 to go.

You'd assume wrong, but our national security would be more robust if we did have them. Not something I advocate at this time.
Are you agreeing with me that we do not have robust national security... I mean it is hard to back up when hundreds of wooden boats arrive continuously with unidentified people on board.

As for your squirming re the FACTS... Rudd said and i repeat...

And the core fact is this: Australia is seen around the world as one of the strongest economies, one of the most stable societies, as well as a nation underpinned by a robust national security.

Well... are we? I posted facts that both show we are not and that even an ally disagrees.

Seeing a fact is a truth and what he claimed was a fact was untrue... then he lied.
let me know when the penny drops.

Grendel, are you saying Australia is a security risk?

Do you think Mr Abbott should get in early and mount a counter-attack?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #68 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:39pm

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

as was shown during the cold war

What was shown in the cold war - apart from the fact that Alec Guinness made a great spy chief - was that democracy prevailed and the great experiment of the socialist world failed. As it will fail whenever and wherever it is attempted.

Yes the communist world collapsed on itself, and if you really review the history of the events you could really see that one of the main reasons for the collapse was the expenditure on trying to stay neck and neck with America in the arms race. So, America having nuclear weapons didn't deter USSR from having nuclear weapons. In fact, it only made the USSR want more and more. And ended up completely bankrupting the economy. Robust security with nuclear weapons? me thinks not.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #69 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:40pm

Quote:

Rudd is saying that iother countries around the world have that opinion of Australia. He isn't saying himself that it's a fact that Australia has a robust national security. So again, whilst you're arguing that Australia doesn't have a robust national security, Rudd never laid claim to that being a fact.

And robust national security prevents attacks on Australia. Last I checked no asylum seeker has attacked Australia.

And it's not a fact that nuclear weapons make a robust national security. That's your opinion.

I already posted the facts alevine you keep trying to squirm out of it.

I am against nuclear weapons so stop lying about me or I'll have to call you an idiot or a liar or some other appropriate epithet.

We cannot defend ourselves if a determined invader decided we were ripe for the picking. Hence our national security is not robust. Please provide a quote from other countries who have said as much.

Quote:

Rudd never laid claim to that being a fact.

He did and I already posted that and refuted it. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Dsmithy70 Gold Member Offline ire futuis vobismetipsis Posts: 13147 Newy Gender:	Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal Reply #70 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:43pm You've got 1( a generous 1 at that) However you claimed 61 Lets get on with it, at this rate we'll be here until 2050 just getting to 10.
Back to top	REBELLION is not what most people think it is. REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself. Gavin Nascimento IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #71 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:44pm

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

Quote:

Rudd is saying that iother countries around the world have that opinion of Australia. He isn't saying himself that it's a fact that Australia has a robust national security. So again, whilst you're arguing that Australia doesn't have a robust national security, Rudd never laid claim to that being a fact.

And robust national security prevents attacks on Australia. Last I checked no asylum seeker has attacked Australia.

And it's not a fact that nuclear weapons make a robust national security. That's your opinion.

I already posted the facts alevine you keep trying to squirm out of it.

I am against nuclear weapons so stop lying about me or I'll have to call you an idiot or a liar or some other appropriate epithet.

We cannot defend ourselves if a determined invader decided we were ripe for the picking. Hence our national security is not robust. Please provide a quote from other countries who have said as much.

Quote:

Rudd never laid claim to that being a fact.

He did and I already posted that and refuted it. Roll Eyes

Quote:

We all know we have no weapons of mass destruction. So just how robust is our national security?

sorry I jumped the gun and assumed mass destruction meant nuclear. Did you mean chemical?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #72 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:45pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:

You've got 1( a generous 1 at that)
However you claimed 61
Lets get on with it, at this rate we'll be here until 2050 just getting to 10.

But Grendel, please note that it's really a 0.10 that we're giving you, but we have to round up giving a lie is a whole or nothing.

So you're lucky.

And yes, please proceed with the other 60.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal Reply #73 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 2:45pm Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:43pm: You've got 1( a generous 1 at that) However you claimed 61 Lets get on with it, at this rate we'll be here until 2050 just getting to 10. So far I'm actually 2 for 2 smithy...
Back to top	IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Rudd's 61 lies by Grendal
Reply #74 - Jul 12^th, 2013 at 2:49pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:44pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

Quote:

Rudd is saying that iother countries around the world have that opinion of Australia. He isn't saying himself that it's a fact that Australia has a robust national security. So again, whilst you're arguing that Australia doesn't have a robust national security, Rudd never laid claim to that being a fact.

And robust national security prevents attacks on Australia. Last I checked no asylum seeker has attacked Australia.

And it's not a fact that nuclear weapons make a robust national security. That's your opinion.

I already posted the facts alevine you keep trying to squirm out of it.

I am against nuclear weapons so stop lying about me or I'll have to call you an idiot or a liar or some other appropriate epithet.

We cannot defend ourselves if a determined invader decided we were ripe for the picking. Hence our national security is not robust. Please provide a quote from other countries who have said as much.

Quote:

Rudd never laid claim to that being a fact.

He did and I already posted that and refuted it. Roll Eyes

Quote:

We all know we have no weapons of mass destruction. So just how robust is our national security?

sorry I jumped the gun and assumed mass destruction meant nuclear. Did you mean chemical?

You people keep complaining.... yet you keep delaying the debate with your nonsense.

You do know that chemical and biological weapons are deemed weapons of mass destruction don't you?

Quote:

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons.

Back to top

IP Logged