BF2S Forums Australia Considering Taking Guantanamo Prisoners

LBJ, don't be so hard on Krudd... He doesn't just take money, he spends it as fast as he can too! Those detention camps are for illegal immigrants. If they want in they'd damn well better make sure they qualify as legitimate refugees.

Oh and I saw a thingy on the news this morning about this.

Speculation says it's similar to the witness protection program or something. They get new identities and are settled comfortably somewhere in Australia. Methinks that ASIO/ASIS would be keeping track of all of them for quite some time as dudes who have had 2-5 years of their life stolen are bound to be a bit pissed.

I personally hope we get some up in the NT. Gitmo detainees are te last people we need joining the rather militant community of young ethnically lebanese males in Sydney/Melbourne and it's always nice to get a bit more diversity in our communities up here.

We have like a million square kilometres of fucking empty desert. You wouldn't even NEED a fence.

Not the first time Australia has accepted convicts...

_{snigger snigger...}

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Did we read the same article??

Acting PM wrote:

"Australia, as an ally of the United States, is examining this second request," Gillard said in a statement."Notwithstanding that, it is unlikely Australia would accept these detainees."

Not sure how this makes the PM spinelsss LBJ. If Howard was in charge he would probably take all the prisoners from Gitmo and lock them up here just to keep GWB happy.

Im not saying he is spineless because of this particular case... but in general. he doesnt stand up for what he believes  in, he blindly follows public opinion/polls...

imo his just a average PM.... not a bad one... just a average one... johnny was a far better PM, he just made a few unpopular decisions in his last 1-2 years

Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2009-01-02 00:30:52)

lol this just made my day. My sig sums it all up...

Dilbert_X wrote:

They haven't been convicted of anything.

Bush will probably end up paying for that as well...

Just heard on the new then, apparently KRudd is 'considering the US offer but is unlikely to accept.'

You mean Peter Costello should take the leadership to galvanise the Libs into finding someone who isn't a total arse so they don't lose horribly again?
That would work for me.

LBJ wrote:

imo his just a average PM.... not a bad one... just a average one... johnny was a far better PM, he just made a few unpopular decisions in his last 1-2 years

Personally I strongly disagree with this. Howard made decisions based on popularity and fear all the way through his tenure. Baby bonus is a prime example. Not too mention kids overboard, I could go on for hours. The Liberal party believes it is owed leadership, and cant pull itself together to make any solid gains against Labor. It has elements from the centre to the extremely far right, not to mention the Nationals ( very conservative) and is having a hard time reaching any type of consensus.

As far as I am concerned , if the answer is "Liberal" then the question is probably stupid. The more time they spend in opposition the better. I do think Costello would be a better Liberal party leader as he was good with the economy, but the Liberal party has shafted him too many times, so maybe he doesnt care, or he is waiting till the world economy gets worse so he can come in and pretend he can fix everything.

I will agree that Rudd isnt a particularly strong presence as a politician, his background is as a diplomat and a beuracrat. But he would have to try really hard to do worse than Howard.

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Personally I strongly disagree with this. Howard made decisions based on popularity and fear all the way through his tenure. Baby bonus is a prime example.

Yes because labour handing out money just before Christmas to half the country was anything but a bribe.

Saying sorry to the stolen generations then following it up with... Err... Well nothing.

The scare campaign against work choices is hilarious too, considering Julia Gillard promised to abolish it... Then left over a 1000 AWGs in place after the changes were made again.

Of a year in office, he's spent 2 months overseas. He's not a diplomat anymore. His job is here. Rudd might be the head of government but surely he could have cut down the amount of time he spent away. He also seems to have a tendency to micromanage.... Everything. Guess it's a legacy from his bureaucracy days. He also seems pretty keen on committees and papers and discussion groups.

I can't actually remember what things were like under Keating, I was rather young, but I do know I prefered Howard doing things, as opposed to Rudd talking about doing things. Maybe it's just the media's spin on things that's warping my views.

If I had to take a stab at current liberal party strategy I'd say Malcom Turnbull is an intentional placeholder who is doing his job very well. Only problem is that I've heard he's rather ambitious and has a hell of an ego. Could be a shitfight


Time in opposition, yes it will help the libs. They really did need a slap in the face. Their last term in government was a clear signal of just how complacent they'd become.

Flecco wrote:

Yes because labour handing out money just before Christmas to half the country was anything but a bribe.

Considering that the next election is in 2 years, the vote grabbing thing isnt an issue. I cant really think of a better way to stimulate the economy than giving people money to buy stuff. Xmas sales went very well, so it probably helped.

Flecco wrote:

Saying sorry to the stolen generations then following it up with... Err... Well nothing.

The apology was a great thing, further work has been announced to help aboriginals ( education etc) govts say a lot of things though so it remains to be seen if this will amount to anything.

Flecco wrote:

The scare campaign against work choices is hilarious too, considering Julia Gillard promised to abolish it... Then left over a 1000 AWGs in place after the changes were made again.

Abolishing the majority of work choice provisions has happened. Pre-existing agreements were allowed to remain. I know some people that recieved instant pay rises when that shitty piece of legislation was canned.

flecco wrote:

Of a year in office, he's spent 2 months overseas. He's not a diplomat anymore. His job is here. Rudd might be the head of government but surely he could have cut down the amount of time he spent away. He also seems to have a tendency to micromanage.... Everything. Guess it's a legacy from his bureaucracy days. He also seems pretty keen on committees and papers and discussion groups.

i dont blame him for spending a lot of time OS. If we want to be more relevant in the world we have to do that. 2 months out of 12 aint too bad. I disagree that his job is here. The deputy PM and ministers handle the situation well enough while he is away ( some say even better).

I totally agree wit the micromanaging thing though. I think it is one of the main negatives of his leadership. It may also kick him in the ass down the track. The comitees/ discussion group thing is both good and bad IMO. on one hand it makes him seem that he cant make a decision, while on the other hand whats the problem with getting the opinions from experts before you spend tax payer funds. As long as the discussion groups decisions are acted upon, I am reasonably happy.

Flecco wrote:

I can't actually remember what things were like under Keating, I was rather young, but I do know I prefered Howard doing things, as opposed to Rudd talking about doing things. Maybe it's just the media's spin on things that's warping my views.

If I had to take a stab at current liberal party strategy I'd say Malcom Turnbull is an intentional placeholder who is doing his job very well. Only problem is that I've heard he's rather ambitious and has a hell of an ego. Could be a shitfight

Time in opposition, yes it will help the libs. They really did need a slap in the face. Their last term in government was a clear signal of just how complacent they'd become.

I was voting age during the Keating period. It had its ups and downs. He was brilliant in some respects, but did put us in deficeit. Howard did benefit from many of Keatings policies , which is not to say he didnt do good things for the economy himself. If you only read The Australian/Newscorp then I can see why you would favour Liberal party. I find ABC.net news gives good and unbiased news.
Turnbull is probably the liberals best bet at the moment. And he is the candidate I would choose from the current crop. He doesnt seem to be making much headway at the moment though. Maybe that may change if we go into recession. Who knows. There also seems to be many other Liberal MPs that are unhappy with him because he isnt Right wing enough for them ( eg recent senate sittings). At least he acknowledges climate change. I hope they can get their act together, mainly because a good govt needs a good opposition to keep an eye on things.

Keating = superannuation = rather great move by him. I think it was him anyway.