bye bye Mr Rudd

[Dogwatcher]

PUNTER BACKS HOWARD TO WIN $52,000

On the back of a couple of days of negative publicity for Labor leader Kevin Rudd, Prime Minster John Howard has received some much needed support from one punter.

Betting agency Lasseters Sportsbook has taken a single bet of $20,000 at $2.60 for the Coalition to win this year's federal election. Should the government be returned to office the punter stands to win $52,000.

"Over the past couple of months John Howard has been friendless in betting, especially after the recent interest rate rise," says Lasseters' Gerard Daffy. "However, maybe punters are starting to see through Kevin Rudd's wholesome family image."

Mr Howard remains favourite to win his Sydney seat of Bennelong despite recent good polling results for former ABC journalist and Labor candidate Maxine McKew.

Lasseters Sports Betting Manager, Gerard Daffy will appear on the Sky News program Agenda this afternoon from 4:30pm (AEST).

Australian Federal Election
$1.52 Labor (Kevin Rudd)
$2.50 Coalition (John Howard)
Seat of Bennelong
$1.60 Liberal (John Howard)
$2.20 Labor (Maxine McKew)

[blueandwhite]

Mr Rudd's indiscretion back in 2003 was unforgiveable..... but our current PM also made a slight indiscretion at around the same time when he dragged this country and its soldiers into the mind numbing invasion of Iraq. This decision was made on the back of fabricated evidence by the US.
Back in 2003 who made the bigger error in judgement?

[BIG SEXY]

why was invading iraq so bad in 2003? the evidence (albeit fabricated) was there, they had an evil dictator killing innocent civilians (his own people for crying out loud). fair enough it hasnt gone as much to plan as it probably should have, once more bad planning by the US in my opinion. but in 03 everything supported invading them....I know except the UN who wanted to send yet another strongly worded letter.....take that saddam, now try and fry your country men.

[RustyCage]

why was invading iraq so bad in 2003? the evidence (albeit fabricated) was there, they had an evil dictator killing innocent civilians (his own people for crying out loud). fair enough it hasnt gone as much to plan as it probably should have, once more bad planning by the US in my opinion. but in 03 everything supported invading them....I know except the UN who wanted to send yet another strongly worded letter.....take that saddam, now try and fry your country men.

If you look at what the UN did in the Gulf War, not getting permission from the UN to invade Iraq is pretty meaningless..

[redandblack]

why was invading iraq so bad in 2003? the evidence (albeit fabricated) was there, they had an evil dictator killing innocent civilians (his own people for crying out loud). fair enough it hasnt gone as much to plan as it probably should have, once more bad planning by the US in my opinion. but in 03 everything supported invading them....I know except the UN who wanted to send yet another strongly worded letter.....take that saddam, now try and fry your country men.

Overwhelming argument there, crusher. I especially like the bit about the evidence (albeit fabricated) was there. We then move on to an evil dictator killing his own civilians; now they're being killed in bigger numbers, but never mind.

"It hasn't gone to plan - surely you're not saying that "Mission accomplished" was wrong!

"In 03 everything supported them". I thought hundreds of thousands of Australians marched in the streets protesting against going to war. Perhaps John Howard should have listened to them.

All in all, the worst foreign policy decision in America's history, with Australia tagging along.

A total disgrace.

[smac]

redandblack, I want to address one point in your post:

I thought hundreds of thousands of Australians marched in the streets protesting against going to war. Perhaps John Howard should have listened to them.

Listen to people who had little or no background information and were protesting because they don't like war? Sounds like a good plan.

[BIG SEXY]

what evidence is there to support the statement they are being killed in bigger numbers? noone knows exactly how many people were killed by hussein although the numbers suggested are hundreds of thousands over the 20 odd years of his rein.
the civilians being killed now are being killed by insurgants, not allied forces.
as for people marching against it, sure lets listen to people who have no intelligence briefings, no security clearances and apart from being people who think everything can be solved by sitting down and talking about it really have no other qualifications in this matter.
the evidence was fabricated, so we found out some 12 months later. as an ally to the US im glad howard commited troops. Im not saying the war was right, and im certainly not saying it was wrong, im saying howard did what he had to and what the evidence at the time supported.

[blueandwhite]

I recently travelled to Turkey. While wandering around the grand bazaar trying to stop my current wife from blowing the bejesus out of my visa card, we stumbled or rather, were dragged into a rug shop.
While the salesman attempted to sell a rug to my wife I struck up a conversation with his offsider in the back of the shop. He told me he was in Turkey illegally, a kurd and from northern Iraq. I had plenty of questions and he gave me plenty of interesting answers.
He said that under Saddam life was hell, particularly for him being a kurd, but at least he had a home and a family to go home to. Since the US invasion he has lost his home and all of his family in what we call and is regarded as collateral damage. Hence his being in Turkey. He said life was pretty ordinary under Saddam but at least he and his family had a life.

[BIG SEXY]

but thousands of people didnt have a life or a home under hussein for things as minor as not winning a soccer match. regardless of whether you supported the war to begin with or not the fact remains the invasion happened and now theres only one choice, remain there until the country is able to run itself, which includes controlling its borders and all the idiots blowing themselves/everyone else up.

[Sojourner]

Suppose back when the U.S requested that Australia send troops to Iraq, Kevin Rudd was the Prime Minister and Labor was in power rather that Howard and the Liberal party. Would Kevin Rudd have refused to get involved? Would they have sent more or less troops to the war?

Labor had no problem running after the U.S every other time a war was on and commiting troops, so I am not convinced that under Labor things would have been any different. Various Labor Prime Minsters have had their brown noses shoved right up the arses of various U.S presidents to gain investments, I doubt that Kevin Rudd in all reality would be any different.

[redandblack]

redandblack, I want to address one point in your post:

I thought hundreds of thousands of Australians marched in the streets protesting against going to war. Perhaps John Howard should have listened to them.

Listen to people who had little or no background information and were protesting because they don't like war? Sounds like a good plan.

Seeing that they were totally correct, it would have been a wonderful plan.

[BIG SEXY]

so the government should listen to anyone who protests and bow to every whim

[redandblack]

Youy would be one of the few drawing that totally illogical conclusion.

In this particular case, those hundreds of thousands were absolutely correct. The majority were against them and for the war. That majority is now very much a minority, both here and in the US, let alone the world.

[Leaping Lindner]

Halliburton's share price has more than tripled since the invasion. I'd say "Mission Accomplished".

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/stock_troop2.html

[BIG SEXY]

why is it illogical? earlier posts said something along the lines of we should have listened to them.
once again where are you getting figures that the majority is now a minority (im assuming you are talking about a majority was for the war and now a minority is for it)
perhaps i should have had the foresight to jump on haliburton when the us said they were going in.

[Dogwatcher]

passionate Crushy....

[BIG SEXY]

i dont like howard bashing is all DW. hes done a good job in his 11 years.

[blueandwhite]

Re the Iraq question.. sure I'll concede that on the evidence at the time a labor government may have also made the unpopular decision to go to war. Remember the only reason we trudged off to war with the US is that Saddam had an immense arsenal of "wmd's"and could unleash them at a moments notice-that was the reason-the only reason at that time.
Then it was revealed that he had no wmd's and in fact the US had fabricated a"smoking gun" . Since that revelation we have been dealt all the bullshit spin you can imagine, Regime change, crimes against humanity,securing oil supplies. Remember the initial reason was WMD's.
So four years down the track the US and Australia are bogged down in a civil war, which they helped initiate, which is absolutely none of our bloody business. What is in it for us?
I guarantee that if a labor government had marched us off to war back in 2003 we would not still be there in 2007.
If Saddam was such a monster what about invading Zimbabwe and stitching up Mugabe, or some of the warlords in Darfor- guess what, they have no oil.

[RustyCage]

Re the Iraq question.. sure I'll concede that on the evidence at the time a labor government may have also made the unpopular decision to go to war. Remember the only reason we trudged off to war with the US is that Saddam had an immense arsenal of "wmd's"and could unleash them at a moments notice-that was the reason-the only reason at that time.
Then it was revealed that he had no wmd's and in fact the US had fabricated a"smoking gun" . Since that revelation we have been dealt all the bullshit spin you can imagine, Regime change, crimes against humanity,securing oil supplies. Remember the initial reason was WMD's.
So four years down the track the US and Australia are bogged down in a civil war, which they helped initiate, which is absolutely none of our bloody business. What is in it for us?
I guarantee that if a labor government had marched us off to war back in 2003 we would not still be there in 2007.
If Saddam was such a monster what about invading Zimbabwe and stitching up Mugabe, or some of the warlords in Darfor- guess what, they have no oil.

Why do you think the UN couldn't give a shit about Zimbabwe?

[BIG SEXY]

Re the Iraq question.. sure I'll concede that on the evidence at the time a labor government may have also made the unpopular decision to go to war. Remember the only reason we trudged off to war with the US is that Saddam had an immense arsenal of "wmd's"and could unleash them at a moments notice-that was the reason-the only reason at that time.
Then it was revealed that he had no wmd's and in fact the US had fabricated a"smoking gun" . Since that revelation we have been dealt all the bullshit spin you can imagine, Regime change, crimes against humanity,securing oil supplies. Remember the initial reason was WMD's.
So four years down the track the US and Australia are bogged down in a civil war, which they helped initiate, which is absolutely none of our bloody business. What is in it for us?
I guarantee that if a labor government had marched us off to war back in 2003 we would not still be there in 2007.
If Saddam was such a monster what about invading Zimbabwe and stitching up Mugabe, or some of the warlords in Darfor- guess what, they have no oil.

i concede that the war is in all sorts of $hit at the moment. are you saying we should have pulled up stumps and left iraq in a dodgy state when we realized the US were making up stuff?