December 08, 2004

UNIONS ENRAGED

The ALP is wising up:

Federal Labor has opened the door to accepting the Howard Government's non-union individual contracts for workers, in a significant break from the past that has enraged unions.

Labor frontbencher Stephen Smith confirmed yesterday that the Opposition would consider supporting the Government's non-union Australian Workplace Agreements as part of a review of policy being conducted after Labor's crushing election defeat.

Meanwhile, Alexander Downer -- possibly the most vilified Howard government minister -- is profiled in the Wall Street Journal:

Those who wonder why Australia is such a reliable ally of America need only spend some time with Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in his South Australia constituency.

Australians like to say they are different. Just how different becomes clear when Mr. Downer concludes an interview at his local office by suggesting that I accompany him to collect his daughter from a nearby school. There's no chauffeur. The foreign secretary takes the wheel and offers some blunt opinions as he races down an Adelaide Hills freeway.

Political opponents are dismissed as "feral lefties," while Condoleezza Rice wins praise as, "a good woman. That's what I say about Condi." A call from Prime Minister John Howard prompts him to joke about throwing me out of the car window so they can talk in private. Mr. Downer decides to call back later instead.

Rough around the edges, Australians share much in common with Americans. They too are a nation of immigrants with predominantly conservative values (Don't get Mr. Downer started on the subject of gay marriage). And, feral lefties apart, they know where their national interest lies. Again and again, I heard ordinary Australians talk about the U.S. alliance in far more positive terms than are commonly heard from America's other stalwart allies -- the British.

Interesting piece. Hit the link for more.

Posted by Tim Blair at December 8, 2004 07:35 AM
Comments

Did you ever see the interview Downer did with Andrew Denton? It was one of the funniest things I've ever seen - ofcourse not as funny as when Andrew Denton dumped a truckload of manuire in the driveway of the French embassy in Canberra.

Posted by: Jonny at December 8, 2004 at 07:49 AM

Obviously Alex must have changed into his fishnet stockings and had his butler prepare him a nice cup of Earl Grey tea immediately after the interview.

;)

Posted by: Guy at December 8, 2004 at 08:05 AM


Again and again, I heard ordinary Australians talk about the U.S. alliance in far more positive terms than are commonly heard from America's other stalwart allies -- the British.

Believe me, my Australian friends, this feeling is entirely mutual. Tony Blair stood up for us and for that he always has my mark, but Australians stood with us -- and this generation of Americans in their 20s and 30s -- aren't likely to forget that. A lesson, I might add, that will be passed to my four month old boy.

Posted by: Andrew at December 8, 2004 at 08:08 AM

"Don't get Mr. Downer started on the subject of gay marriage".

Both Mr. Downer and his husband are outspoken supporters of gay marriage.

Posted by: Alex Upper at December 8, 2004 at 08:38 AM

Well I hate to say it, but lazy, instinctive anti-Americanism is pretty rife here in Australia, at least amongst the circles I move in. That's inner city types, advertising agencies and film people as well as a fairly good cross-section of dopeheads and ecstasy dealers.

They were devastated when Johnny won then devastated again when Bush won. I laughed in their faces at least two business lunches, which wasn't wise since we need these people to give us work. I don't care, I'm not going to just shut up and take that crap just for the chance of getting another tampon ad.

These guys write scripts expressing the invigorating refreshment sensation of new spearmint gum and call Bush a moron at 1500 dollar lunches we fucking pay for, like they haven't bent us over enough on the job, and, as far as I know, none of them are trained fighter pilots, Harvard business graduates or successful 2-term governors of large US states. I looked closely to see if any of them might be, but closer examination still revealed them to be a bunch of semi-literate, overpaid advertising jackasses.

"Hey, hands up anyone here who’s a trained fighter pilot?" I said. "That's what I thought. Just checking".

Posted by: Amos at December 8, 2004 at 09:40 AM

Andrew,
most of the world stood with you after 11/9.
The reason few did with Iraq was it was a load of cobblers although I note most people who voted for Bush believed WMDs were found in Iraq and that hussein was rsposiblr for 11/9.

The main reason why Ruddy looks so good is bcause of Downer.

Posted by: Homer Paxton at December 8, 2004 at 09:41 AM

I'd point out even your buddies the Franch thought Saddam has WMD, Homer, but why bother. Your moustachioed, Kurd-gassing little fuck-buddy lost the war and now 25 million Iraqis will get a shot at the democracy and freedom your smug, ignorant lefty ass takes for granted. So fuck you.

You're history, you lost, get over it, or don't, shut up, or don't, whatever.

Posted by: Amos at December 8, 2004 at 09:50 AM

PS, 'The Franch??"

Posted by: Amos at December 8, 2004 at 09:50 AM

Amos, that is where the cattle go to surrender

Posted by: FusterCluck at December 8, 2004 at 10:04 AM

"I note most people who voted for Bush believed WMDs were found in Iraq and that hussein was rsposiblr for 11/9."

Produce one friggen poll to support that claim and further evidence of your other repeated claim that "Bush invoked the anzus treaty"

Posted by: Gary at December 8, 2004 at 10:25 AM

Funny how the Alexander Downer in this profile sounds nothing like the AD presented to us by various local commentators. I'm keen to know what Tim thinks of the new Mungo McCallum book, which promises to make 'Not Happy John' sound like a teen-fanzine.

Posted by: cuckoo at December 8, 2004 at 10:32 AM

It's funny though, AD copped a fair bagging in his early years in the job. The lefties preferred Biggles (Gareth Evans for the non Aussies) and his "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry" type of diplomacy. However Alex has been getting better press, at least in the Murdoch papers, over the last 2 or 3 years.

Posted by: Pauly at December 8, 2004 at 11:03 AM

I can't see how Labor can present to the electorate a consistant, believable platform to take to the next election. I guess that's what happens when you allow an organization to be gradually taken hostage by not one(Unions)but several special interest groups. If they were all on the same page maybe, but they don't even belong in the same book.
Oh well, not my problem, but they are sure an interesting spectacle to observe.

Posted by: gubbaboy at December 8, 2004 at 11:08 AM

If they got the impression that Australians have some rough edges from talking to Downer - what are they going to think when thry meet some more typical Australians?

Posted by: Razor at December 8, 2004 at 11:26 AM


"Instead Australians still remember how Britain failed to defend Singapore in 1942. There's a widespread belief that America saved Australia from occupation when it stopped the Japanese navy at the Battle of Midway some months after Singapore fell."

See my article in the November Quadrant and letter in the December Quadrant. The Japanese carrier strike force went to Midway short of 50 planes and pilots it had lost in battles with the British in the Indian Ocean - something our anti-British, anti-"Anglosphere", left have thrust well and truly down the Memory-hole.

Posted by: Hal Colebatch at December 8, 2004 at 12:08 PM

Hal,

If we're going to do that you also have to add in the Coral Sea losses, and the strategic limitaions because of the Kokoda/Guadalcanal campaigns.

Posted by: Pauly at December 8, 2004 at 12:39 PM

Actually the biggest and most caustic critics of the Iraq policy are George the first advisers and ato institute people.

They are the ones saying I told you so.

I will lift my hat to the first person who can say what specific weapons they had.

Posted by: Homer Paxton at December 8, 2004 at 01:02 PM

SAM Rockets?
Chemical Artillery shells?
If they trundled over to Syria/France/Russia/whereever else they stashed them, they'd find a few other weapons too methinks.

Posted by: RhikoR at December 8, 2004 at 01:12 PM

It's becoming some kind of lefty myth that most of the world stood with the US after 9/11. Often repeated here in the UK. It may be true, but it didn't include the left.

The same week the twin towers came down, the BBC political discussion progamme "Question Time" invited so many hostile lefties that they almost reduced the US ambassador, who was taking part, to tears. The same week President Bush was openly mocked on TV for referring to the 'folks' who had carried out the attack.

Posted by: James Hamilton UK at December 8, 2004 at 01:13 PM

You can lift you hat and stick it up your ass, Homer.

Everyone thought he had the weapons but this is already ancient history. Do you people ever get a weird senstation as you're jabbering away that you might just be totaly irrelevent? Hey I know, why don't you organise a street protest! Maybe, if you get enough uni students in rainbow afro wigs together to wave BUSHITLER placards, you can overturn the results of the '04 elections!

Four more years, ha ha ha!

Posted by: Amos at December 8, 2004 at 01:18 PM

..I will lift my hat to the first person who can say what specific weapons they had...


Sarin gas, Homer.

I'll take that hat doffing now, thank you.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at December 8, 2004 at 01:22 PM

Pauly,

I think the Coral Sea force was a different one to the main Jap carrier strike force. But I'm happy to add it in as it supports my argument - the "Anglosphere" fought together and it is mischievous and destructive to suggest otherwise.

Posted by: Hal Colebatch at December 8, 2004 at 01:22 PM

..obviously Alex must have changed into his fishnet stockings and had his butler prepare him a nice cup of Earl Grey tea...

Downer not only doesn't have a butler, he's a senior minister who drives himself to school to pick the kids up. I'm adding your 'Downer's a toff' BS to the Plastic Turkey File.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at December 8, 2004 at 01:26 PM

Come on Homer, prove "Bush invoked the anzus treaty"?.

Posted by: Gary at December 8, 2004 at 01:32 PM

Downer is not only widely vilified, he is criminally under-rated, basically because of his background, accent, and image. The jibes against him are almost always based on these.

Posted by: Ben P at December 8, 2004 at 01:35 PM

For the 2,586,364,789th time, Homer you ignorant slut, Iraq wasn't invaded to "find WMDs," it was invaded to keep Saddam Hussein from collecting them in the first place. Because. He. Was. Not. Supposed. To. Do. Even. That. He wasn't supposed to collect nukes, poisonous gas, and bioweapons; he wasn't suppose to have "samples" of such the way other people have samples of perfume lying around, he wasn't supposed to be thumbing through the Weapons of Mass Destruction and Farm Equipment catalogue, he wasn't supposed to so much as look wistfully at a picture of a gas canister, he wasn't supposed to play grab-ass with the weapons inspectors that were in Iraq to make sure he played nice with other people. Instead, he did all of the above, and we let him do it for twelve years. Though I doubt (as do "most people who voted for Bush" despite some poll that only questioned retards at the zoo) that he had anything directly to do with the World Trade Center bombing, but 1) dictators don't have to so much as shit "directly", which is one reason the job of totalitarian dictator is still so popular, and 2) I have no doubts that the twelve years of letting Saddam string UN weapons inspectors around by the nose only served to encourage people like Osama Bin Laden in their belief that the West was too weak to deserve to live.

But hey, keep thinking that we sent thousands of troops into a foreign company to find WMDs. Just don't listen to that man in the corner whispering "North Korea."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 8, 2004 at 01:47 PM

Hal,

The point I was trying to make was that in a war like the second war it is very dangerous to say that because X happened in campaign 1 it lead to Y in campaign 2. The whole issues of the interaction of forces, resources, replacement rates etc in the various aeronaval campaign in the Pacific theatre would require quite a thick book. I agree with your point, I was just being a contrarian. The major effect of the Coral Sea battle on the Midway Campaign was to lead the Japanese into thinking that the American carrier forces had already been effectively defeated because of their overestimation of American losses.

As for the Singapore campaign I think you'd have to go back to the retreat from Kabul in the first Afgan War to find a British camapign that was as inept as the Singapore campaign.

My reading of history is that it is the combined Kokoda/Milne Bay/Guadalcanal/Coral Sea battles (that the Japanese view as one campaign, not four seperate events) that convinced Australians that America (a Pacific/Atlantic power) was a better strategic fit for Australia than the UK (an Atlantic power).

Posted by: Pauly at December 8, 2004 at 01:55 PM

Hey Homer, you avoided Gary's question. Here it is again:

"I note most people who voted for Bush believed WMDs were found in Iraq and that hussein was rsposiblr for 11/9."

Produce one friggen poll to support that claim and further evidence of your other repeated claim that "Bush invoked the anzus treaty".

Posted by: Evil Pundit at December 8, 2004 at 02:19 PM

...and that hussein was rsposiblr for 11/9...

...George the first advisers and ato institute people...

Homer, we all know how much you just love to ignorantly spout off about Iraq (as that seems to be the only thing that prompts posts from you these days, rapidly approaching Miranda Divide blogparrot-RAAAWWWKKK! territory), but could you do us a favour and try to control the flow of foam that springs forth from your mouth while you type? The steady dripping does not appear to do good things to your keyboard.

Posted by: PW at December 8, 2004 at 02:33 PM

Hey, Homer, I thought you scored the "Village Idiot" gig over at CurrencyLad's. Now you're trolling here? What gives?

Posted by: Quentin George at December 8, 2004 at 03:28 PM

Sarin gas does not threaten any nation in the Gulf!

Indeed it didn't even help Iraq in the war against Iran.

Andrea it might help if you read some of George Bush's speeches. you might find out what he said and it ain't what you said. There are numerous polls in the USA it isn't hard to find them out.

Oh yeah you all ignored that the main criticism of George Bush is coming from the right in the US and in some cases here too.
They are saying I told you so.

Posted by: Homer Paxton at December 8, 2004 at 03:29 PM

Your a frggen weasel Homer. For once just support you claims.

Posted by: Gary at December 8, 2004 at 03:42 PM

Nothing brings out the inferiority complex or the cultural cringe quicker in some Aussies than to hear educated English being spoken. People who wouldn't dream of criticising foreigners for their broken English, can hardly wait to curl the lip on hearing educated native speakers like Alexander Downer. It's part of the anti-intellectual tradition. ALP leaders have long known that the way to win the workers is with a broad accent: Doc Evatt and Bob Hawke were quick to modulate their vowels when addressing the plebs.

Unfortunately, this is an enduring feature of Aussie life at all levels, and it manifests itself in criticisms on politicians like Downer who do not bend to speak like the herd. In the UK, middle-class members of the Labour Party speak in Oxbridge tones, without any political consequences. When are we going to grow up? Do Aussies want their leaders to sound like Kath and Kim?

Posted by: mr magoo at December 8, 2004 at 04:00 PM

Why won't Homer back up his assertations with proof? Who knows.

You say there is this big conga-line of people "from the right" who are saying these things. Who are they?

Come on Homer, name names!

Posted by: Quentin George at December 8, 2004 at 04:12 PM

Pauly,

I don't see how the Singapore campaign is relevant but I will make some brief comments about it.

1) Britain made desperate efforts to reinforce Singapore despite being worn out and having its back to the wall in the war with Germany. It had just lost four battleships, a battle-cruiser and an aircraft-carrier, plus another carrier out of action because stranded - more than the Americans had lost at Pearl Harbour.

2) The British Commander Percival seems to have been unusually inept and incompetent - though there was little reason to pre-suppose this. He had been a brilliant staff officer, but seemed morally paralysed in high command. He had warned several times previously he did not have the resourcesto do the job. But even the supremely capable Slim had to retreat from Burma to India before he could regroup - Percival did not have a hinterland to retreat to.

3) While the Australian Left have accused Britain of "betraying" Australia over Singapore, a contrarian argument is that the Australian Left betrayed Britian. The Scullin Labor Government in the 1920s refused to contribute any money to the building of the Singapore base (my Father, then a non-Labor Senator, as one who went on record as pleading for them to do so - see my recent biopgraphy of him, "Steadfast Knight" -sneaky way of working in an ad.) and the Curtin Labor Government refused to send Australian conscripts to defend it - it expected Britain to do so, however, though Singapore was half a world away from Britain and in Australia's back-yard. Australia relied on Britian to defend it despite the plain geopolitcal situation, and specific British warnings.

4) Japan had overwhelming air superiority. I don't know that much could have been done about this, except build up a much bigger air force much earlier.

5) With hindsight, it is hard to say whether Singapore should have been turned into a serious fortress or simply evacuated and abandoned. By the time the Japs reached Singapore they were at the end of their supplies and maybe their offensive would have collapsed if the defence had been more prolonged. Maybe.

6) There was, serously, no "betrayal" but a combination of bad luck, complacency, an inadaquate general and the inevitable logic of the situation.

7) Speaking of Downer, his father behaved heroically as a Japanese prisoner-of-war, though Keating claimed to Downer "Fifty years ago, your class was supporting them [ie Fascists]" A real charmer, Our Paul. One feels sorry for his pigs having such company.

Posted by: Hal Colebatch at December 8, 2004 at 04:13 PM

Hal,

I'm enjoying the discussion. I brought Singapore into the discussion sinmply because the newspaper article attributed the change in the Anglo Australian relationship to that event.

I will take issue with your point 2. From the memoirs I have read Percival made no effort to train his command in jungle warfare. He accepted as rote that the areas marked on the map as "impassable" were impassable, depite being advised by lower commanders that they could be traversed ny miltary formations. His aircover was withdrawn from where it could provide coverage of his forces to Singapore, which the Japanese Army Airforce did not have the range to reach. He failed to ensure that materiels of war were not destroyed by retreating forces. The Japanese were very thankful for their "Churchill supplies". Add in the command paralysis and I think Percival ranks up with Elphinstone-Bay.

I personally believe that the Malaya campaign could, and should, have been won by the British led forces. Where this would have lead to in '42 and '43 is another question. A successful '41 campaign could have led to reinforcement of Singapore that would be bagged by a more determined Japanese thrust in '42, and hence a worst overall result for the Anglosphere.

Paul Keating, what can you say apart from he really is a disagreeable toad who twisted history to suit him on scale that would make Stalin blush.

Posted by: Pauly at December 8, 2004 at 05:05 PM

Dear Anrea Harris,

You rock!

Posted by: Razor at December 8, 2004 at 05:06 PM

Well Homer, you've dodged Gary's question yet again.

Guess I'll have to remind you to answer it, whenever I see you in future.

Posted by: Evil Pundit at December 8, 2004 at 06:15 PM

Pauly and Hal, stop hijacking this thread with all the WWII crap. You sound like a couple of old diggers in the Marrickville RSL Club. Meanwhile back in the real world...

Posted by: mr magoo at December 8, 2004 at 07:25 PM

"Actually the biggest and most caustic critics of the Iraq policy are George the first advisers and ato institute people.

They are the ones saying I told you so."

Oh for fuck's sake Homer. Of course Bush 41's cabinet is lining up to complain. They were the last of the realists. Of course they're going to bitch and whine about anyone who departs from their particular method. For some reason homer you seem to be of the opinion that if a past cabinet complains about the current cabinet they must automatically be correct.

Well. Remember Brzezinski (sp?), the criminally incompetent and dismal failure of a national security so-called "advisor", whining in the 80s about Reagan's reckless foreign policy? Yeah look how he comes off now, like the idiot that he was and still is.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 8, 2004 at 07:28 PM

I notice there is at least one Bush 41 cabinet member that Homer doesn't heed the advice of...

Posted by: Quentin George at December 8, 2004 at 07:46 PM

The WMD issue is pretty much dead meat now. Most supected they were at least developmental, and had been since the 1980s. Saddam himself used to tease the world on camera with little components used to produce nukes. Allow these scenarios - the UN would not have gone in for anything less. So either you try to win them by arguing that line believeing it, and it may have been true (the argument took so bloody long) but stuff got shipped out during the nine month wait, or even longer, since he knew he was in the gun for something. Or, you argue it because you have no other way of getting a UN made up of a mix of Mother Hubbards and "criminal types" to agree to anything. This was a regime that would do whatever it took - they held a planeload of people hostage in the lead up to Gulf War 1. Does this argument really have anywhere sensible to go other than let's reform the Middle East, since it is a vital world resource held hostage by a bunch of "unreconstructed" guys who cannot just take the oil money and get on with their falcon training? It will also do a lot of good for the poor bastards who exist (too bad for those who no longer exist) under the boot of these tyrants. Saddam proved with the Kuwait expedition (and it was headed for the Saudi territory too!) that the oil rich countries were all ripe for the picking. And how we forget the act of war committed by Iran, following the virtual abdication of the Shah. Seizure of the US embassy in Teheran for a year? They were lucky that Jimmy Carter was in office. He took forever to get an expedition underway and it copped out after a couple of planes went up in smoke in the desert. It is no wonder at all that the US might have assisted a secular regime close by to take the action up to the Iranians. Things changed pretty fast once Ronnie Reagan came up on the radar. But now it is pointed to by some as a shameful thing that Saddam was assisted in this period. Get real!
While we are on the subject, please take to task all journos who insist on writing pieces which stress the "fierce independence" of people in these parts who are "occupied". They so resent it, they write in our various daily newspapers, and it is perfectly understandable that boys will be boys and try to kill, maim or actually behead these interlopers.
Fine, so long as you support the withdrawal of ALL peacekeeping forces from all the hotspots. And remember that even the Palestinian Authority (misnomer) wanted international intervention. Just another lesson in who is lobbying for what. We are dealing with wordsmiths of talent, but not always scruples, from all these places.
Heard anyone lobbying for Pakistan to be returned to India Lately? Or Bangla Desh to be disbanded? Any chest-beating about the interventions in Bosnia or Kosovo? Even Beslan seems to be taken rather matter-of-factly by too many commentators. I could get riled, but I'll stop there.

Posted by: geoff at December 8, 2004 at 08:21 PM

Don't get downer started on gay marriage?
What about the rumours about downer and the house boy at the Philippines embassy?
Could Downer's homophobia just be political oportunism or is it a defense mechanism for "fishnets"?

Posted by: jockman at December 8, 2004 at 09:02 PM

Hey you all I absolutely support the U.S. 100% by contemporary choice and also because my parents brought us up to be grateful to the Yanks. We were always taken to visit any US ships etc as toddlers and onward.Ihave taken my own kids to see the U.S,ships today and continued the traditions of our countries being "cousins".I also value the U.K. for being the first country to put up any sustained resistance to Hitler and also our ties with them. We all need to stick together and not get divided.We have enough wa***** to fight off in our own countries and others to keep us busy.

Posted by: crash at December 8, 2004 at 09:46 PM

Hey, Homer?

I did read George Bush's speeches on the matter. They are readily available on the WhiteHouse.gov website. I actually understand my native language. I see you don't.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 8, 2004 at 10:24 PM

Pauly,

I agree Percival was a dope. Elphinstone, at least as portrayed in "Flashman" seems very similar. The interesting thing is: Why? I've toyed with the idea of what would have happened if there had been a better British commander. P. did not even allow field-defences to be constructed on the Singapore side of the Johore straits on the grounds they would be bad for civilian morale. The heavy guns had only armour-piercing shells which, fired to landward, buried themselves in the mud. Why hadn't he inventoried the ammunition early in the piece and got HE ferried in? The list of bungles goes on and on. But we can learn from looking at these things.

Posted by: Hal Colebatch at December 9, 2004 at 12:49 AM

Obviously Alex must have changed into his fishnet stockings

Actually, I think Downer would make a fine drag queen. A bit of lipstick, some eye shadow and some blush, paired with high heels and ofcourse the fishnet stockings..... oops there goes my breakfast all over the monitor.

Posted by: Jonny at December 9, 2004 at 02:14 AM

Where is Homer getting this nonsense about the "main" criticism of Bush coming from the American right? Possibly he means substantive criticism, but even that's rather muted--unlike the moonbat left, most conservatives recognize that the president has to satisfy the whole country, not just the constituency that elected him/her(Condi in 2008!).

The only really harsh criticism from the right comes from Pat Buchanan and his American Conservative crowd, but that's a tiny, highly aberrant group, more like European right-wingers than anything in the American political spectrum.

The fact that Homer lines up with people like these is one more sign that moonbat lefties are the new reactionaries, people who've forgotten nothing and learned less.

Posted by: utron at December 9, 2004 at 05:44 AM

Err main cricism is substantive criticism from where I stand.

Andrea just look in election speeches.
He said Iraq threatened the Security of the Usa and world peace.
You can't threaten anyone UNLESS you have weapons!

George H Bush continually made the point HE had none that could threaten
Old Brent Scowcroft made the point the only decent planes Iraq had, Fench mirages, destroyed in the gulf war. They had only quite old Migs and russian tanks. plus a poorly performed army.

George H advisers also advised that invading Iraq would bring in terrorists. sound familiar!

As for the surveys they were one of the many exit polls.

Posted by: Homer Paxton at December 9, 2004 at 10:16 AM

"He said Iraq threatened the Security of the Usa and world peace.'

Arr another claim Homer has repeated for the last two years that has been challenged with quotes "do not want" before "threat".

"George H Bush continually made the point HE had none that could threaten
Old Brent Scowcroft made the point the only decent planes Iraq had, Fench mirages, destroyed in the gulf war. They had only quite old Migs and Russian tanks. plus a poorly performed army."

Given the proven selective interpretations and out right miss-interpretation, one needs to look for transcripts(don't rely on Homer to provide them) to get context.

Before getting into a debate with about conventional weapons, consider his other often repeated assertion [paraphrased] "a 'threat' can only come from a siloed ICBM". So debate about conventional weapons becomes fruitless.

Speculative but what seems to set Homer apart from other fundamentalist is that he thinks his opinion 'is' also the word of GOD,military, Christians and those that live in small country towns.

Posted by: Gary at December 9, 2004 at 11:21 AM

Never mind, Homer is obviously retarded, and I don't argue with retarded people. I'm cruel but not pointless.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 9, 2004 at 11:41 AM

Andrea


Homers coherence drops on sites that he receives aggressive challenges (part of his passive aggressiveness). Probably to make it so obscure to both give cover to his straw man and solicit reaction like yours and mine, making his opponents look bad.

Posted by: Gary at December 9, 2004 at 11:55 AM

I hardly think either you or I look bad. In fact, I at least showed the poor man some compassion. I try to be nice to the mentally handicapped at least once a week.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 9, 2004 at 01:17 PM

Having read a few of Homer's posts on some Christian-themed blog a while ago where he did come across fairly articulate, I think Gary's right that the environment of this blog is the cause of him being such a sputtering fool here. I don't think it's an intentional CYA move though...it's more like discussing politics in terms that exceed the average 3-year old's intellect just isn't his forte, and it shows in a most dramatic way.

Posted by: PW at December 9, 2004 at 02:19 PM

I pretty much stopped expecting intelligent/rational comments from Homer after his "Islam is satanic" post.

He's still fun to watch though.

Posted by: Quentin George at December 9, 2004 at 03:33 PM

Whilst hesitating to continue the WWII discussion, my carnaptious Irish grandparents always took great delight in the defeat of Percival at Singapore, he had gained great notoriety when he commanded the Essex Regiment in West Cork during the Irish War of Independence, apparently his troops conducted themselves in a ruthless fashion bordering on brutality. Tom Barry the legendary IRA leader (himself a former British soldier) singled him out for critiscism, from my point of view a British officer who was considered too tough by the IRA has to have something going for him.

I agree with the point made above that fundamentally it was overwhelming Japanese airpower that won the day. This was assisted greatly by a half Irish half Kiwi officer (bad mix!)in the RAF who handed over plans to the Japs thus allowing them to wipe out the RAF on the ground at their base in Penang.

Posted by: Dorman at December 9, 2004 at 03:42 PM