oK enlighten me...why..

[zombie]

does Australia or more Gillard want to be on the UN security council bizzo...........at a cost of 40 mill smackers.

Apart from the very obvious to be US suckholes and rubber stamp their illustrious no good wars, and Israel's land grabbing activities.

So whats the gig for...any ideas..??...

[williamd]

It's where they want to send Emperor Rudd to shut the bloke up. Kevvie has always wanted to be Emperor of the World.

[pim]

If that's the depth of insight that we're going to get in answer to Tonto's quite valid question, no wonder NTB-type boards never rise above a tabloid level of dumbed down discussion, inevitably become sledging matches between polarised groups and end up being shut down.

[williamd]

The problem with boards generally is that people can't simply learn to take a joke in the way it was meant and instead resort to insults and barbs to score some silly point. But it's a new board started by Freddy and we should all at least try and rise above that.

[pim]

Since you brought up Kevin Rudd ...

You have this in common with Kevin Rudd: he too gained a certain notoriety for making silly flippant smart-arsed comments redolent with a phony "bonhomie" but which came across as hokey and gauche, and when they blew up in his face would say truculently and defensively: "It was a joke!" with a look on his face that said "what'd I do?? What'd I say??"

[Freddy]

Personally,I don't mind robust political discussion, in fact I encourage it.
It's blatant bigotry and racism that turns my gut.

[pim]

Meanwhile, to return to Tonto's thread question:

Sept 27, 2012 14:05:53 GMT 11 @zombie said:

does Australia or more Gillard want to be on the UN security council bizzo...........at a cost of 40 mill smackers.

Apart from the very obvious to be US suckholes and rubber stamp their illustrious no good wars, and Israel's land grabbing activities.

So whats the gig for...any ideas..??...

I'm not going to pretend that countries always and only engage in international diplomacy in an enlightened and disinterested way. And note I say "disinterested". It means something very different from "uninterested", "Disinterested" means "with no stake in the outcome". Of course Australia would apply for the SC gig with a self-interested agenda. And who knows what's really going on! Maybe the Americans told us quietly that they've got something on in the medium term and that, just maybe, it would suit them just fine to have Australia on the SC.

Of course I have absolutely zero evidence for the above scenario and I'd like to think that the Australians engage in international diplomacy at the level of the UN in a way that's more disinterested than as a Trojan Horse for the Americans.

But Australia has always invested a lot in the UN and we're right to do so. Of course at this point I expect some conspiracy theorist to come onto the thread fulminating about the tinpot dictatorships that get onto the UN gravy train and also about how the UN is a conspiracy to impose a communist world government that will turn our children into organic lentil-munching tree-hugging atheist homosexuals.

Whatever!

The fact is that the SC gig bid isn't a Gillard Government initiative or even a Rudd Government initiative. The idea came from Alexander Downer when he was Foreign Minister. He pushed it along for a while until the idea was canned by John Howard, only to be revived by Kevin Rudd.

Whatever you think of the UN - and political conservatives usually ape the American Republicans, particularly the fruitcake freakshow Tea Party conspiracy theorists who have captured the Republican Party , in viewing the UN with suspicion at best and with outright hostility at worst while social democrats view the UN more positively - Australia has always been deeply involved with the UN, both in its peackeeping role (Timor l'Este, Bougainville, Rwanda, Somalia ... to name just a few) as well as in its aid programs - WHO, FAO, UNESCO and of course the UNHCR ... and many more.

You can be cynical if you like. It's easy - and also lazy - to be tabloid about it. But if we're going to be heavily involved, and we have been heavily involved ever since "Doc" Evatt was President of the UN General Assembly in the late 1940s - then we'd be ratbags not to take an opportunity to have a say in how the outfit is run.

That's what the gig is for.

[zombie]

Indeed Australia does punch above its weight with UN affairs, no doubt in that, and Australia has been on the SC 4 times in the past, 26 years ago the last time, and last time Oz contested was in 1995 concerned over French nuke testing, and the 5 permanent seat members are the biggest nuke powers and weapons sellers.

In the past there were clear motives for this 2 year gig, what Gillard is stating is more or less we don't need to know, apart from some diatribe on Syria.

Given that Australia does not for the most part act independently on its international diplomacy, no need for explanation on that, and the rhetoric from Gillard and Carr on Dinnerjackets denial opinion on the holocaust, well I'm reading US inspired war with Iran.

We also know that the 5 permanent members in voting on action only one has to veto and nothing gets done, and the US consistently veto's any UN decision on Israel, and Israel is chomping at the bit to war with Iran.

One has to question is this the right path for a independent Australia to take, to be a mere US military base for primarily Israels land grabbin' exercise, war being a distraction to what it is doing to the Palestinians.