"John Ewing" none@needed wrote in message
u...


Bush and Howard are both conservatives, in general terms they believe in
the
same things.

I'd have to say your statement is generally true!

Then why would you expect Howard to disagree with him?


Should Howard tell Bush to get stuffed just so people who haven't
thought
the subject through, are placated?

No - you've lost me with that one. I just believe Howard should not feel
obligated to follow every proposal put forward by the US. Perhaps you are
more confident than me that Howard has always placed Australia's interests
ahead of keeping the US on side.

This will come as a shock to you, but it is in Australias interest to keep
the US on side, the fact that doing so requires doing the very things that
Howard believes in should be no surprise - they are both conservatives,
which part of that don't you get?

Missile defence as an effective strategy
has been challenged by more brilliant minds than yours or mine. Be
interesting to know whose technical advice Mr Howard sought? Or did the
US
conveniently provide that for us as well.

The old 'bomber will always get through' crowds argument resurfaces, they
were right, for as long as nobody tried to stop the bomber.

N Korea has already made a number of suggestions that they have nukes and
missiles and are prepared to use them, how is it unwise to spend some of our
money trying to stop them?

The point is BMD doesn't have to be 100% effective, to be effective. it just
has to make sure that the enemy can't be assured of a one shot, one kill
capability.


Perhaps Cardinal Pell should tell the Pope to FOAD on the issue of gay
marriges on the same basis?

By all means - if that suits your argument. I certainly wouldn't look to
the church for examples of moral leadership or freedom of speech. Never
had
a good record for tolerance of other people's views.

You are the one arguing that a conservative should disagree with a
conservative just to show he disagrees.