Australia backs US strikes on Iran while urging return to diplomacy (www.abc.net.au)
from schizoidman@lemmy.zip to world@lemmy.world on 23 Jun 02:04
https://lemmy.zip/post/42078886

cross-posted from: lemmy.zip/post/42078882

#world

threaded - newest

Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 23 Jun 02:26 next collapse

yeah, just another weak politician.

i hope he knows he has failed his younger self.

Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone on 23 Jun 02:56 next collapse

Australian government backs it.

Not all Australians

FerretyFever0@fedia.io on 23 Jun 03:39 next collapse

Be nice if some more people understood that about the US.

lostoncalantha@lemmy.world on 23 Jun 04:05 next collapse

Most Americans are checked out.

FerretyFever0@fedia.io on 23 Jun 04:41 collapse

Sure. Are Australians more checked in?

NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io on 23 Jun 07:33 collapse

Yeah... No. The vast majority supported the genocide, either enthusiastically or through lesser evil politics. And no I'm not talking about voting for Harris; I'm talking about the liberal reaction to pro-Palestine protests and Uncommitted.

hitmyspot@aussie.zone on 23 Jun 07:02 next collapse

Yet, the greens received less votes and were the only party with an anti genocide agenda. Like America, Australia was uncaring at best.

The country gets the representation it voted for.

Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone on 23 Jun 08:06 collapse

The greens are a flip flop party who will knock down a decent solution because it’s not perfect.

That’s what the Australians I know think of them.

hitmyspot@aussie.zone on 23 Jun 09:52 collapse

Sticking to principles is the opposite of flip plop. I agree, they are not pragmatic, though. However, no other party with a chance at a seat was anti genocide. If they did the same or better, the argument could be made that aussies care. They did worse nationally. Aussies don’t care.

Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone on 23 Jun 22:07 collapse

Yes but governments can’t make massive changes in legislation easily and small incremental changes over time can achieve the same results.

Like they say, don’t let perfection be the enemy of good

hitmyspot@aussie.zone on 23 Jun 22:18 collapse

Yes, I agree, but they were still the only party that were opposed to genocide and nobody cared enough to vote for them.

So whatever your views of the greens, the voters view of genocide was that it wasn’t important.

Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone on 24 Jun 11:32 collapse

No, that’s wrong.

You can’t elect a party on one issue, three entire election is multifaceted you can’t try claim because the greens said the were against genocide and no one voted for them it’s simply due to that.

The greens could have lost on any of their other policies with their views on genocide being ignored.

Look at America, good old “genocide Joe”, lost the election being supposedly pro genocide while trump was going to fix it.

No one is elected on one issue

hitmyspot@aussie.zone on 24 Jun 12:52 collapse

No, I’m saying that as the only party to be anti genocide, if Australians cared about it as an issue, their votes would have increased, not decreased.

Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone on 24 Jun 20:55 collapse

Not based off of one issue.

hitmyspot@aussie.zone on 25 Jun 07:19 collapse

Yes, based on many. However, that implies that people don’t care about the genocide, which is what ive repeatedly said.

If you want to be more precise, they cared about everything else more, which is a different way of saying they don’t care about it.

Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone on 25 Jun 08:09 collapse

No you’re holding it up as a one item agenda, the marijuana party didn’t get in either but tons of cunts love weed

hitmyspot@aussie.zone on 25 Jun 08:58 collapse

No, I’m pointing out, again, about the reduction of votes they got. They are the only party with the potential for seats to support ending genocide. They had less votes and lost seats.

I’m not saying it was their only issue but it clearly wasn’t an important issue for Australians based on that.

If it was important to Australians, more would have voted for the greens. Australians either didn’t care or supported genocide instead.

It’s not like the USA where it was a hold your nose situation. We have preferential voting. If people cared about other issues, they could still preference the greens for their genocide stance, of they deemed it important. they did not.

redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 23 Jun 12:36 collapse

There was a guy who torture and killed dogs on video a while back. Guy was doxxed as a taxidermist with a house in the outback. Locals hunted him down and burned his house down before the cops could do anything. I don’t think anyone was ever charged with a crime.

I don’t know what this has to do with this but it feels relevant somehow

SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one on 23 Jun 03:08 next collapse

Dutton, or the snake that replaced him, would be pushing for more.

So, yeah, I’m not happy with this answer. But it’s still better than the alternative.

Take fucking note, white lily American no-voters.

markko@lemmy.world on 23 Jun 03:37 collapse

The US electoral system is utterly fucked. At least voting for a third-party in Aus can make some sort of difference.

843563115848@lemmy.zip on 23 Jun 08:13 next collapse

Nice. “Urge” a little bit more, that’s the ticket there mate.

Almacca@aussie.zone on 23 Jun 09:24 next collapse

I shudder to think what Dutton’s response would have been, though.

Kazel@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 24 Jun 21:45 collapse

oh, so we are already building teams for ww3… canada + eu vs usa + australia + china + russia + north korea vs middle east - could get tough though