Rudd placing RAAF in Danger Already!

The 5 new A330 tankers meant to be part of the solution to retire the F111s for the RAAF are now being divided up for Political use, rather than Defence use. The tankers are Air Force inventory meant to refuel the small range F18 Hornets which can fly about half the distance of the F111s.
With an AIr Force without an F111 what will Australia do? Nothing, simply, which will be a repeat of World War II where our so called Air Force was blown out of the sky by Japanese Zero fighters. Are we as short sighted now as we were then? Yes, I can believe that.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23881629-662,00.html

THE RAAF will convert two of its five new Airbus A-330 tanker planes to VIP aircraft.

The move follows the crash of a Garuda jet in Indonesia last year, in which two Australian officials, two police officers and a journalist died.

They were forced on to the flight because the RAAF VIP aircraft carrying then foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer was too small.

The A-330, twin-engine, long-range jets will receive a VIP makeover, allowing the Prime Minister and senior ministers to travel with staff, officials and the media.

Kevin Rudd's Stunning Nuclear Disarmament Announcement!

I was right. I knew we would see Whitlamesque Bullcrap like this.

From Andrew Bolt:

Kevin Rudd’s latest big idea:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced the creation of a new international body that will push for nuclear disarmament.

Er, like the bionic eye that Rudd said should be invented, here’s yet another Rudd idea that’s already been invented. In fact, Australia is already a member of the United Nations’ Conference on Disarmament whose aims are identical to the ones Rudd has in mind:

The terms of reference of the CD include practically all multilateral arms control and disarmament problems. Currently the CD primarily focuses its attention on the following issues: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament...

But of course the Conference on Disarmament suffers from one fatal weakness - it wasn’t Rudd’s idea.

(Thanks to reader Dylan.)

My own quote: "I feel safer already, Kevin Rudd is doing his bit for 'world security'!" More
like a bankteller trying to tell the robber that putting his gun down is going to make everyone
feel nice. Wow I wish I could meet Mr Rudd, he would make me feel warm all over!

?If having and using a nuclear weapon ended the World’s most devastating war ever, are we to
believe that nuclear disarmament will make the world a ‘safer’ place? The biggest question
here is, what is the logic of Kevin Rudd’s move to ‘push’ nuclear disarmament? In the case of a
nuclear weapon, having and using the device, actually ceased hostilities and saved millions of
lives(that is Japanese lives!), won’t disarmament actually empower the dictators that Kevin
Rudd actually ignores to build, harbour and use nuclear weapons? After World War One,
disarmament was a major theme for preventing another world war on a massively devastating
scale. And those anti-nuclear advocates take note, World War Two, before Hiroshima, caused
casualties on the biggest scales before two nuclear weapons were detonated in Japan. In
retrospect, had the bombs been used against Hitler 5 years before, it would have either crushed
him totally thus ending the war, or causing a total surrender of Germany and Hitler suiciding
like he did in 1945. In addition and most importantly the people killed by the Nagasaki and
Hiroshima blasts pale in comparison to the vast numbers that perished throughout the war from
1939-1945.
This is what Mr Rudd doesn’t want to know, a victim of the Sixties feel good culture where the
nuclear disarmament cycle began and during the most dark time of the cold war. And when
Ronald Reagan massively expanded his nuclear stockpiles in the 1980's, what happened? He
strategically defeated the Soviet Union by bankrupting them with the huge expansion in nuclear
weapons, something the Soviets feared, and clever counter espionage.
The only way Kennedy (although he did complete a backdoor deal with the Soviets) managed
to compel the Soviets to withdraw their nuclear weapons from Cuba was confrontation, not
disarmament. Kennedy could have said ‘disarmament’ but it wouldn’t have phased the Soviets
one bit.
While Iran has the 2nd largest oil reserves (and President Bush didn’t invade Iran, did he?) in
the world, and they are mostly untouched due to a backward religious Government focused on
buying the people rather than allowing development of the oil fields, it is not going to back off
building its nukes, even if Mr Rudd tries to ‘scare’ them, which he won’t. Mr Rudd will carry
on with his silly little meetings of elites and making themselves feel good through having
excellent meetings and setting up more commissions and treaties.
Basically nuclear disarmament is a philosophy used by the elites that think it would lead to a
non-nuclear world. Unfortunately for the elites, that will never happen.