Nothing in politics is universally accepted or popular.
Popularity wax and wane.
Hardnosed decisions does well for the Nation, but may not be popular.
Once the results come, it becomes the toast of the Nation.
Wake up to the political world!
Sure, but there's popular, and then there's universally popular. The Carbon Tax was a good example as, to put it crudely, it was popular with right wing voters and unpopular with the left. But, that's not entirely true and Abbott would have lost some of those who voted for him, but are very concerned with the environment and will have changed their vote.
You may not like Rommel, Guderian or Manstein or anyone German.
But then you may not be conversant with military tactics and strategy. Those who are, and even those who faced these German Generals, appreciate their military acumen.
So, who matters? You who has not seen war or the ones who saw war and fought these very German General and who sang paeans about their acumen?
Mao and Che are official reading material for the Indian Army. Surprised?
I have got nothing against Germans, unless they were Nazis, and can certainly understand if their military thinkers are studied by others in the same profession. Abbott, however, was talking about the public perception of the actions of the Japanese during WW2, which I consider a different situation.
Am a bit surprised about Mao and Che being studied.
While I know little of Chinese Civil War, my perception was that the Chinese communists fled from battle for approximately a dozen years, before their enemy collapsed, due to their own corruption, and Mao "picked up the pieces" of the country. Although, I guess India and China have some serious issues, so I would be useful for Indians to understand Mao's thoughts. And I guess Mao was the winner of the Chinese Civil War, which gives his ideas some extra resonance.
While we are getting off topic, but do you have an opinion on why Che is still read? Is Che an inspiration for your Marxist (Naxalites???) insurgents
I believe Golliwog is also objectionable.
Yes, that's not a good word to use
Good that you are all narrow minded unlike us.
I presume it is cultural thing. Unlike Australians who have not really historically experienced real combat until WWs, India has always had battles and wars historically. That is why we appreciate valour even of our enemies since valour knows no religion, community or national boundaries. I have appended links in other threads of Pakistani officers getting Pakistan's highest gallantry awards on Indian recommendations! Kernal Sher Khan in Kargil and the Armoured Corps Colonel who counter attacked in Barapind and was commended by Col VP AIrey, the CO 3 GRENADIERS, the unit the Pakistani Colonel led the counter attack against.
Further reinforced possibly by our cultural and civilisation bequeathed psyche of forgiveness and compassion. Examples abound: No animosity towards BritainFind this comment somewhat strange on this forum, going overboard to be chummy with Pakistan As with this oneetc etc.
You are entitled to dislike whoever you want, but you cannot wish away the good he has done for Australia.
You are talking about Abbott? I don't dislike him, although alot of his statements I disagree with or find objectionable. I'd much rather him being in office, after the Russians murdered all those Australians on MH17, than most other recent PM's.
China is a marauder and he is only ensuring safety of his shores by cosying up with yesterday's enemies.
There is no permanent friend or foe in international politics. There is merely permanent national interests.
Rudd did much for Asia as per the Australian meaning of Asia?
If so, what?
