Peter COSGROVE, a great choice for GG

[digger]

first a timeline on COSGROVE

Peter Cosgrove Timeline - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/interactives/timelines/peter-cosgrove-governor-general-timeline/#6)

the announcement,

Peter Cosgrove named as next governor-general, will replace Quentin Bryce in March - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-28/peter-cosgrove-named-as-next-governor-general/5222608)

in my opinion a great choice.

And I must say other than a couple of faux paus, Quentin BRYCE has done an excellent job (to my shame I didnt think she'd be any good, glad to admit I was wrong!)

[Chucaro]

I agree with you, she done a wonderful job and he will be working hard to improve things in Australia.

[V8Ian]

Totally agree with you Digger; he did an excellent jo* after Larry. There can't *e an Australian who doesn't hold him in high esteem.

[The ho har's]

Excellent choice:)

BTW Ian when are you going to get your key board fixed?:)

[Chucaro]

Ian, you should be able to program another key for that task, then again.........why bother :D

[weeds]

Would there have been a short list?? Who else would have been considered for the position?? Not a bad choice but just wondered who else it could have been.......

[V8Ian]

Would there have been a short list?? Who else would have been considered for the position?? Not a bad choice but just wondered who else it could have been.......
I told them I wouldn't get out of ed for less than half a mill; that increased Peter's chances. :p

[bob10]

He'll do OK, cut his teeth in Vietnam. Not much [ if any ] bull**** in him. Bob


Peter Cosgrove: The life and times of Australia's new governor-general - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-28/life-and-times-of-peter-cosgrove/5216810)

[V8Ian]

Excellent choice:)

BTW Ian when are you going to get your key board fixed?:)
Carolyn; it's a net *ook. I think I might get a new one. :(

Ian, you should be able to program another key for that task, then again.........why bother :D
I have Chucky; the *; keep up man. :p

[Slunnie]

I told them I wouldn't get out of ed for less than half a mill; that increased Peter's chances. :p

Tony didn't even ask me. I think he knew that he would have to compromise with Cosgrove.

[landy]

I had the absolute honour to have met (the then) Gen Cosgrove when I was posted to 4 Fd Regt in Townsville. A fantastically engaging man that just oozed confidence and inspired his men. A fantastic choice!
While I think the current GG has done a brilliant job, I'm glad the baton goes to Cosgrove.

Cheers

Nino.

[Geedublya]

A fairly predictable choice for a conservative government. I'm not saying he won't do a great job however I would have liked to have seen another woman.

It was nice to see the current GG weigh into some stuff and not just be a puppet.

[Pickles2]

A very good choice in a man who has "the runs on the board".
I have no hesitation at all in predicting that he will do an excellent job,...for everyone.
Cheers, Pickles.

[bob10]

One thing I wasn't aware of, is that his son was wounded in Iraq in 2005. That was the year Gen. Cosgrove retired from Active service. He was Chief of the Defence force at that point, if I remember correctly. Very difficult time for him, I imagine, Bob

[digger]

A fairly predictable choice for a conservative government. I'm not saying he won't do a great job however I would have liked to have seen another woman.

It was nice to see the current GG weigh into some stuff and not just be a puppet.

I am not having a go but the idea of nominating someone just because of their sex annoys me...

Also I think a lot of thought has gone into this selection, as Gen COSGROVE being the GG when it is the anniversary of WW1 is very appropriate I believe.

The only thing I believe was poor judgement on Ms BRYCEs part was the way she announced some things,
Obviously if you are selected for a position representing someone you would be rude to spruik for the others...

(eg:- if you are employed by Coles to represent them then you would be a poor employee if you told everyone you preferred woolies whilst you were at work at coles.)

[BMKal]

Would there have been a short list?? Who else would have been considered for the position?? Not a bad choice but just wondered who else it could have been.......

It was rumoured that they were considering Derryn Hinch - but he is otherwise engaged. :p

But seriously, I agree that Cosgrove is an excellent choice. The man has the runs on the board, and has earned the respect of people in all walks of life.

[87County]

A fairly predictable choice for a conservative government. I'm not saying he won't do a great job however I would have liked to have seen another woman.

It was nice to see the current GG weigh into some stuff and not just be a puppet.


Have to agree that it was predictable from this type of government. At least the characters of other earlier GGs and present incumbent and hopefully Peter Cosgrove will all help us to forget jhoward's disastrous political appointment of his mate PJ Hollingworth.

I know that military men who have a solid history and who got on well with their men will be popular, (thinking of Bill Slim 1953-1959 & Michael Jeffrey 2003-2008), but they often seem to lack the compassion and the down-to-earth relationship connection with the general populace that for example, Bill Deane and Quentin Bruce have been able to achieve.

Hopefully Peter Cosgrove can also achieve this kind of connection and not just be Abbott's man.

[ugu80]

A fitting appointment to end the career of a person with a lifetime of service to his country.

I would like to offer my condolences to those on this forum whose favoured choice, Tim Flannery (perhaps with a sex change, Geedublya), was overlooked.

[87County]

A fitting appointment to end the career of a person with a lifetime of service to his country.

I would like to offer my condolences to those on this forum whose favoured choice, Tim Flannery (perhaps with a sex change, Geedublya), was overlooked.

:D

Not a position to be given out as any kind of reward for past services in my opinion.....

& yes, it has to be inclusive but I don't think that your preferred nominee Mr T Flannery would have the aplomb for the job (even with a gender reallocation)

[weeds]

umm, I guess I'm not that excited as he is ex-military.........

would really like to know who else would have been in the mix......

[Mick_Marsh]

A fairly predictable choice for a conservative government. I'm not saying he won't do a great job however I would have liked to have seen another woman.
Personally, I think we are long overdue to have a hermaphrodite in the role.

[ugu80]

:D

Not a position to be given out as any kind of reward for past services in my opinion.....

I thought history of service and contribution to the community was a prime consideration for the position. Perhaps someone younger would be a good change. How about Nathan Tinkler?

[ramblingboy42]

Personally, I think we are long overdue to have a hermaphrodite in the role.

Do you know any that you could recommend Mick?

[VladTepes]

A fairly predictable choice for a conservative government. I'm not saying he won't do a great job however I would have liked to have seen another woman.


Why?




I am not having a go but the idea of nominating someone just because of their sex annoys me...


Me too. Whether a candidate for the job is male or female shouldn't matter a tinker's cuss.

[Mick_Marsh]

Do you know any that you could recommend Mick?
I made the suggestion. You can make the recommendation.

[ugu80]

umm, I guess I'm not that excited as he is ex-military.........
Too true. It should go to someone who spent their time in an office doing good, that they were paid very well doing it was not a consideration and just due reward for their services rather than someone who received minimum pay for what they do in exchange for an oath that they will give their life and all that could have been for them, should the nation request that they do so.

[weeds]

Too true. It should go to someone who spent their time in an office doing good, that they were paid very well doing it was not a consideration and just due reward for their services rather than someone who received minimum pay for what they do in exchange for an oath that they will give their life and all that could have been for them, should the nation request that they do so.

I served during cosgroves time.........I wouldn't say defence pay is minimum, its not great but its OK. we all signed up for the same conditions of service i.e. no different to you accepting your duties within your role where you work.

I probably shouldn't be weighing in too much as didn't quite fit into the system.....I had to serve min 9 years in the regs, did another 12 or so years in the chocks

[DiscoMick]

I think he's a good choice, although certainly not the only potential candidate.
I read that he was on the short-list last time, but Quentin Bryce got up, and seems to have done a good job.
I imagine the only ones who might not like the choice of Cosgrove would be in Jakarta, particularly the military, since he led us in East Timor, but they'll just have to suck it up. Is Abbott sending a subtle message to Jakarta?

[digger]

<<<snip>>>
I imagine the only ones who might not like the choice of Cosgrove would be in Jakarta, particularly the military, since he led us in East Timor, but they'll just have to suck it up. Is Abbott sending a subtle message to Jakarta?

I wonder why people believe this...
Granted there was pressure before they left East Timor which was put on by the UN.. and INDONESIA allowed an independance referendum...

The militias then went on a rampage detroying (systematically) almost anything and everything that Indonesia had helped improve in ET.

Librarys were burnt down, record offices were also burnt out (no record of who has a drivers lic, no record of births/deaths or marriages, no lands records, no records of where pipes are laid or electricity strung etc, all schools trashed or completely burnt out,hotels, shops and offices especially around Dili burnt out, no criminal records kept (this includes records of murderers, paedophiles etc) this stuff can completely cripple a nation... But all this was allegedly done uncoordinated by the militias which the INDONESIAN government officially berated...

so no loss of face for INDONESIA officially at least..

Indonesia had officially left EAST TIMOR when the UN moved in, only militia were left and the Indonesians disowned these...as stated above

The INDONESIAN military have continued the training programme with us (via DUNTRRON and other branches/sections of the forces and training) I believe completely unabated, so there is no loss of face to Indonesia from AUST, the UN, or COSGROVE..

So, no problems I wouldnt think except from those who are unaware of how events unfolded in ET and our involvement.

[Random88]

Saw on TV yesterday that Howard is still a close adviser to the current PM. This is appointment is an extension of Howard's Militarisation of Australian history. Would have preferred to see someone not aligned with war.

[digger]

Saw on TV yesterday that Howard is still a close adviser to the current PM. This is appointment is an extension of Howard's Militarisation of Australian history. Would have preferred to see someone not aligned with war.

Then COSGROVE is your man, he was in charge of and ran (tightly) a PEACEKEEPING MISSION..

Other actions were overseen and not started nor run by him or anyone under his control. (I refer to the middle east matters)

As Chief of the Defence forces he also promoted the use of military in flood/rescue etc ops in and out of Australia...



This comment is the same as saying you'd hate to see a plumber as GG as they are constantly doing their job and dealing with ****...

[Basil135]

I think he is the right choice.

He has given distinguished service to the country in a variety of roles, including PEACEkeeping, and disaster relief.

When he was called upon to lead up the recovery after the cyclones, he was the right person for the job. A clear & decisive leader that did what had to be done, with what he had, with care & compassion.

[Basil135]

This is appointment is an extension of Howard's Militarisation of Australian history. Would have preferred to see someone not aligned with war.

Why do you say this?

And I ask because I am confused as to what your reasoning could be.

[Pickles2]

Why do you say this?

And I ask because I am confused as to what your reasoning could be.
+1
Pickles.

[ugu80]

I served during cosgroves time.........I wouldn't say defence pay is minimum, its not great but its OK. we all signed up for the same conditions of service i.e. no different to you accepting your duties within your role where you work.

I probably shouldn't be weighing in too much as didn't quite fit into the system.....I had to serve min 9 years in the regs, did another 12 or so years in the chocks
:oops2:[thumbsupbig]

[ramblingboy42]

uh-oh.....stand by.....there has been an infraction against the bluebloods

[Random88]

Why do you say this?

And I ask because I am confused as to what your reasoning could be.

Fair question. Being aware that some on this forum have served in the military, I didn't rave on but see link for reasoning.
Militarising Australian History: MAPW paper 1, Marilyn Lake. February 2012 | Medical Association for Prevention of War (http://www.mapw.org.au/download/militarising-australian-history-mapw-war-militarism-series-1)

[Random88]

I think he is the right choice.

He has given distinguished service to the country in a variety of roles, including PEACEkeeping, and disaster relief.

When he was called upon to lead up the recovery after the cyclones, he was the right person for the job. A clear & decisive leader that did what had to be done, with what he had, with care & compassion.

Disaster relief, I get that. Peacekeeping is political speak for what soldiers do, make those who are not behaving in a way we do agree with. :)

Either way, the role of the GG has nothing to do with operations or policy. The role is a figurehead only, rolled out like the STIG to perform functions when required. The requirement is to get a respected person in the position and Cosgrove is respected. I respect him, but if I ruled the world I would have put someone else in to keep the military as a required, the big stick kept in the cupboard, not the show pony. Just an opinion, I have no influence.

[digger]

Disaster relief, I get that. Peacekeeping is political speak for what soldiers do, make those who are not behaving in a way we do agree with. :)

<<<snip>>>

I have been involved with peacekeeping operations ( including East Timor) and can tell you that peacekeeping is very much not what soldiers train for...
(actually they do train better for it since ET)

In fact it is the most restrictive of military duties....
Imagine training for war and warlike operations, then being used and restricted with Police like powers, cannot shoot at unless being shot at etc...

So watching someone armed moving towards yourself or other troops and not being allowed to do anything until they move into a position where its the last act.... and being fully aware that judgement on that action will be by person/s outside the military.... not your usual warlike situation..


I stand by what I said before, I do acknowledge your statement that you and I know that General Peter COSGROVE (and his wife LYNN) will continue their service in the best way they can for AUSTRALIA. (I am sure whomever is selected would also do this. ) But why would someone else be better? Doesnt anyone selected have negatives?

If you chose someone religious then there is the allegations they will be biased towards their religion and therefore not fairly representitive of everyone, If you chose a businessman/woman then there is also the same type of allegation, "is a man /woman of the rich people not all people".

I believe chosing someone like General COSGROVE is the right choice he has proven his dedication to the whole country and shown his dedication to doing it fairly not just to Aussies but to everyone where possible.

The reason that military personnel are often chosen for such a role is that their loyalty to the country is proven and they are expected to be able to perform well under pressure both politally and otherwise.

The fact you would rule someone out purely because of his service is actually very disapppointing in my opinion.You appear to see it as a negative, I see the opposite.

As for the acticle, surely there was someone less biased than the "MEDICAL ASSOCIATION FOR PREVENTION OF WAR"?. I am sure if we look there are acticles about to appear everywhere in unit and regiment magazines that will extol his selection - would you also consider these as a neutral basis for your arguement?

I don't often dig in my heels over stuff but this is one Im willing to go knee deep for!!......


My brother served directly with (under) COSGROVE in Somalia, A good mate of mine served with him in Vietnam, Relatives met him during the rebuild in Qld, and I met him a number of times, the first time at a function in SA after East Timor... All are very impressed with him as a boss and as a man.

It may sound like it but I am not looking for an arguement or fight (honest!!:D ) but am willing to defend someone who I believe is a very good choice and who I believe has defended us for so long.

cheers
Digger

[Pickles2]

Digger, VERY well said mate.
And, there's no doubt that the majority of Aussies would feel the same way.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Random88]

I have been involved with peacekeeping operations ( including East Timor) and can tell you that peacekeeping is very much not what soldiers train for...
(actually they do train better for it since ET)

In fact it is the most restrictive of military duties....
Imagine training for war and warlike operations, then being used and restricted with Police like powers, cannot shoot at unless being shot at etc...

So watching someone armed moving towards yourself or other troops and not being allowed to do anything until they move into a position where its the last act.... and being fully aware that judgement on that action will be by person/s outside the military.... not your usual warlike situation..


I stand by what I said before, I do acknowledge your statement that you and I know that General Peter COSGROVE (and his wife LYNN) will continue their service in the best way they can for AUSTRALIA. (I am sure whomever is selected would also do this. ) But why would someone else be better? Doesnt anyone selected have negatives?

If you chose someone religious then there is the allegations they will be biased towards their religion and therefore not fairly representitive of everyone, If you chose a businessman/woman then there is also the same type of allegation, "is a man /woman of the rich people not all people".

I believe chosing someone like General COSGROVE is the right choice he has proven his dedication to the whole country and shown his dedication to doing it fairly not just to Aussies but to everyone where possible.

The reason that military personnel are often chosen for such a role is that their loyalty to the country is proven and they are expected to be able to perform well under pressure both politally and otherwise.

The fact you would rule someone out purely because of his service is actually very disapppointing in my opinion.You appear to see it as a negative, I see the opposite.

As for the acticle, surely there was someone less biased than the "MEDICAL ASSOCIATION FOR PREVENTION OF WAR"?. I am sure if we look there are acticles about to appear everywhere in unit and regiment magazines that will extol his selection - would you also consider these as a neutral basis for your arguement?

I don't often dig in my heels over stuff but this is one Im willing to go knee deep for!!......


My brother served directly with (under) COSGROVE in Somalia, A good mate of mine served with him in Vietnam, Relatives met him during the rebuild in Qld, and I met him a number of times, the first time at a function in SA after East Timor... All are very impressed with him as a boss and as a man.

It may sound like it but I am not looking for an arguement or fight (honest!!:D ) but am willing to defend someone who I believe is a very good choice and who I believe has defended us for so long.

cheers
Digger

Well said and you will not get an argument from me. I respect your opinion as you should mine. The only issue I have is based on a comment and link above. Continued focus on the military side of Australian history of which Cosgrove has contributed recently. Our country has not been under real threat since WWII but anyone would think that fighting other peoples wars was all we did.
So my humble opinion is that this appointment is continuing a military about what's important. Simple as that.

[Basil135]

Fair question. Being aware that some on this forum have served in the military, I didn't rave on but see link for reasoning.
Militarising Australian History: MAPW paper 1, Marilyn Lake. February 2012 | Medical Association for Prevention of War (http://www.mapw.org.au/download/militarising-australian-history-mapw-war-militarism-series-1)

At the risk of repeating what Digger said, that particular paper is hardly an unbiased opinion.

To me, it reeks of a whinge from a opportunistic feminist, that is seeking more funding for her own advancement.

For starters, the paragraph:

"Most worrying has been the systematic
distribution by DVA of curriculum materials –
books, websites, posters, class exercises and
prizes for essays – to all primary and secondary
schools across Australia. This mass education
program has taken place since 1996 without
the public realising that millions of dollars of
government funds are being spent in this way"

Australia has a short, but very full history. In a little over 200 years, our soldiers have been in 2 World Wars, plus several other smaller ones. This forms part of our history.

I agree with part of her sentiment, in that there are MANY other achievements that need to be celebrated, but this has to be inclusive of military actions as well.

In the very next paragraph:

"The broader public has for the most part been
successfully co-opted into this enterprise through
the marketing of military history as family history.
Families are encouraged to locate themselves in
this national story and to embark on pilgrimages
to battle sites to give personal meaning to overseas
touring."

Australia is a multi-cultral society. This, of course, means that those countries that we were enemies with 60 years ago, are now our allies, and many people have settled here from those countries. By the authors statement that "the broader public has, for the most part, been successfully CO-OPTED.... " she is implying that the majority of people have been brainwashed.

My Year 5 daughter had to produce a family tree, late last year, as did the rest of the class. The students were then to research 4 generations back. This meant that the students that had relatives settle in Australia from overseas, had to find out why they did just that. Not a single word of any war was mentioned in any of their research.

What I find interesting, is that this paper you quoted was written on behalf of the Medical Association for Prevention of War. Part of a medico's pledge is to "first do no harm". But, here is the clincher. The author of this paper, has no published medical qualifications:

"Marilyn Lake is Charles La Trobe Professor in
History at La Trobe University. She is also President
of the Australian Historical Association, a Fellow
of the Australian Academies of Social Sciences and
Humanities"

The appointment of Cosgrove as GG is NOT a political or military move. It is the appointment of the best candidate for the job, and recognition for the service he has provided to the country.

Sorry if the above sounds like a rant, but it riles me when people are paid to write papers on which they have an opinion, and no experience or substance to back it up.

FWIW, I think there needs to be more history taught in schools. Australian history, to me, is interesting, as it is relatively "recent". However, only today, we were discussing the brilliance of Leonardo Da Vinci, and how he was generations ahead of his time.

[bob10]

I'm just wondering, how many who question his appointment would have the balls to say that to his face. From what I have heard about the man, he would take that on board , and not be offended. And then tactfully tell you where you are going wrong. As long as he keeps politics out of the appointment, he'll do me. Bob

[weeds]

I'm just wondering, how many who question his appointment would have the balls to say that to his face. From what I have heard about the man, he would take that on board , and not be offended. And then tactfully tell you where you are going wrong. As long as he keeps politics out of the appointment, he'll do me. Bob

Why would people want to say it to his face, like what would that prove.....in my case it's nothing to do with him (apart from my views on the military).........I.e. I just asked who else was in the running. Most people wouldn't have a personal gripe against the man

[Pickles2]

Well Bob, I actually don't mind if they bring Politics into it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think Bryce was a bit to the Labor side of things if you know what I mean, I think Cosgrove will be more of a fit with the Coalition, not to say that either is better than the other.
BUT, I think you are RIGHT,...Politics should not come into it, but funnily enough, whoever is in the position, one can tell what "side" they are on,.....it just "comes out"?
Cheers, Pickles.

[Random88]

I'm just wondering, how many who question his appointment would have the balls to say that to his face. From what I have heard about the man, he would take that on board , and not be offended. And then tactfully tell you where you are going wrong. As long as he keeps politics out of the appointment, he'll do me. Bob

Get me an interview. This guy is intelligent enough to see more than one side of a debate. He probably understands that in some cases there is no right or wrong, just opinions. Not all of his supporters are at his level.

[Random88]

At the risk of repeating what Digger said, that particular paper is hardly an unbiased opinion.

To me, it reeks of a whinge from a opportunistic feminist, that is seeking more funding for her own advancement.

For starters, the paragraph:

"Most worrying has been the systematic
distribution by DVA of curriculum materials –
books, websites, posters, class exercises and
prizes for essays – to all primary and secondary
schools across Australia. This mass education
program has taken place since 1996 without
the public realising that millions of dollars of
government funds are being spent in this way"

Australia has a short, but very full history. In a little over 200 years, our soldiers have been in 2 World Wars, plus several other smaller ones. This forms part of our history.

I agree with part of her sentiment, in that there are MANY other achievements that need to be celebrated, but this has to be inclusive of military actions as well.

In the very next paragraph:

"The broader public has for the most part been
successfully co-opted into this enterprise through
the marketing of military history as family history.
Families are encouraged to locate themselves in
this national story and to embark on pilgrimages
to battle sites to give personal meaning to overseas
touring."

Australia is a multi-cultral society. This, of course, means that those countries that we were enemies with 60 years ago, are now our allies, and many people have settled here from those countries. By the authors statement that "the broader public has, for the most part, been successfully CO-OPTED.... " she is implying that the majority of people have been brainwashed.

My Year 5 daughter had to produce a family tree, late last year, as did the rest of the class. The students were then to research 4 generations back. This meant that the students that had relatives settle in Australia from overseas, had to find out why they did just that. Not a single word of any war was mentioned in any of their research.

What I find interesting, is that this paper you quoted was written on behalf of the Medical Association for Prevention of War. Part of a medico's pledge is to "first do no harm". But, here is the clincher. The author of this paper, has no published medical qualifications:

"Marilyn Lake is Charles La Trobe Professor in
History at La Trobe University. She is also President
of the Australian Historical Association, a Fellow
of the Australian Academies of Social Sciences and
Humanities"

The appointment of Cosgrove as GG is NOT a political or military move. It is the appointment of the best candidate for the job, and recognition for the service he has provided to the country.

Sorry if the above sounds like a rant, but it riles me when people are paid to write papers on which they have an opinion, and no experience or substance to back it up.

FWIW, I think there needs to be more history taught in schools. Australian history, to me, is interesting, as it is relatively "recent". However, only today, we were discussing the brilliance of Leonardo Da Vinci, and how he was generations ahead of his time.

Looks like the 'woman' (as you point out) is well qualified to me. Medicos get historians to research history. Would you have preferred a doctor? But I am impressed that you read the link, good work, most will not.

[bob10]

Get me an interview. This guy is intelligent enough to see more than one side of a debate. He probably understands that in some cases there is no right or wrong, just opinions. Not all of his supporters are at his level.


I thought I said that? bob

[Random88]

.... And then tactfully tell you where you are going wrong..... Bob

I think I said, he would be big enough not to do that.

[bob10]

I think I said, he would be big enough not to do that.


Wrong, he's a bloody General, for goodness sake. Of course he would make his point. Ever met one? Bob

[DT-P38]

I may be slightly tainted by the most recent GG experience but is he any current political rep's relative? Not Joe Hockeys Aunty or something?

What vested interests will he be peddling? Lets pop a few in and check them in 2 or 3 years!

One I hope he influences is this crap about gov't ripping off ex-servicemens pensions.

[Random88]

Wrong, he's a bloody General, for goodness sake. Of course he would make his point. Ever met one? Bob

Wrong?! Gee Bob you are the diplomat :D. Bob he resigned from the Army, get with it. So now he is Mr Peter Cosgrove, Governor-General-Designate.

Ok then Bob, Cosgrove for PM where he could actually do something. He would be better than what we have now. Better still let's skip to the end and install him as a military dictator (ooops forgot, he's not in the army anymore).

The Australian GG is a figurehead. A symbol with limited real influence, that's reserved for big corporations these days. So while you are excited by this appointment, ironically he is being promoted to the position of least real power of his professional life. He will get wheeled out at the designated times to make the masses feel good, like we are actually being led...by a leader.

Anyway Peter will be one of the last GGs, the country will decide to grow-up soon.

[101RRS]

Bob he resigned from the Army, get with it. So now he is Mr Peter Cosgrove, Governor-General-Designate.



Well no, even though he is retired his correct title is still General Peter Cosgrove AC,MC etc - when he is GG he will be called His Excellancy, General etc.

[Random88]

Well no, even though he is retired his correct title is still General Peter Cosgrove AC,MC etc - when he is GG he will be called His Excellancy, General etc.

Point taken on the correct title. He does not function as one.

[ugu80]

I've had fair bit to do with Governors and GG's over the years, mostly on ceremonial occasions, and I came to the conclusion that their main role was to provide a dignity to the processes of government that politicians are incapable of providing.

[Basil135]

Point taken on the correct title. He does not function as one.

So, are you taking issue with the position in general, the person that has been appointed, or the fact that he is a Military person?

[bob10]

One I hope he influences is this crap about gov't ripping off ex-servicemens pensions.


I don't believe it, I agree with you on the Gov ripping off servicemens pensions. Glad you are on side. Bob

[bob10]

Wrong?! Gee Bob you are the diplomat :D. Bob he resigned from the Army, get with it.


The Australian GG is a figurehead. A symbol with limited real influence, that's reserved for big corporations these days. So while you are excited by this appointment, ironically he is being promoted to the position of least real power of his professional life. He will get wheeled out at the designated times to make the masses feel good, like we are actually being led...by a leader


You just don't get it. So sad. Bob
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/next-governorgeneral-peter-cosgrove-will-keep-out-of-politics/story-fn59niix-1226812021298)

[Random88]

So, are you taking issue with the position in general, the person that has been appointed, or the fact that he is a Military person?

That he is a military person. Continuation and reinforcement of the militarisation of Australian history I have mentioned and referenced earlier. I like the guy otherwise.

[Basil135]

That he is a military person. Continuation and reinforcement of the militarisation of Australian history I have mentioned and referenced earlier. I like the guy otherwise.

Cosgrove will be the 4th military officer appointed to the role, and the 3rd under Queen Elizabeth.

Since 1901, there have been a total of 26 GG appointments.

If, by your argument, Cosgrove is "promoting" the militarisation of Australian History, then Peter Hollingworth, (in office for just under 2 years) must have encouraged history to take a religious slant.

I am sorry, but your argument doesn't wash that based on a persons chosen career path, that they will attempt to influence the way history is (re) written.


Governor-General's Role | Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (http://www.gg.gov.au/governor-generals-role)

[Random88]

Cosgrove will be the 4th military officer appointed to the role, and the 3rd under Queen Elizabeth.

Since 1901, there have been a total of 26 GG appointments.

If, by your argument, Cosgrove is "promoting" the militarisation of Australian History, then Peter Hollingworth, (in office for just under 2 years) must have encouraged history to take a religious slant.

I am sorry, but your argument doesn't wash that based on a persons chosen career path, that they will attempt to influence the way history is (re) written.


Governor-General's Role | Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (http://www.gg.gov.au/governor-generals-role)

He does not need to 'attempt to influence'. His views no longer matter as he is now an impotent symbol. The appointment itself sends a message. Others have already laid the foundations and his appointment reinforces that.

Other influencing factors, he's catholic and 100 years after 1915 ****up in Turkey. Nice touch.

[pop058]

Well Bob, I actually don't mind if they bring Politics into it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think Bryce was a bit to the Labor side of things if you know what I mean, I think Cosgrove will be more of a fit with the Coalition, not to say that either is better than the other.
BUT, I think you are RIGHT,...Politics should not come into it, but funnily enough, whoever is in the position, one can tell what "side" they are on,.....it just "comes out"?
Cheers, Pickles.

IIRC, ex GG Bryce's son-in-law is the Opposition leader Bill Shorten, so you maybe correct :D

[digger]

He does not need to 'attempt to influence'. His views no longer matter as he is now an impotent symbol. The appointment itself sends a message. Others have already laid the foundations and his appointment reinforces that.

Other influencing factors, he's catholic and 100 years after 1915 ****up in Turkey. Nice touch.

OK so whom would you prefer??

make sure they have no religion at all (as apparently even if you believe but don't push it as apparently that counts against you)

Make sure they havent given any service to the nation at all...

army -(armed forces) well thats been covered

police - well that would be no good they are all corrupt and thugs and enfore laws at protests etc

firies - well they cant be because there were some terrible fires in the last century and that apparently rules you out

ambos - nope, they associate with druggies (ODs) bikies (injured) and other people who may be of ill repute.

politicians - mmm they are always honest people of their word, even 100 years ago not many of them did much, they may have political affiliations...

MMM drs - nope same as ambos

MMM I reckon I could find something to poo poo everyone... the "hes a catholic" is just offensive, has he pushed it on anyone???

How about if a muslim was recommended could I say, "MMM no he is a unionist and 100 years ago they rioted and anyway hes a muslim..."

People would protest and label me quicker that a school kid with a dymo.

I dont think there is a conspiracy about the GGs position, I dont believe it is a "impotent position".

I do however think its a pity that everyone wants to wash our history away as its "offensive"..

We fought in wars, it is part of our history and was in fact one of the ways AUSTRALIA showed the world we werent just a bunch of colonies that teamed together and stayed primitive...

We built up and farmed sheep and wool, does that mean we are bastards and envioronmental vandals for importing non native animals to Australia?

Back to the search for GG...
We cannot use scientists or medical researchers or inventors as surely we should now not celebrate the famous for inventions and medical research and achievments, as this makes our history a more "innovative" or revolutionary type and that may offend some?


OK, I realise thats taking it to an extreme but honestly the article referred to the militarisation of our history... I believe that is fairly offensive...

Did we do it? then its part of our history and I for one am proud of it all (even the non military stuff!)

People white washing our history is wrong,,, if you have any doubts about Australias war and peacekeeping roles go to the National Library or the AWM they will show you a non powder coated account of it, good and bad.

Last bit though, if he or she is the right person for the job, then why do we argue about his/her history even though it contributes to the person they are?

my 2c ..
cheers
Digger

[Random88]

OK so whom would you prefer??

.....
Last bit though, if he or she is the right person for the job, then why do we argue about his/her history even though it contributes to the person they are?

my 2c ..
cheers
Digger

Digger, looks like you put some effort into that one and I would like to reply to some of the points to make your efforts worthwhile, although just getting these things down helps doesn't it.

There are other forums out there for this stuff, I'll find em and keep this one for Land Rover questions.

[digger]

Digger, looks like you put some effort into that one and I would like to reply to some of the points to make your efforts worthwhile, although just getting these things down helps doesn't it.

There are other forums out there for this stuff, I'll find em and keep this one for Land Rover questions.

Random,
Please don't take my replies as an attack as that isn't my intention at all,
I do get a tad wound up at times and my lack of elequence shows badly, so sorry about that!

Don't feel that this isn't the forum for debate etc, some points I agree with but some I don't... (I may have made that a bit clear :angel: :eek: )


I felt this was just "robust discussion"
cheers

If you think Im out of line feel free to tell me, im a big boy now -even if its a PM- I can take it..


cheers

[Random88]

Random,
Please don't take my replies as an attack as that isn't my intention at all,
....
I felt this was just "robust discussion"
cheers

If you think Im out of line feel free to tell me, im a big boy now -even if its a PM- I can take it..


cheers

It was just robust discussion digger and your comments are not out of line with me. In isolation the appointment was inspirational, just depends what context you put it in, that's all. But I would find it challenging to not comment on the politics of it all so I'll self censor.

In the late 90s I saw a cartoon that had a wife wearing only perfume, asking her husband to "Please please come to bed now dear!" The husband, hunched over the keyboard, without looking around said "I'll be there in a minute honey...right now, someone on the internet....is wrong!!"

Sometimes I turn into him, but the wife isn't asking the question ;)

[digger]

It was just robust discussion digger and your comments are not out of line with me. In isolation the appointment was inspirational, just depends what context you put it in, that's all. But I would find it challenging to not comment on the politics of it all so I'll self censor.

In the late 90s I saw a cartoon that had a wife wearing only perfume, asking her husband to "Please please come to bed now dear!" The husband, hunched over the keyboard, without looking around said "I'll be there in a minute honey...right now, someone on the internet....is wrong!!"

Sometimes I turn into him, but the wife isn't asking the question ;)

Depressing isnt it? :D

Wives the world over could create peace across the internet..if they wanted to.. :) :twisted: