Yeah your history is pretty good
. The Hogg-Hauritz gap wasn't a big one, but I thought the attack balance was bad that's all. And when Hauritz came in the team looked better - generally better, and better equipped to handle different conditions and different situations. That's what balance is about.
And on those England ODIs where 3 quicks, Watson, Hopes and Smith played: Yep Australia did well in those couple of games, but it wasn't because they didn't play a 'proper' spinner, it's because the fast bowlers they did play were EXCELLENT. If your 3 main quicks bowl really well like Tait, Bollinger and Harris did in those couple of games (Lord's, The Oval), then it barely matters who your 4th and 5th bowlers are because they are coming on when it's going well. So I think using those couple of games as some kind of universal truth is a bit misleading because you are rarely going to see your fast bowling trio do so well.
No need to call them stupid. Your reasons aren't Steven Hawking category either. After all, saying Nannes is awesome at T20 therefore should be awesome at ODIs is just like saying Siddle is awesome at Tests therefore should be awesome at ODIs - yet you dismiss the case for Siddle outright. I don't personally believe that Siddle is better than Nannes at ODIs but I make those statements to point out your logic is a bit twisted just so you can support Nannes.
Not that there's anything wrong with supporting Nannes
I like Nannes too, but right now Nannes is 4th (or maybe even 5th) on the 'really fast, but can be loose' bowler list for Australia behind Lee, Tait, Johnson and sometimes Bollinger. Australia wants to blood a steadier bowler IMO - not another tearaway who can't bowl 6 balls in the same spot. THAT'S why he's missing out.