quote:US presidential hopeful Barack Obama has blasted as "empty rhetoric" Australian Prime Minister John Howard's attack on Senator Obama's plan to bring US troops home from Iraq.
[...]
"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa.
"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.
"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
[...]
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has defended his leader and dismissed Senator Obama's comments.
"That would be half of our army. Australia is a much smaller country than the United States and so he might like to weigh that up," Mr Downer told ABC Radio.
"It's entirely appropriate the Australian Government expresses its view in a free world. You won't get anywhere trying to close down debate."
[...]
Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd yesterday demanded Mr Howard withdraw his statements. [...] "I disagreed with the coalition's decision to invade Iraq ... But I have seen it as my role to discuss the future of Australian foreign policy on Iraq, not lecture United States citizens on how they should vote in the upcoming presidential election."
Thoughts?
I would agree that it would be inappropriate for Howard to openly urge Americans to vote one way or another in their own presidential elections. Those are the US' "domestic affairs." But is American involvement in the Iraq war also a "domestic affair"? It seems to me that the ramifications on Australian foreign policy would be profound.
Should Howard have kept his opinions to himself?
Edit: Contrary to what the above article might imply, it's fairly clear that Obama was just making a point; that Howard should put his money where his mouth is or stay out of the presidential races.
The full quote:
I've cut out my 2 paragraphs discussing the implausibility of the '20,000' figure.
quote:"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world has started attacking me the day after I announce. I take that as a compliment," he said. "The one thing I would note is that George Bush's own intelligence agencies have indicated that the threat of terrorism has increased as a consequence of our actions in Iraq. So Mr. Howard may have quibbles with our intelligence estimates; maybe he has better ones." "I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now, and I understand that Mr. Howard has deployed 1,400. So if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians." "Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
[ February 13, 2007, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Should Howard have kept his opinions to himself?
No. I like that he voiced his opinion. I would respect him more, though, if he backed his opinion up with more troops. The exchange between the two leaders is perfectly appropriate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Eurip - I was hoping to get your opinion on this since I read the article earlier tonight. (pop onto AIM if you're still around and available).
To be honest, I don't think Howard should be telling Americans how to vote, but at the same time, as US policy effects Australia, he has a right to his words, and as the leader of his nation, I think he should express his views.
On the other hand, Obama has every right to tell him to sit down and shut up. No one else in the world wants to help us, but everyone has an opinion on what we should do. I don't blame Obama one iota for firing off a statement like that. We've made valiant efforts to try to put that country back together, while the rest of the world condemns us for it, shouts threats from the sidelines, refuses to support us, and all the while the country itself seems to be trying as hard as it can to fling itself apart. We're under no obligation to go down with the ship. Obama is saying what he thinks is best for us, and I agree with him. So far as I'm concerned, Howard isn't necessarily representing the Australian people anyway, so much as he is a marionette of Bush's.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Howard's remarks were both idiotic and completely uncalled-for. Here's the original quote:
"If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."
Umm... yeah.
Of course, both men are perfectly within their rights to say whatever they want, but I think it's ridiculous to make the claim that al Qaeda have any particular stake in the outcome of the election. One could argue that Bush's foreign policy has done a great deal to increase the populaity of militant Islam in the Arab world- would that make it okay to claim that a vote for Bush (or the Republicans as a whole) is a vote for terrorism?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."
This is quite possibly the snobbiest/dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
It's not a first for John Howard.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Personally, I see positive returns for either a Democratic or a Republican victor for the White House this coming election, with the situation as it is now.
It takes more prognostication ability than I credit to anyone, though, to say which is more positive for our enemies there, or what exactly they will be.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A vote for Obama is a vote for TERROR
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: It's not a first for John Howard.
I guess this guy's not a very effective leader, huh?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
In a way Mr. Howard is right. Obama didn't actually promise anything -- he said we should gradually withdraw troops, which is something everyone agrees on except those that say we should do it but not gradually -- but it *sounds* like he did, and our enemies do like hearing they're on the verge of winning.
OTOH Obama's got a right and a responsibility to tell us what his Iraq policy would be if elected.
Pretending to expect Oz to make a much greater sacrifice per capita than the US is a little silly, though.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: A vote for Obama is a vote for TERROR
That's just plain silly. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The problem with this being an argument about 'our enemies being on the verge of winning' is that when we leave, the REAL fight starts, it doesn't stop. They're fighting each other over there, we're there to get in their way. With us gone, they can go all out, they don't put their weapons down and celebrate.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: Pretending to expect Oz to make a much greater sacrifice per capita than the US is a little silly, though.
Edit:
I may be drawing a joke where there isn't one. Is Oz a legitimate nickname for Australia? I thought this was funny because Oz was a prison show and Australia was a prison colony, in which case, Will made a super cute quip, but if I'm wrong, at least I had a nice chuckle.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think it comes in part from "Aus"tralia sounding like "Oz." Also "Aussies" sounds like "Ozzies."
It is indeed a known nickname of that country.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Irami, what an esoteric sense of humour you have! Oz is indeed a legitimate nickname.
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: It's not a first for John Howard.
I guess this guy's not a very effective leader, huh?
No, not particularly; in terms of foreign policy anyway. To be fair, he has done some good for the country's domestic affairs, and his approval rating hasn't dropped below 50%.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
If Australia wants the nickname "OZ" then they can have it. I'd be happy to never hear the connection between "Oz" and Kansas ever again. Let alone another reference to the Wizard of Oz and Kansas.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oz for me either means Oz from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or the political entity from Gundam Wing.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Maybe he just wants to hand Obama some more publicity because he really doesn't want Hillary Clinton to become President.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Howard must support Obama, what with Americans' reactions to letters from The Guardian's readers, Venezuelans' reaction to Dubya's support for Chavez opponents, Palestinians' reaction to Dubya's support for Hamas opponents, Iranians' reaction to Dubya's support for Ahmadinejad opponents; etc.
Australia's population is ~6.8% of the USA's. So with 153thousand USsoldiers in Iraq, a proportional Australian presence would be 10,388 soldiers. Considering that proIraqWar Howard has been slacking with less than 1/8th that number, Obama's suggestion is quite reasonable until Australia's manpower-years has proportionally caught up with America's.
[ February 12, 2007, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
You have heard of a metaphor haven't you? I think Obama was making a point, and the point was that Australia is in no position to critize anyone's commitment to the war unless they are willing to commit to the war themselves. That's like France critizing us for not doing enough when they are sitting back swilling wine and snails and doing nothing.
When Obama said, Australia should send another 20,000, I don't think he meant literally 20,000. He was making a reference to the Presidents proposal to send 20,000 more troops. When Australia is willing to make a proportionally equal commitment, then they can complain. Until then, while they can say anything they want, it is just as Obama said, hollow, pointless political rhetoric. Just so much hot air.
I think it is unreasonable to think the Obama commenting on the spot would have the exact statistics on troops in Australia, so he simply reference the Presidents 20,000 troops and challenged Australia to make an equivalent commitment.
Lyrhawn said -
"They're fighting each other over there, we're there to get in their way.
And that is exactly right. Bush keeps talking about 'victory' but I don't think he knows what victory is, nor do I think he has a plan for it. What he plans to do, though I don't think he knows it, is to perpetuate war; war without end, without point, without purpose.
Police actions never work. Every one has been a failure to some degree. If you do not enter a war with an unrelenting desire and a clear PLAN for absolute victory, then you should never get in. Bush has an unfounded ill-formed idea, a half-assed plan, and a half-assed execution that will do nothing but create decades of misery and death for everyone.
But, none the less, we are there now, and that is the reality we have to deal with. If we are going to go for Bush's allege claim of victory, then we should do it, but with an absolute, unrelenting, and overwhelming effort toward victory. If we are not willing to make that commitment, then we should turn it over to the Iraqi's and let them fight it out for themselves.
We have given them a chance to resolve this by a political process. We have given them a chance to take control of their country and to remold it into any shape they want. But no, they are like children fighting over toys. At some point, you either get them under control, or you let them go and fight it out.
Bush plans to send 20,000 more troops, but does he have any plan at all for them to do anything productive beyond driving up and down the road waiting to be blown up? I don't think so. If I felt he had a clear plan that would produce results, I would be behind him. But his performance so far tells me he doesn't have a clue what he's doing, and to me that is the wasting of precious American lives to no good end.
Sorry for the rant.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"That's like France criticizing us for not doing enough when they are sitting back swilling wine and snails and doing nothing.
Hey, that's not doing nothing. Without the French appetite for garden snails, the Earth would soon be one giant slime ball. And ya can hardly blame 'em for wanting to get drunk beforehand, or for sterilizing their palates afterwards. Or for sitting when yer drunk enough to eat snails. Ain't as if they're gonna run away faster 'n ya can fork 'em.
[ February 12, 2007, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Steve, I didn't consider the possibility of it being a metaphorical number. And as for him not having the statistics at hand, considering how intelligent he is and how he has memorized the number of troops we have deployed, I think it's doubtful that he didn't know 20,000 was a disproportional number. So I think that its more plausible that he was referring to Bush's surge.
Is it, however, Australia's obligation to make a proportionally equal commitment to a war that was essentially the Bush administration's idea? I don't know if aspectre was half joking when he said that sending half of Australia's active army overseas right now was reasonable, but I don't remember Howard agreeing to match the US' commitment with an equal force per capita. I agree that sending more troops would help alleviate the problem as it stands today, but Australian public opinion has swung against the war too; Howard is between a rock and a hard place. Does the fact that Australia isn't matching every US troop per capita take away his right to speak against withdrawal? Because in his mind, that means failure in Iraq.
Just FYI, I'm rooting for Obama to become president, and think that his Iraq plan is the most sound, out of what's on the table. My question in the OP was more about timing; Howard's criticism, coming a day after Obama's announcement that he was running for president, will of course be construed as a sign of support for the Republican side, or at least against Obama. Should he have waited until later to speak out, or made his position clear in another context?
My understanding was that France criticized Bush for going into Iraq in the first place, and when he acted with little international support anyway, criticized him for not doing it right. They were right on both counts, as events have shown. So what gives? I also find this prejudiced characterisation offensive; "when they are sitting back swilling wine and snails and doing nothing."
Ketchup with your freedom fries?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Ketchup with your freedom fries?"
Ketchup is foreign stuff from EastAsia, ya red sympathizer.
Near as I can remember, the majority of Australians have always opposed participation in the IraqWar. The change is in the increase of that opposition into an overwhelming supermajority. My commentary was meant to point out that Obama was merely challenging Howard with "Put your money where your mouth is." or "Admit that you're a craven sycophant."
[ February 12, 2007, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Yeah, so you weren't serious about the figure 20,000 being reasonable.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
6.8% of zero UStroops in Iraq would be reasonable... though I s'pose there's always embassy guard duty. Make that 5Australian and 20American soldiers for 24/7 coverage year around.
[ February 12, 2007, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: A vote for Obama is a vote for TERROR
If you vote for Obama, the terrorists win. Really. Not only because he's probably a sleeper agent, but because they'll get their way when we back out of Iraq.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah but if ya vote for Romney, babies 'll become as popular as Reagan's Jelly Bellies.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
When I read The Age (a Melbourne newspaper) this morning and saw the article I instantly came to two conclusions:
1) Australian national media seem to be as bad as FOX
2) As other posters have pointed out, Obama was merely making a point, not suggesting we should *actually* send 20,000 more troops
All Fairfax owned paper's headlines today were reporting this as if Obama was saying that's what we should do. Read on and the picture is a little different.
I don't think it's any surprise to Australians that Howard inexplicably supports Dubya in just about everything, regardless of what the rest of the country thinks about it.
I say inexplicable because while I've rarely agreed with Howard's stance on *anything*, I've believed he genuinely thinks he's doing the right thing for the country.
The last few years have caused me to rethink that belief. His stance on Iraq & Hicks, not to mention his disastrous domestic WorkChoices legislation are inexplicable to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
First of all, one doesn't swill snails, though wine is perfectly swillable.
Second, I've agreed with you, Steve, on what the US should do in Iraq. It's all or nothing. If we aren't going to send in a half million troops to utterly blanket the nation with coverage, then we might as well pull out. I'll be damned if I'm going to support American soldiers dying, and a half trillion dollar war bill to play referee to a centuries old rivalry. And I'll be damned if I have to listen to foriegn heads of state tell us that we have to stay there and die and foot that bill while they are unwilling or unable to do anything about it themselves.
To Bush, to Howard, to everyone: Put up or shut up. I don't support this war, but I DO support ending it as quickly and bloodlessly as possible. I believe the best way to do so is tripling, at least, our coverage there, disarming militias, and securing the borders with a combination of UAVs, satelite coverage, and troops. But if I can't have that, then I'm totally in support of pulling every single American in Iraq out of the country and bringing them home tomorrow. Then it's up to the Iraqis to figure it out.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: 2) As other posters have pointed out, Obama was merely making a point, not suggesting we should *actually* send 20,000 more troops.
I think I'm guilty of not reading between the lines on this one. What with the Sydney Morning Herald being a Fairfax paper.
quote:His stance on Iraq & Hicks, not to mention his disastrous domestic WorkChoices legislation are inexplicable to me.
Seconded.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Yeah but if ya vote for Romney, babies 'll become as popular as Reagan's Jelly Bellies.
Babies have the most life force in them, though, and can help you live forever. I think I read that somewheres.
I like Jelly Beans.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
ooo coo-ool... ThomasJefferson's cousin MaryRandolf wrote the first published cookbook containing a recipe for tomato ketchup. What makes it coo-ool rather than merely neato is that ThomasJefferson invented the french*fry.
* ie His household recipes contain the first mention of french fries; with 'french' refering to the manner of slicing, and not to the origin of the potato treat.
[ February 12, 2007, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: A vote for Obama is a vote for TERROR
If you vote for Obama, the terrorists win. Really. Not only because he's probably a sleeper agent, but because they'll get their way when we back out of Iraq.
He's totally a sleeper agent. The Moonies say so!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote: Pretending to expect Oz to make a much greater sacrifice per capita than the US is a little silly, though.
Edit:
I may be drawing a joke where there isn't one. Is Oz a legitimate nickname for Australia? I thought this was funny because Oz was a prison show and Australia was a prison colony, in which case, Will made a super cute quip, but if I'm wrong, at least I had a nice chuckle.
I thought of both as well. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."
This is quite possibly the snobbiest/dumbest thing I've ever heard.
But he's absolutely right.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not at all. For instance, Hillary is far more hawkish than Bush was before 9/11 (and was then, too; she's only not more hawkish than him now for political reasons, I suspect). When elected, she's extremely likely to tend towards bomb 'em all and sort it out afterwards approaches.
As for Obama, I suspect that whatever his policies, he could hardly fail to be less of an enabler to terrorist recruiting than Bush is, who has managed to create constant provocation that does little to improve the situation throughout most of the embroiled cities in Iraq (aka, too little troop presence), as well as establishing a regime that's unable to do anything effective against a much stronger drug trade in Afghanistan, drugs that provide terrorist funding.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."
This is quite possibly the snobbiest/dumbest thing I've ever heard.
But he's absolutely right.
I wouldn't call it snobby or dumb. To me, it seems more frightened than anything else. One of the things that amazes me about the policies of the current administration is their attempts to shut down even so much as talk about alternate plans of action because it would make Osama Bin Ladin and the terrorists so happy to know that the U.S. isn't made up of a hive mind.
As for what would and would not make the terrorists happy ro get out their calendars -- is there a team of psychics working for the federal government now?
I won't pretend to know what the right course of action is in Iraq. I just know that I'm not going to be terrorized by anyone.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I wonder if the people who think Howard should have kept quiet about Obama think that all other foriegn leaders should keep quiet about Bush too?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Keep in mind that Obama hasn't said anything (at least that I've heard) that the most hawkish Iraq-war supporter disagrees with. *Everyone* wants US occupation forces out of Iraq eventually. [Edited per DarkNight's post.]
In what way has the US administration attempted to shut down debate on Iraq? Assuming, of course, that disagreeing with someone is not *shutting down* debate.
[ February 12, 2007, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: If Australia wants the nickname "OZ" then they can have it. I'd be happy to never hear the connection between "Oz" and Kansas ever again. Let alone another reference to the Wizard of Oz and Kansas.
"Dear Aunt Em: Hate you. Hate Kansas Taking the dog. Love, Dorothy"
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: *Everyone* wants US troops out of Iraq eventually.
I don't. I would like to see us keep a military base in Iraq, just like we have in Germany, Japan, Italy, and many other countries.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Hillary is far more hawkish than Bush was before 9/11"
Oh good grief, Dubya was playing "war president" before 9/11. Dubya: Tightened the squeeze on Iraq; enough so that Iraqis were one of only two peoples to cheer alQaeda's attack. Encouraged&rewarded Israeli attacks on Palestinians; enough so that Palestinians were the other group to cheer 9/11. Encouraged NorthKorea to build nukes. Tried to turn a minor aircraft accident with China into a casus belli. Launched trade wars with Canada, Japan, SouthKorea, India, the EuropeanUnion, etc... and lost every one. (Which explains his performance in Iraq.) Tried to tick off Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, etc. Backed a coup against the democraticly elected government of Venezuela; tried to interfere with Ecuadoran and Bolivian internal governance; etc.
Considering that Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, Nigeria, Brazil, and Equador supply most of America's oil needs -- Japan and SouthKorea purchase most of the Alaskan oil in exchange for Kuwati and SaudiArabian oil deliveries to the US EastCoast -- and that China and Japan are the largest purchasers&holders of US debt, Dubya's been playing fast&loose with the safety of Americans since day one to provide macho"pro-wrestler"entertainment for the wimps who voted him in.
[ February 12, 2007, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Claiming that politicians should not publicly opposte the war because it will make the terrorists happy is an attempt to *shut down* debate.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Did Bush say that politicians should not publicly oppose the war?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Keep in mind that Obama hasn't said anything (at least that I've heard) that the most hawkish Iraq-war supporter disagrees with. *Everyone* wants US occupation forces out of Iraq eventually. [Edited per DarkNight's post.]
Does introducing legislation to get the troops out by March 2008 count as "anything"? Honestly, if you're going to continue criticizing Obama for not saying anything substantive, at least do a modicum of research beforehand.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
That's an interesting list, aspectre. It certainly needs support. How did Bush encourage PRK nukes? Did he tell them to build them? Provide them with enriched uranium? In what sense was the Chinese seizure of a US plane a casus belli, when there was no belli, nobody expected one, nobody proposed one, and nobody wanted one? Skepticism is a good thing.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Did Bush say that politicians should not publicly oppose the war?"
Directly in those words, no. Just had his flunkeys try to brand the opponents as traitors.
[ February 12, 2007, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I suggest you read contemporaneous accounts of the China Incident as well as how Dubya broke longstanding economic agreements made with NorthKorea in exchange for non-proliferation in his attempt to create credible enemies to StarWar against.
[ February 17, 2007, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Did Bush say that politicians should not publicly oppose the war?
Yes, he did. In his speech about allowing debate on the war, he made a very clear differentiation between responsible debate that people should engage in and "irresponsible" debate that just serves to embolden the terrorists. Talking about troop redeployment, talking about the massive mistakes that were made, and asking for some sort of benchmark, or saying that the way we were going was not going to work all ended up on the "irresponsbile" list.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Does introducing legislation to get the troops out by March 2008 count as "anything"? Honestly, if you're going to continue criticizing Obama for not saying anything substantive, at least do a modicum of research beforehand. [/QB]
As you know, I did not criticize Obama for not saying anything substantive, except in the context of his web page on issues (which doesn't say anything substantive).
Still, it's good to Obama's wishes for Iraq. He says we can must cut our forces back unless we find that they aren't needed, in which case they can stay. It makes sense, in a strange sort of way.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Will, Could you reconcile these two statements for me. I don't see how they work.
quote:As you know, I did not criticize Obama for not saying anything substantive, except in the context of his web page on issues (which doesn't say anything substantive).
quote:In a way Mr. Howard is right. Obama didn't actually promise anything -- he said we should gradually withdraw troops, which is something everyone agrees on except those that say we should do it but not gradually -- but it *sounds* like he did, and our enemies do like hearing they're on the verge of winning.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I know it's work to get specifics, but when we *do* get to specifics, claims like "No, just had his flunkeys try to brand the opponents as traitors" become something like "some guy somewhere called anti-war activists bad names" or "Dick Cheney said they were wrong." At least so far.
I can't find any reference on google to StarWar as a verb (or as anything else).
OK, so I'll assume that Bush did say that talking about pulling troops out was irresponsible. Thing is, saying your opponents' views are irresponsible is a long way from shutting down debate. Shutting down debate is arresting people for those views, or using prior restraint to shut them up, or excluding them from public forums.
Like, as far as we can tell, the President, I don't want people censored from saying we should abandon Iraq. When they do, it surely helps the people who are killing our soldiers; yet we need to keep our open society.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Will, What are you talking about? Did I not just give you specifics?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:OK, so I'll assume that Bush did say that talking about pulling troops out was irresponsible. Thing is, saying your opponents' views are irresponsible is a long way from shutting down debate. Shutting down debate is arresting people for those views, or using prior restraint to shut them up, or excluding them from public forums.
You've got a far narrower definition of "shutting down debate" than I have.
Although actually, I would agree with you on one ting...Bush has not *successfully* shut down debate. I only believe that he has tried to shut it down by calling the opposition cowards and traitors. When you say: "Anyone who says otherwise is supporting terrorism." you are doing something more than disagreeing and something less than getting out the hired hit men.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: I don't want people censored from saying we should abandon Iraq. When they do, it surely helps the people who are killing our soldiers
Could you explain why that would be? Frankly, framing the idea of any sort of disengagement as failure seems to me to embolden the terrorists far more than what you are claiming.
As things now stand, we're going to disengage and there are still going to be terrorists and fighting there. The plans put forward by the President have no chance of working. It would hve been possible and even perhaps accurate to say something like "We've acheived our goals here. It was never our intent nor our responsibility to play referee in a civil war. Freedom is something that cannot be imposed from without, but rather only built from within. So, we'll be redeploying our troops as they have acheived their mission."
The main reason that this would now be considered failure is because the Bush administration has been pulling out all the stops in saying that it will be a failure. It seems they cut off a potentially attractive option in large part for political gain.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
OK, Squicky, in that case I was referring to Obama's response to Howard's criticism, which didn't actually promise anything either.
Squicky, you did give me specifics, which is why I said, "OK, so I'll assume that Bush did say that talking about pulling troops out was irresponsible."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Then why did you say this:
quote:I know it's work to get specifics, but when we *do* get to specifics, claims like "No, just had his flunkeys try to brand the opponents as traitors" become something like "some guy somewhere called anti-war activists bad names" or "Dick Cheney said they were wrong." At least so far.
I gave you specifics and you are dismissing them here.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Just out of curiosity, did Australians see more than a single part of Obama's answer?
quote:Obama...responded to Howard's initial comments by saying he was flattered that one of Bush's close allies had chosen to single him out for attack. ...noting the United States has nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq compared with Australia's about 1,400 forces... "So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq," Obama said. "Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
[ February 12, 2007, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Squicky, you didn't say "No, just had his flunkeys try to brand the opponents as traitors," and what you said didn't relate to flunkies branding people as traitors. I recognized your specifics; I just didn't apply them to a claim you didn't make or comment on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
My mistake. I misparsed what you said. Sorry about that. I tend not to read aspectre's posts.
[ February 12, 2007, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think Obama parried that attack quite well, it will be fun to see how his swordsmanship plays out in the future as more mud is certainly coming his way.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I wonder if the people who think Howard should have kept quiet about Obama think that all other foriegn leaders should keep quiet about Bush too?
No, but the thing is, by making a speech so soon after Obama's presidential announcement and singling him out, Howard is debatable interfering in the US election process. A week later perhaps, or in another context, it might have caused less antagonism.
See, if the US president refuted an Australian PM candidate's foreign policy plans, the world would be screaming 'Imperialism!'
Was it appropriate for Howard to speak out then, and if not, how should Howard have approached the issue? That's the question I wanted to explore in the OP.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Just out of curiosity, did Australians see more than a single part of Obama's answer?
quote: "So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq," Obama said. "Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
Apparently not if they read a Fairfax paper. I feel icky inside.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world has started attacking me the day after I announce. I take that as a compliment," he said. "The one thing I would note is that George Bush's own intelligence agencies have indicated that the threat of terrorism has increased as a consequence of our actions in Iraq. So Mr. Howard may have quibbles with our intelligence estimates; maybe he has better ones." "I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now, and I understand that Mr. Howard has deployed 1,400. So if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians." "Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Quibbles.
I think there's a sort of real bite to "Mr. Howard may have quibbles with our intelligence estimates; maybe he has better ones."
Dry. Harsh. I think the semicolon sells it.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Happily, the whole fiasco (and the Australian media's subsequent take on it) may go a way towards Howard losing the next election.
I think the comment was tacky. It's astonishing, actually, that John Howard who is a consummate politician, would make such a remark.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
As a number of people have pointed out, the problem is one of timing. Obama isn't even the Dems nominee yet. For me, I don't see what right Howard has to comment on the pre-selection of a presidential candidate in the United States.
His duty to the Australian people is to represent the best interests of our country and our citizenry. How can he do that if is taking potshots at one of leading candidates for leadership of our most important ally? Not to mention at the party that controls both houses of Congress and is the favourite to win the election.
What this partially reflects is that Howard is rattled domestically. Kevin Rudd is currently the most popular opposition leader in Australian history (even if he's still in his honeymoon period and hasn't released any real policies), Australians don't support the Iraq war, don't support Howard's industrial relations legislation (75-80% against, last I saw a poll), don't support his education policies and certainly don't support his environmental policies.
The other factor is the one Troubs mentioned (hey, Kels!) - Howard has a big man-crush on George W. Bush. There's no other good way to describe it. He's got some serious hero worship / man love going down.
He seems to have forgotten that our alliance is with the United States of America - not with the Bush Administration.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Embarrassment to Australia, sure. But a mistake? If I remember correctly, Howard's party depends on the"WhiteAustralia"vote in the same manner that Dubya's party depends on the"WhiteAmerica"vote. It's campaign time in Australia, and guess who ain't white...
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
That's a very simplistic perception of the way Howard plays on the race issue. I don't think Obama's skin colour would matter to almost anyone in Australia.
Howard's race plays have all been centred around "Australian values" and "Australian jobs" and "the fair go". And the war in Iraq is very unpopular in Australia. This was a mistake.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."
This is quite possibly the snobbiest/dumbest thing I've ever heard.
But he's absolutely right.
My uncle served in Iraq for two years. When he returned, he said one thing about his stance on the war. It was something along these lines: "Unless we stay there until the end of time, it will go back to the way it was. As soon as we leave, it will go back to the way it was. A new opressor will take over. And we'll be back at square one."
Coming from the mouth of someone who WAS THERE, I think he may be right. I don't think there's really much any of us can truly say. We can make assumptions. But there aren't many of us who have been there and can see the changes. Or the effect an American invasion has had.
If everything is going to go back to normal, there isn't a conventional victory in sight. It doesn't matter who does the pulling back. I forsee that if we remove the bulk of our forces, chaos will ensue. To maintain peace, we will feel compelled to do as we have done in the past in other places and constantly station a limited number of forces on Iraqi soil.
Edit:
quote: I don't. I would like to see us keep a military base in Iraq, just like we have in Germany, Japan, Italy, and many other countries.
Like Dark Knight said. However, I don't like the idea of it. But I think this may be what will happen. I think it is in our best interest to remove the bulk of the troops. But if we plan to maintain peace or the half-rumped democracy that's in place, we'll probably have to take this action.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)