Brody McKee Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) "Australian PM John Howard has criticised US presidential hopeful Barack Obama for saying US troops should withdraw from Iraq next year." Courtesy of BBC World News - John Howard has decided to wage in on another countries politics? That's not wise as many Australians have been discussing today. Whilst I agree that an immediate pullout is dumb, a one or two-year phased pullout may not be a bad idea. - Obama reponded by attacking our '1,400' troops in IRAQ. He obviously forgot that we also have troops in Afghanistan and half of the islands in the pacific. But give us a break, our military budget is $17 billion compared to the US military budget of $536 billion (from CIA Factbook). What does everyone else think? Edited February 12, 2007 by mrmckeb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted February 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 12, 2007 On behalf of all Australians (well, most), i would like to apologize for our prime minister, you don't have to worry though, he won't be our prime minister for much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Well well, the "coalition of the willing" realises they were really the "coalition of the duped" and they don't want to be hung out to dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted February 13, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 13, 2007 On behalf of all Australians (well, most), i would like to apologize for our prime minister, you don't have to worry though, he won't be our prime minister for much longer. Apologize? Your PM simply defended your servicemen who are sacrificing their lives in service. Obama is the one who should be apologizing for making it appear that 1500 troops is not enough of a contribution to allow for an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted February 13, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 13, 2007 Well, i was apologizing for his general stupidity and meddling in foreign matters (e.g. calling the democrats and Obama the terrorists choice, then saying he didn't single out the democrats) And really, what right does Howard have to butt into your decision making processes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemania Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Apologize? Your PM simply defended your servicemen who are sacrificing their lives in service. Obama is the one who should be apologizing for making it appear that 1500 troops is not enough of a contribution to allow for an opinion. Thats one distorted view, our PM stepped into a domestic political matter, probably insulted the whole democratic party and their supporters by linking them to Al Qaeda, damaging possible future relationship and maybe jepodarising future trade agreements considering that the Democrat has control on both houses. Our PM wasn't defending what our serviceman was doing, he was simply kissing the Bush Administration's ass. Obama's response was fair, the way Howard talks about the importance of Iraq isn't reflected by our military presence there. Most Australian troop aren't in a combat role and will probably be withdrawn after our mandate are up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt B Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Howard said that al qadea would be happy not only if obama won, or any democrat. so yes i think our prime minister has crossed the line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_sphinx_ Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 :o Australia have a prime minister?! Seriously, good for him. At least the guy's speaking out. And what better way than to take a shot at the second strongest potential democratic candidate for the US presidential elections? I'm not even gonna bother to wonder why he went to war...I sure hope that doesn't mean Australia wants a piece of the international scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandalsquad Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'm not even gonna bother to wonder why he went to war...I sure hope that doesn't mean Australia wants a piece of the international scene. I'll ignor that first comment completly... Probly because Australias the United States second biggest supporter after Britain... I have no idea why, A western nation slammed right in the middle of asia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted February 15, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 15, 2007 He views the war in Iraq as beneficial to Australia's "national security", which is why he's saying the US can't pull out at all (and why he says the democrats are the terrorists party of choice, because they don't want to be stuck there, and neither do we) I want to know what his view is, if we replaced Iraq with Vietnam, would he still want to keep all the troops there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vykranth Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Seriously, good for him. At least the guy's speaking out. And what better way than to take a shot at the second strongest potential democratic candidate for the US presidential elections?I'm not even gonna bother to wonder why he went to war...I sure hope that doesn't mean Australia wants a piece of the international scene. If I remember well, Australia and the US have a mutual defense agreement. In the end, I feel that not only J. Howard embarassed royally himself but he gave Obama good exposure: the right-wing warmonging rhetoric does not work at all any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pc_Madness Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Obama's response was fair, the way Howard talks about the importance of Iraq isn't reflected by our military presence there. Most Australian troop aren't in a combat role and will probably be withdrawn after our mandate are up. Yeah, but thats because if you wanted to have them involved in some serious combat, you'd need more troops, which we don't have. Unless Wikipedia is lying to me, we have 27,000 soldiers and 17,000 reservists, who can't be sent overseas. I think roughly 7000 are deployed throughout the world (perhaps half that.. not sure), and the rest are required to defend Australia. (I'm guesstimating, but I'm fairly certain those figures are right) If he wanted to put men in combat rules, he'd need to pull some suicidal political moves to make it happen, and hes not that stupid. As much as I like Howard, I would have to say he shouldn't be butting in. Is there any truth to what hes saying.. perhaps..but I think Iraq is beyond repair anyway, so perhaps Obama has the right idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shibby Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 John Howard is right for saying what he has said. Barack Obama is stupid for thinking that taking troops out of a country which is still in problems because of the war, he shouldn't be a leader. But from my understanding Howard has not done anything he wrong, "Mr Howard said Mr Obama's stance on Iraq...." Whats wrong with that? No one can afford to withdraw from Iraq, yes we shouldn't of gone in on such stupid terms, but a pulling out is just as bad as starting the war. Don't get me wrong i do not condone the war. But by going in to the war has open a new can of worms. If everyone withdraws then your leaving an inadequate force incharge of the country. If these claims of Iran helping Iraq terroists are true then whats to say as soon as we leave they will try to move in? It just not going to happen, unless there is a major global conflict or a major problem in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curme Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 What a hypocrite! Howard and his buddies (Bush, Blair) should be on al-qaeda recruitment posters. Their ill-conceived invasion and occupation has only served to emboldened terrorists. How can he sleep at night, with so much blood on his hands? And then he dares to accuse someone who had nothing to do with all of Howard's, Blair's, and Bush's, mistakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted February 15, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 15, 2007 Was watching Sunrise this morning (like the NCB Today show for you americans), they had the leader of the opposition (Kevin Rudd) and a liberal, Joe Hockey, Kevin Rudd was talking about a staged withdrawl (you know, making sense), but Joe Hockey said some things that rubbed me the wrong way. E.g. Kevin Rudd was talking about bringing the 500 combat troops home, Joe Hocky responded with something like "But why 500?, 500 doesn't matter", no idea if he meant it, but it definately sounded like the 500 troops we have serving "don't matter" Oh yeah, and he basically said the entire US force in Iraq would collapse if we weren't there, aren't you guys so lucky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts