What a d-bag. What nerve lol, Bush has no cred anymore so now the official spokesman now for the war is the Aussie PM. lol! Obama is right if PM Howard is so gun ho on the war then why doesn't he send 20,000 more Aussies to Iraq? Maybe PM Howard should worry about his own country, last time I checked the Labour Party was gaining on him.
[h1]Australian PM questions Obama's candidacy[/h1]MSNBC
Sydney, Australia- Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Monday denied having a political motive when he said terrorists in Iraq would be praying for Democratic hopeful Barack Obama to become U.S. president.[p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]Howard, a steadfast supporter of President Bush in the Iraq war, insisted his criticism of Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in Iraq by March 31 next year was in Australia's national interest because Obama's plan would represent a defeat for Australia's most important military ally.[/p][p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]Howard's foray into U.S. politics dominated Monday's session of Parliament and news bulletins in Australia, and triggered a sharp response from Obama and senators on both sides of U.S. politics, including one who called the comments "bizarre."[/p]The issue overshadowed the results of a new opinion poll published Monday showing Howard, who will attempt to lead his conservative coalition to a fifth term at elections expected later this year, is lagging badly behind Labor opposition leader Kevin Rudd.[p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]In a nationally televised interview on Sunday, Howard said Obama's plan meant al-Qaida leaders in Iraq should "be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats" at presidential elections in November 2008.[/p][p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]Rudd said Howard's comments amounted to calling the Democrats "the terrorists' party of choice" and could harm Australia's future with a possible Democratic U.S. administration.[/p][p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]"I'm doing nothing of the kind. I don't retract anything I said," Howard told Parliament in Canberra.[/p]Obama: Send more Australians to Iraq
He said the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq early next year would be seen as a U.S. defeat that would "encourage and give succor" to terrorists in the Middle East and Asia and be "catastrophic for the West."[p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]"I hold the strongest possible view that it is contrary to the security interests of this country for America to be defeated in Iraq," Howard said.[/p][p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]"Let me make it perfectly clear, if I hear a policy being advocated that is contrary to Australia's security interests, I will criticize it."[/p][p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]Obama, in Iowa a day after formally announcing his candidacy, 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.[/p][p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]He then challenged Howard on his commitment to the Iraq conflict, noting the United States has nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq compared with Australia's about 1,400 forces in the region.[/p][p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]"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."[/p][p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]In the latest ACNielsen poll published Monday in Fairfax newspapers, 48 percent of respondents named Rudd as their preferred prime minister, compared with 43 percent for Howard. Five percent were undecided. The national telephone survey of 1,412 voters was conducted Feb. 8-10 — before Howard's comments on Obama — and had a margin of error of 2.6 percentage points.[/p][p class="textBodyBlack"][span id="byLine"][/span]Howard said in a radio interview that Australia's troop commitment "very significant and appropriate" given the country's relatively small population of about 20 million.[/p]
[p class="textBodyBlack"]
[/p][p class="textBodyBlack"][a href="vny!://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17113465/"]vny!://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17113465/[/a][/p][p class="textBodyBlack"]
[/p]
[img]vny!://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/385693111_e1c9b81ea2.jpg?v=1171132364"]
Obama in Springfield, IL on Saturday morning. 17,000 people showed up. Beat that Hillary.
[img]vny!://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/385710642_c65a575cac.jpg?v=0"]
He's running for President.
I know nothing of this Obama. He has really only been in Canadian news a lot lately. How does Sports feel about him?
I think you could put a overflowing outhouse in power, and it would do a 10000 times better job than Bush.
is there any doubt that the democrats will be in power after the next election?
If history is correct the Democrats will be in power in that address coming Nov '08
Me? I'm a HUUUGE Obama fan. Plus he got my conservative grandmother to vote for him (probably the first time ever she voted democrat).
Its really down to Hillary, Obama, Edwards
Clintonites love Hillary (mainly the 50 and over crowd) while Obama is loved by the younger gen (40 and under).
I'm rooting for a ticket of Obama and Richardson (hispanic gov of New Mexico) mainly because it would be the complete opposite of what the republicans are going to offer.
McCain for the republicans is too old and he's for more troops in Iraq
Guiliani the ex mayor of NYC is for abortion rights, gay rights, stem cell, and anti gun. The social conservatives won't vote if he gets the nomination
Romney is a mormon 1 and 3 americans have said they WILL NOT vote for a mormon. They're seen as cultish folks
And Brownback is a bush light super social evangelical conservative and if he was nominated for the republicans he'd get landslided because people are tired of evangelical politicians.
I really hope that Obama wins the '08 Election.
Maybe he's as full of crap as all politicians but he's the first one to come along in a long time, that actually seems like he may have some fresh ideas with the peoples intrests in mind, and capable of winning.
He's a very charismatic speaker, I'm gay for Obama
lol gay for Obama thats a new one.
Let's be freaking real here.
Obama is black, he is not going to become president.
No racism intended, it is just the truth.
This move is just going to sway away the swing voting race eccentric social conservatives.
When are the democrats going to use their brains?
the right wing social conservatives aren't going to vote in '08 look who they have on the Republican side:
Romney: a mormon who now has flipped flopped on all the social conservative issues saying he's anti abortion, anti stem cell, anti gays when he's on the record for saying the opposite
Guiliani: 'america's mayor' he's for gay rights, abortion rights, stem cell research and he's strongly anti gun
McCain: he's really old, he's not really a social conservative and he's for the environment, which is a no no in the right wing christian conservative circles.
My friend's parents would strongly fit the far right wing voter and they are on the record that if Romney or Guilani are nominated they will not vote.
Gunta wrote:
Let's be freaking real here.
Obama is black, he is not going to become president.
No racism intended, it is just the truth.
This move is just going to sway away the swing voting race eccentric social conservatives.
When are the democrats going to use their brains?
He's only half black. He's also not a thug and therefore non-threatening to middle america. He's the Fresh Prince of DC
is al gore running? or john kerry?
I don't think Gore will run. He's pretty focused on the global warming stuff and being president would distract from that.
Kerry, should really not bother but I think he will try.
Kerry's not running
Nice thread, SD.
#1: Yes, the terrorists will cheer if Obama becomes president because...
#2: Obama's plan to pull our forces out of Iraq will constitute a massive military defeat for the U.S. (and by extension her allies). Is there really any debating this?
Pulling our troops out will be humiliating and will most likely lead to an immediate (though hopefully temporary) worsening of the security situation in Iraq, in other words, increased ethnic cleansing. But considering the alternative (remaining bogged down in a civil war for the foreseeable future), it is the lesser of two evils, at least in my opinion.
I saw a black intellectual on the Colbert Report the other night explaining why Obama is not black. He is not the descendant of slaves and thus is like a "step-brother" to African Americans. Whatever he is, the question will become whether white America feels threatened by his skin color, his middle name, and all the other petty, superficial bullshit that our mass media thrives on.
I'm betting that he will be knocked out of the running but that whites will feel wonderful about themselves because they considered voting for a "black" candidate and see it as proof that our nation has moved beyond the scourge of racism.
But here is the counter agruement to Iraq will go to chaos if we pull out (which it will)
Vietnam
We are now trading partners with Vietnam, we like the Vietnamese. These are the same people that we 'hated' 30 some odd years ago.
The thing is the USA public or Washington has never gotten this. WE ARE NOT GOOD NATION BUILDERS.
We are good at selling you things. Look what we did to the Soviet Union. We didn't go to an offical war with them (although we had a bunch of 'proxy' wars with them).
The Soviet Union fell because of captialism. Look at China. They are basically capitalists now under communism. Same with Vietnam.
If you look through history we cannot rebuild countries from scratch. The Balkans was rebuilt by NATO not just the US. Europe in World War II already had a democratic history. Japan and South Korea was a little bit of asian idealogy on life + capitalistic ideas. They saw a path and went for it.
The Middle East does not have this history.
When the US goes alone in 'nation building' you get a Haiti which is a complete mess. And if Washington was smart they'd stay the hell away from Cuba when Castro dies but they won't.
Nation Building? Is that what they were trying to accomplish?
so confused...
yeah Nation building. to turn the middle east into the next western europe.
Obama would be a culture shock after 8 years of Stinky Bush.
Damn! Nothing is more disgusting than a Nasty Bush!
I'll cry if a Tancredo or Brownback get the Republican nomination and then somehow win the white house.
[span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"]But here is the counter agruement to Iraq will go to chaos if we pull out (which it will)[/span][br style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"][span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"]Vietnam[/span][br style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"][br style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"][span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"]We are now trading partners with Vietnam, we like the Vietnamese. These are the same people that we 'hated' 30 some odd years ago.[/span]
I don't know if this is a parellel. Only time will tell. When we pulled out of Vietnam the government of the South fell immediately. There were a few large-scale killings, but mostly those who were considered unreliable were sent to re-education camps. Religious and tribal affiliation was not a major issue after the government of the south fell, at least such things would not mark you for immediate execution. So the initial effects of our pullout in Iraq will likely be much more bloody.
Relations were poor between our two countries until the government of Vietnam decided to move towards capitalism (state-controlled capitalism) and trade opportunities developed. If an extremist theocratic government emerges in Iraq, I don't know that good relations between our two countries can come of that anytime soon. It will likely ally itself closely with Iran, and thus will be a thorn in our side in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up invading Iraq again in a few decades.
No, I think too much water has flowed under that bridge to make friendship likely in our lifetime :(
yeah true. But then agian the neo-cons should have realized that Saddam was ruthless for a reason. He took control over three ethnic groups who hate each other.
For example they the repubs want to democratize the middle east. Okay. You ditch Mubarak in Eygpt and you get the Muslim Brotherhood. You ditch the Saudi Royals and you get Al Queda people. Syria you get Hezzbollah.
I knew this and I was a kid in high school. The middle east is a powder keg. Bush lit the match in the live ammo room which was and is Iraq.
There's either 2 ways to go about this. Put in about a million troops or get out.
Its like invading Japan during world war II. My grandpa would have been one of the 10's of thousands of troops to invade the island but Truman had an easier way out. He dropped the bomb.
If he hadn't had dropped the bomb both the Japanese and the Americans would have had massive casualities in war. I probably wouldn't be here, my grandpa probably would had died in the invasion.
Truman only had 2 options.
We only have 2 options.
We stay, put in about 500,000 more troops and get thousands of casualities with the possibility of this plan failing as well
Or
Getting out and letting it fall apart by itself and see who comes out on top.
I agree 100% with your last post.
Except about the bomb and Japan, but I won't thread hijack ;)
no biggie I'm anti nuking people and I thought and still think it was wrong to do but in hindsight I wouldn't be living if it wasn't for it.
But Bush really has set the tables for a World War III in the Middle East.
Scenario:
Saudi's back the Sunni's
Iran backs the Shia
Kurds fight everyone want independence
Turkey doesn't like Kurds they'll start to fight them
Hezzbollah then see's its a good idea to attack Israel from Syria
Israel goes after Hezzbollah in Syria and Lebanon
Eygpt helps out the Sunnis
So you've got
Israel fighting Lebanon, Syria
Sunni's versus Shia
Sunni's: Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Eygpt
vs.
Shia Iraq, Iran
Then you could have Israel being attacked by Syria and Lebanon
and Turkey fighting the Kurds.
Doomsday scenario
Oh, I don't think that would be doomsday, not quite.
As long as Pakistan and India, Russia, China, North Korea etc keep their fingers off the trigger.
But who knows, things tend to spiral out of control.
War rages throughout the middle east, Israel decides to stick it's f*cking nose in (little doubt of this) and is attacked. Israel nukes various middle eastern countries in "self defense" and begins stuffing arabs into concentration camps (not a stretch when you think of where Israel is currently). Israel is attacked by various Arab countries, U.S.A. responds to outcry from Israeli lobby and leaps into the fray with its big size 13s. Horror ensues.
Yeah then there's the Pakistan-India conflict zone over Kashmir. I remember in the 90's they had troops at the border staring each other down.
If it went into a regional conflict and everyone got involved then the trump cards would be a China or a Russia. Would they side with Iran? If they did what would be the consequences?
Remember whenever a regional conflict happens and someone on the bad side hits you, you go to war with eveyone on the 'bad side' no matter what.
Right now it only takes one missile to cause this thing to blow up. aka Archduke Ferdinand getting shot.
I just want to see the next season of Extras, then they can do whatever they want to whomever they want.
LOL, of course if you listen to some of the liberals in this country, they would have you believe that all we need is a democratic president in office to fix all this stuff! Hehe, how many democratic presidents allowed the Vietnam war to fester out of cowardice and more concern for U.S. "interests" than human life? And what are U.S. interests? Well, take a look at the wars we've waged since 1898 and tell me how many were fought to protect freedom and democracy.
American war history is a bit flawed and skewed.
We make messes and then don't clean them up. We enter wars at the last minute and then we take all the glory (world war II comes to mind).
Apparently 'we' defeated the Soviets when they defeated themselves.
Oh and we created the internet and the car apparently the airplane.
LOL. Yeah WWII is a classic.
Whenever I hear how "we won WWII and saved Europe's ass" I feel like cracking skulls.
People conveniently forget, for instance, how many Russians died blunting the Nazi advance.
Truth vs. truthiness.
Allied losses in WWII:
[table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="450"][tbody][tr][td height="46" width="16%"] Country[/td][td height="46" width="11%"] Pop.[/td][td height="46" width="20%"] Killed/Missing[/td][td height="46" width="17%"] Wounded[/td][td height="46" width="22%"] Total(Military)[/td][td height="46" width="14%"] Civilian (deaths)[/td][/tr][/tbody][/table]
[table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="450"][tbody][tr][td width="17%"] China [/td][td width="10%"] 450m [/td][td width="20%"] 1.3 million [/td][td width="17%"] 1.8 million[/td][td width="21%"] 3.1 million [/td][td width="15%"] 9 million [/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] Poland [/td][td width="10%"] 35m[/td][td width="20%"] 130,000[/td][td width="17%"] 200,000[/td][td width="21%"] 330,000[/td][td width="15%"] 2.5million[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] U.K. [/td][td width="10%"] 48m[/td][td width="20%"] 400,000[/td][td width="17%"] 300,000 [/td][td width="21%"] 700,000 [/td][td width="15%"] 60,000[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] France [/td][td width="10%"] 42m[/td][td width="20%"] 250,000[/td][td width="17%"] 350,000[/td][td width="21%"] 600,000[/td][td width="15%"] 270,000[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] Australia [/td][td width="10%"] 7m[/td][td width="20%"] 30,000[/td][td width="17%"] 40,000[/td][td width="21%"] 70,000[/td][td width="15%"] --[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] India [/td][td width="10%"] 360m[/td][td width="20%"] 36,000[/td][td width="17%"] 64,000[/td][td width="21%"] 100,000[/td][td width="15%"] --[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] New Zealand[/td][td width="10%"] 2m [/td][td width="20%"] 10,000[/td][td width="17%"] 20,000[/td][td width="21%"] 30,000[/td][td width="15%"] --[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] So. Africa [/td][td width="10%"] 10m[/td][td width="20%"] 9,000[/td][td width="17%"] 14,000[/td][td width="21%"] 23,000[/td][td width="15%"] --[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] Canada [/td][td width="10%"] 11m[/td][td width="20%"] 42,000[/td][td width="17%"] 50,000[/td][td width="21%"] 92,000[/td][td width="15%"] --[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] Denmark[/td][td width="10%"] 4m[/td][td width="20%"] 2,000[/td][td width="17%"] ?[/td][td width="21%"] ?[/td][td width="15%"] 1,000[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] Norway[/td][td width="10%"] 3m[/td][td width="20%"] 10,000[/td][td width="17%"] ?[/td][td width="21%"] ?[/td][td width="15%"] 6,000[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] Belgium [/td][td width="10%"] 8m [/td][td width="20%"] 12,000[/td][td width="17%"] 16,000[/td][td width="21%"] 28,000[/td][td width="15%"] 100,000[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] Holland [/td][td width="10%"] 9m[/td][td width="20%"] 14,000[/td][td width="17%"] 7,000[/td][td width="21%"] 21,000[/td][td width="15%"] 250,000[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] Greece [/td][td width="10%"] 7m[/td][td width="20%"] 90,000[/td][td width="17%"] ?[/td][td width="21%"] ?[/td][td width="15%"] 400,000[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] Yugoslavia [/td][td width="10%"] 15m[/td][td width="20%"] 320,000[/td][td width="17%"] ?[/td][td width="21%"] ?[/td][td width="15%"] 1.3million[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] U.S.S.R. [/td][td width="10%"] 194m[/td][td width="20%"] 9 million[/td][td width="17%"] 18 million [/td][td width="21%"] 27 million[/td][td width="15%"] 19 million[/td][/tr][tr][td width="17%"] U.S.A.[/td][td width="10%"] 129m[/td][td width="20%"] 300,000[/td][td width="17%"] 300,000[/td][td width="21%"] 600,000[/td][td width="15%"] --[/td][/tr][/tbody][/table]Found here:
vny!://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html
Notice the massive number of U.S. civilian deaths during WWII?
No, I didn't think so.
EDIT: yeah I didn't think the table would transfer properly.
Anyway, you get the idea.
And remember Canada's force in World War II. I remember some saying they had 9 million people of course half was women so they didn't serve and Quebec males really didn't serve (conscription) so hack 50% of males and the rest sort of served. thats 50% or so of eligible males. Thats a lot for a a small country.
Canadians served bravely on the beaches of Normandy.
They were chopped to pieces with everybody else :(
WWII was America's last truly noble military adventure.
I'm sure you've noticed how often our leaders bring up WWII when trying to promote their latest foreign intervention. Sadaam, of course, was the Hitler of the middle east (not Sharon, no way, the Israeli's are immune to criticism). And I remember how Noriega was painted as a Hitler. In fact, we planted a photo of Hitler in his house as part of our justification for the war. LOL.
In our interventions abroad, there are always 2 distinct stages, first we decide where we will strike based on cynical self interest (the self-interest of whom is a different issue). Second, we "sell" the war. The two stages rarely have anything to do with each other. In other words, the justification for the war almost never resembles the motive.
of course the last war we actually did anything good was the second world war. Hence all the video games on World War II. Funny thing is I remember P.C. telling me in my heritage thread to "not live in the past" zing..
LOL.
Well I think she meant when it comes to your personal life/emotional development ;)
TOP, FOOL!!!
(//vny!://www.motleycrow.com/ImageHost/30333290.gif)
well then the american psyche's social development isn't good when we still bask in the glory of the second world war. lol
True dat!!
I think if you consider the American psyche as that belonging to a human being it would be frightening.
The person would be a delusional egomaniac at the very least, and when it comes to thinking about the needs and feelings of other people, possibly even a sociopath :O
yeah so true did you see 24 last night? One of the guys on CTU got drilled in the shoulder with a screw driver and screamed then got hit over the head with a bat and water tortured. And then Jack said damnit and it was bleeped.
That is incredibly funny in a sick way.
It's all about priorities, hay?
Drill holes in whomever you like, just don't take an invbisible man's name in vain.
I have to go.
It's time to get my employee evaluation *shaking in teh boots*
yup gore and graphic violence very good keep up the good work
cusing and nudity horrible run for the hills
Sportsdude wrote:
yeah so true did you see 24 last night? One of the guys on CTU got drilled in the shoulder with a screw driver and screamed then got hit over the head with a bat and water tortured. And then Jack said damnit and it was bleeped.
Thats because saying damnit has lasting irreversable damaging effects on childrens psyches.
Teaching them that a man can be beaten and drilled and make a complete recovery in under an hour is not harmful at all. As we know, violence has no consequences for good guys.