Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australia Isn't Going Anywhere

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Australia Isn't Going Anywhere

    PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

    Can I just say very directly, Paul (the reporter that asked the "isn't terrorism really your fault" question), on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

    Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

    And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

    Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

    When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

    When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

    Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_...ive.asp#070312

  • #2
    Good for John Howard. I read a bunch of "letters to the editor" in a couple Australian papers after the first London attack. It was not encouraging, the majority of the opinions were of the "England was asking for it" variety. I know all aussies don't share that opinion, but it was disconcerting- maybe 1 out of 10 placed the blame on the bombers.
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by highsea
      Good for John Howard. I read a bunch of "letters to the editor" in a couple Australian papers after the first London attack. It was not encouraging, the majority of the opinions were of the "England was asking for it" variety. I know all aussies don't share that opinion, but it was disconcerting- maybe 1 out of 10 placed the blame on the bombers.
      Y'all 'member the 'Best US Ally' poll, where I said that AUSTRALIA was our most reliable ally?

      John Howard, God bless and protect him, is exactly WHY that is my opinion.

      Comment


      • #4
        Here's what I wrote back in December:

        Australia is VERY good as an ally, because although they don't bring a lot of physical strength to the table, philosophically they're true-blue and loyal.

        Howard was just returned as Australian Prime Minister, and he is very closely identified with Dubya.

        Contrast that with Tony Blair, who, although a strong and loyal ally, has to fight the 'Bush's Poodle' slander, and in so doing has sometimes had to distance himself and show his independence of the US for doemstic political considerations.

        So the Brits are sacrificing and actually doing the heavy lifting in the War on Terror right alongside of us - but the grumble and ***** the whole way. Aussies aren't making as much of a contribution, but I have a sense they don't resent what they are doing, and wouldn't mind all that much if they were asked to do even more.
        Last edited by Bluesman; 22 Jul 05,, 01:09.

        Comment


        • #5
          And this:

          Thanks for the back-up, Boxcar. What you said ("...in the "Anglosphere", with the possible exception of Australia, it is a moral liability to be seen as pro-US.) circles back to my point that we can count on the Aussies, but who knows if Blair can hold on for another election? If he can't, we all know why he will have been defeated - close identification with Bush, which is, as you've said, a moral (and I should add, a political) liability.

          So, my point was and is: Australia is a more dependable ally than the UK. Because if the Brits change their government (very possible), it will be largely for one reason, and at that point, the US is the third rail to the new Brit PM - touch it and die instantly.

          Comment

          Working...
          X