__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

What an unfortunante outcome. But ofcourse that is just my oppinion.

A few definite corrects however. Firstly, he is our Prime Minister, not President. We had a referendum to change that a few years ago, and we decided against it. And seeing as Howard set down some devisive wording...

Secondly, don't take this as much of a confirmation about the war thing. It was simply not raised as an issue by either of the major parties. There was not no definite yes or no on that issue it was justy generally ignored. Ofcourse that could be some tacit approval in itself, but just remember that that was not a main issue.

Yes, it could mean tacit approval by the majority in Australia, especially since the Labor Party challenger had promised to bring the troops home by Christmas.

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?

First of all I saw absolutely no evidence that Kerry's sister campaigned against Howard in Australia. Kjs already posted the allegations before, she failed to provide a link and so did you. If you heard it from Rush or Ann or Sean it does not mean it's true. So unless you can back it up with a credible link - stop lying.

Second - Australia contributed 850 troops in non-combat roles. For a country like Australia it's a ridiculously small, token participation in the coalition. They barely had any casualties, it costs them pennies. It's not a campaign issue for them.

If they had 10,000 troops in Iraq patroling Falujah, losing 10 soldiers and spending a couple of billion dollars a month - the outcome of their election could have been quite different.

__________________
The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself. George W. Bush

I don't know of any commentators who are in the business of making up facts. They may spin them one way or another, but they don't pull stuff completely out of their rears.

From "The Australian"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

I think they've done much more than that. Somebody already posted this before, but failed to provide a link and so did you. So unless you can back it up with a credible link - stop lying.

"Token participation?!?" I'm quite embarrassed that the left has decided to belittle the support offerred by other countries in this war. I apologize to any Australians reading this on behalf of those of us in America who truly value your country's efforts in this war. Regardless of whether you are for or against the war, to make light of the sacrifices of Australian troops and their families is shameless.

That's exactly what I am talking about - not a word about Kerry's sister campaigning against Howard. That's a lie my politically correct conservative friend.

Regarding the australian participation in the coalition I stated undeniable facts - relatively small number of non-combat troops, almost no casualties, negligible cost and therefore not an issue in their election. And I could not care less about your political correctness - only shows what a hypocrit you are.

"Australia has 850 troops in and around Iraq, mainly carrying out specialist functions such as air traffic control, air transport, aerial maritime patrols and maritime interception."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3873359.stm


Australia had no fatalities in Iraq.
http://icasualties.org/oif/PieCountry.aspx

__________________
The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself. George W. Bush

Please don't tell me that it didn't happen if there isn't a direct quote from Kerry's sister saying "Howard is a bad man don't vote for him." I think you're smarter than that. The first line in the article states it simply: "JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists."

Wrong my friend. In stating the numbers you thought reflected Australia's total commitment to the war you were stating "facts." In calling that effort "ridiculously small, token participation" you are demeaning the sacrifice being made by Australia. I have no problem with you taking a position that Australia was not as dedicated to the war effort as the US, but you can make the case without belittling what they've done.

Australia sent 2,000 troops in the initial invasion. While small in relation to Britain's 45,000 and our 214,000, it is their largest deployment since Vietnam. Australia was one of only two countries other than the US to send combat troops. This was not a mere "token" but a group of their most highly trained and effective elite forces. Most were sent home after the end of major combat operations, leaving 850 to help in rebuilding.

I'm pretty sure the Poles sent 200 troops, and the Danish and Spanish sent some naval vessels.

__________________
"I see no reason why...there should not arise a United States of Europe" Winston Churchill, 1946

And you call it campaigning against Howard? She gave an interview, she answered a question, she expressed her honest opinion (BTW undeniable), if it happened to coincide with Howard's opponent's opinion you people claim that she was campaigning against Howard. Come on, that's as dishonest as it gets.

I did not belittle australians, they are good allies, they did participate in the original invasion. But when we need more troops and more help in Iraq and they withdraw 1,200 combat troop leaving 850 non-combat troops I don't see them all that committed to the war (I don't blame them either).

I am greatful for what they've done and are still doing, even small contributions are valuable, but that's exactly what it is - token participation. Compare it to other countries - Italy 3,000 combat troops, Poland 2,500 combat troops, Ukraine 1,600 combat troops.

All I was trying to do was to explain why the Iraq situation and Bush had nothing to do with outcome of their election.

__________________
The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself. George W. Bush

that HOward was unpopular with the Australian people for taking them to war in Iraq. Guess that's been put to rest, hasn't it?

And I'd suggest that these same folks who've predicted that Bush will be tossed out on his rear, just as they did with Howard, may be surprised AGAIN in a few weeks.

Catz

__________________
I gave myself to Jesus, but now he never calls.