The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Competing foreign policy doctrines > Comments

Competing foreign policy doctrines : Comments

By Cameron Riley, published 8/6/2006

We should advance Australian interests by engaging nations culturally and socially.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Is Howard overplaying a possibly needed friendship with America, the way he is sticking to the US like glue, and going by press reports never a cross word or even a tactical suggestion to the US president

Certainly future historians will be using the deputy sheriff syndrome more than quite a bit.

It is not as if the US hasnít made historical mistakes. Immanuel Kant who first spoke of the need for a Federation of Nations to preserve world peace, took a lesson of how Napoleon haughtily declared himself emperor even while still carrying the Enlightenment ensign of liberty equality and farternity. Thus Kant declared that from now on not one person nor one nation alone can ever be trusted to rule this world.

As Napoleon broke the code of liberty and freedom, so has George W Bush by not necessarily calling himself emperor, but to let the US have the right to move in near enough alone with the pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

It was and still is a sorry state of affairs for Australia that the Labor opposition has shown so little argument against Howardís lamb-like trailing after America. Also our public appear to be cheerfully dumbed down about it all, no doubt feeling that following the strength or the big league is the best option, which undoubtly America has whether it be justifieed or not. Again, we could wonder what our future historians will write about our foreign policies, especially if things keep deterioting the way they have been in Iraq, and also, incidently in Afghanistan
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 8 June 2006 5:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred Part Two

Finally, we might also mention how our Party as well as our meekish public let John Howard agree to the bi-lateral trade agreement with the US, especially as it hasnít helped our farmers one bit, only scaring hell out of our meat exporters with the dumping of a shipment of Brazilian carcase meat on a NSW rubbish tip after it was suspected to be infected with foot and mouth. Incidently, after ringing SBS who published the report through George Negus on Dateline, the ringer was informed that the government needed to have the news quietened down.

So thatís what things have been coming to through too much sucking up to America.

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 8 June 2006 6:30:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is always a pleasure see how a fiction writer can turn Australian history on it's head
The first world war was not the first time Australian troops volunteered to fought overseas.
The Boer War was when the British Colonies of Australia sent troops to South Africa.
Some fifty years before Aussies were volunteering to fight the Maoris
in New Zealand.
It was not Billy Hughes who forced Aussies to fight in WW1,as the Catholic Schools have teached for almost a century.
The truth was that as soon as Britain announced it was going to war,Australians volunteered.
WW2,was again Aussies volunteering to fight overseas.
On all these occassions it was not somuch what the Prime Minister had in mind but rather a ground swell of the Australian youth wanting to fight.
I must correct the false historical accounts that are circulated to all Australian educational institutes,that the USA in the goodness of their hearts wanted to help save Australia from Japanese occupation.
The true facts were that Britain had to offer the USA under the LENDLEASE plan.(financing Britain's war effort.) most of Britain's Chemical plants and various other industries.As some of these were located in Australia,the USA sent troops to protect them.
American public opinion was generally against protecting Britain and certainly did not "give a dam" if Australia was taken by the Japanese.In 1940 most Americans thought Australia was already in Hitlers hands.(Austria.)
The left argue that we have been following the USA lead eversince WW2.This is correct and it is a fact that public opinion has in most cases been against the Government of the day.
In the last fifty years, public opinion loses out to the dictates of the Australian Armed Forces and the Government of the day.
Colony Australia,where Police carry guns at all time.The general population are not consulted.
This is why Australia as a Republic would and could not work.
Posted by BROCK, Thursday, 8 June 2006 6:31:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sounds like someone is learning a degree at our University where the questions and answers are full of racial undertones incorporated with the actual learning curriculum.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Saturday, 10 June 2006 11:15:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy