I wonder if John Howard's comments may have unintended consequences, especially if they are widely reported in the U.S. As has been mentioned before, Americans don't like foreigners telling them what to do.

I seem to recall at the time of the last U.S. presidential election, the UK newspaper The Guardian came up with a cunning plan to influence the vote - they urged their readers to write to US voters in a particular county urging them not to vote for Bush. I believe the result was that this was the only county in the state of Ohio to change from Democrat to Republican.

So I encourage John Howard to continue attacking the Democrats. It will be interesting to see what happens!

Bizarre isn't quite the right word.

For those Question time watchers you may have observed Mr Howard in the last week. Spitting and, yes, frothing at the mouth. Ear pieces in, arms waving. The best part is watching Christopher Pyne who makes a point of sitting directly behind the orator.

The looks on his face are just telling. When Howard is up Pyne looks confused, puzzled, angry and amazed at what is being said.

When Malcolm Turnbull is up Pyne's eyes go elswhere I'm afraid. He's the delight of this entertaining show.

I have no idea what any Australian thinks we gain by having Howard effectively dry humping Bush's leg. It's not a good look. I also have to ask "What has the US done for Australia lately, or ever really?".

When did they actually "win" a war? When did they actually come to support Australian troops? Half a century ago?

If you listen or watch US media the only regular comment re our devotion is "These guys just turn up if you mention a fight". "No invitation, they just turn up".

How does Australia benefit by any connection with the US?

Chris

It was a major gaffe by Howard but his minders are making sure it is only a temporary setback. He might have even gained some heart from being able to claim he is the underdog (electorally) for once.

However I would like to see your analytical and writing skills employed on issues of concern to youth. Without dwelling on it, both major political parties are weak in their consultation with youth and neither party seeks (nor presently would take guidance from) the needs and ideas of Australian youth. That is a pathetic state of affairs.

What I am saying is that Labor would be well advised to find its grass roots in the young voters for the next election and elections beyond that. They can only do this by direct, frank consultation. Make no bones about it, young people have a right to be heard and 'older' people would very much benefit from hearing their opinions and solutions, whether it is convenient or not.

Maybe youth should be thinking about a new political party because, come to think of it, there have been mass movements of youth in the past and the major political parties were not really that interested then either. It is a democracy but out political parties are not that democratic in the ways they operate, I guess. A leopard doesn't change its spots so easily.

RobbyH,
The US didn't even come to Australia to support us in WW2, they came cause we were well placed in the Pacific to fight with Japan. It was just fortunate for Curtain and the rest of us that this was the case. If Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour we would have been up the creek as far as the yanks were concerned.
Curtain's actions and words show that he was clearly looking after Australias best interests. Howard's show he's just bowing to his master G. dubya Bush.

RobbyH,
To answer your question, yes 50 year ago is correct, however, they would have been quite content to remain on the sidelines of WW11, as they had for years before entering the war, selling us weapons and ammunition and making billions. The only reason the yanks got involved in that war was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour.

It wasn't Australia's war Churchill declared that England was at war, so another tory Pig Iron Bob Menzies declared England is at war, so Australia is at war. The yanks were only useful for their numbers they were the poorest trained soldiers in it, and it would seem nothing has changed there.

Just because many of us are critical of America most of the time, does not mean we do not need her. Does not also mean that we totally disfavour her.

But then again we do disfavour many of her methods, especially since the US has become unipolar.

However, unipolar does not mean that the most prominent nation should act preemptively as the US did in Iraq, leaving many of us in a sorry yet angry state that a country we admired so much after the end of WW2, should act the way she has, with the same tactics as Britain used during the colonial era. Acting like pirates grabbing strategic placed islands and ports as if it was her entitlement as Queen of the seas and the landfalls thereof.

Indeed, it has come that way, that many us get close to hoping that the same will happen to the US in Iraq as happened to her with vietnam.

It is so interesting that with some of us hoping the US learns by the shocking retreat from Vietnam, we are still gratified that Vietnam is now looking to the US to join in the benefits of trade.

We also saw this with Singapore, when Lee seemed to look more towards Confucianist-style nations, but maybe from Confucianist wisdom, he also became worldly but retaining traits that he knew would benefit his kind. Malaysian leaders acted similarly after falling out somewhat with the British.

Maybe Americans are inclined to be rockheaded, as they say, not accepting enough advice even from their own kind