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

BB Part Two

Maybe the US should take a lesson from the greatest of the Enlightenmentalists, the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, whose ideas did result in the League of Nations and later the United Nations

While Kant did believe in the concept of Republicanism, he did give warning:

"The idea of international law presupposes the separate existence of many independent but neighbouring states. Although this condition does itself include a possibility for war, this is rationally preferable to the amalgamation of states under one superior single entity." (Apparently as with George W Bush in today's United States).

As Kant concludes his passage:

Under one universal personage laws will often lose in vigor compared to what a federal union gains in extent. What remains henceforth, can be a soulless despotism stifling the seeds of the Good...."

As most social scientists have learnt, Kant's plan for a League of' or a United Nations, was what he termed a Federation of Nations.

One wonders therefore, whether he would have regarded even the United Nations as being soulless because it lacks a multiple executive

My guess is Howard is attacking the first available soft target in the
US in a reaction to the Thick Sheik calling him "Mr Me
too" because "he waits for any news from America to
say 'me too'", and Anthony Mundine calling him a "a
puppet to the bigger brothers, who are England and
America".

The bizarre aspect is that comments by idiots are actually
effecting the prime minister.

I am fascinated to note that when the previous Leader of the Opposition (I think he was called Latham) called President Bush "the most dangerous and incompetent President in history" there was little comment in the media, but when John Howard makes a reasoned and sensible remark that Al-Quada would have every reason to pray for a Democrat victory, he is portrayed as endangering the US alliance.

This is obviously another display of the total impartiality of our media.

For the fun of all I am venturing my arm in forecasting the name of the next President of the USA. The name is Jeb Bush.

There are some other points that other posters may care to comment on. These are:

1. The UN will NEVER come to our rescue. Hopefully, the US may.

2. When you are short of resources, you don't ration them out, you have a little war to see who gets the lot, and who gets nothing.

3. Human nature has not progressed to any noticeable extent in the last 50,000 years.

4. The main world problem, from which all others emanate, is overpopulation.

Strategically, it makes sense for John Howard to bring Australia back into the Terrorist spotlight, tempting them with ernest to explode something here before the next election.

He has something in common with the the two shieks that have outraged us all by isolating and vilifying Australia to the rest of the world. They both want trouble for their own seperate agendas with the same outcome. More conflict and war.

I mean, how many wanted to say "shut up and stay out of the gunfire"?

There is a theory that it will provoke a response either Easter or Mardi Gras, where lots of people with a body count will drive the populace to a frenzy of fear. Mardi Gras would be a brilliant target. Howard couldn't care less about the individuals in the body count, and those close will be so scared to death, they'll vote him back to power.

The terrorists don't want a Democrat US President or the ALP in Australian Government either. They like to have a clear enemy to demonise and keep them in business. The last thing they want is negotiation and peace.

It sure worked for Mayor Julianni of NY just after 9 / 11. His opinion polls were a record low before this tactic put the Grand Old Party back on top, and the people back down in fear and confusion.

If this happens in Australia in the next few months, then you will know that that Howard's comments provoked them. Howard is cunning. It is the ultimate strategy. Brilliant.

How evil is his hunger for power? In the next few months, if you see things exploding, you know that John Howard is reading the Hairy Goat somewhere before he celebrates.

He will say something else shocking to provoke the terrorists in the next few weeks, you can bet your bottom dollar. He will stop at nothing to have his own people exploded for the sake of fear, to rule to the bitter end.

Think about it

Howard is falling apart. He's grabbing for his old tactic, fear and name calling. To resort to name calling re Obama really has revealed him for what he is. The rodent, teeth bared, whiskers trembling. Note no response re Obama's calling Howard's bluff. How Hard never really committed many troops. Just enough for political gain but not enough to actually help anyone. That's what Obama was pointing at.

Rudd's no genius by the way and I doubt he could lead a horse to water (to coin a phrase) but it's looking like a drover's dog election to me.

An old man who is now frothing at the mouth in Question Time, spitting accidentally, using hearing aids but still claiming he can't hear over a rowdy Opposition (actually there was NO noise at all)during THAT question.

He's put loudmouths Abbott and Costelloe on the front line to call names. Expect Bibl quotes and calling on God for support. Prey or pray or pay.

He's still got the warchest but what's he going to spend it on? Everything he will name has been an area where he has meanly deprived people of services. He'll just look a fool, at last.

We may or may not like the Prime Minister (actually he is a brilliant politician) but what/who is the alternative?

"What Howard’s comments do risk doing is degrading and cheapening the relationship."

War criminals will say anything to justify their actions.

Mise,
The alternative is a Labor Government. I agree with you the lying rodent is a brilliant politician, who can manipulate almost every situation to his liking, we had a bloke in Queensland named Sir Joe, "don't you worry about that" who used to be equally as good, he's even better now.

If the general public want someone to manipulate them, and tell them blatant lies, the rodent's your man, vote for him again. If you want someone to tackle issues like climate change, educational standards etc, you vote for Rudd, is that clear enough for you.

How Hard? Brilliant? All he does is lie and blame others. Where's the brilliance?

Here's one definition of the word brilliant :

A clear and bright - as opposed to cloudy - appearance. That clearly means eyebrow separation.

Another :

Exceptionally clear and transparent.

I don't think so. Do you?

Will America survive without Australia? Surely, YES.
Will Australia survive without America? Allah Akbar.

Let Australian politics express opinions-and caravan just goes.