I had hoped for an intelligent and reasoned counter-argument from you Keith, but it seems it is not to be. Oh well.

BTW, have fun sailing around the world. Make sure you call into North America. Visit Los Angeles and visit Vancouver and compare the STARK difference between the two. In one place you will find at least a reasonable sembalance of a social safety net, in the other - an example of what Howard was steering us toward.

ASymeonakis and others

Do any of you understand what a ridiculous little POPINJAY Rudd looks from the perspective of people with REAL power, people like Indian PM Manmohan Singh or China's Hu Jintao. Rudd gallivants around Asia suggesting "Asian Unions," nuclear disarmament and saving the whales. He comes across like minor bureaucrat with delusions of grandeur.

Howard, for all his faults, rarely subjected us to this sort of ridicule.

I seem to recall that he signed us up a war on false premises (WMD's) and for the remainder of his time in office, trotted along all doe-eyed behind Georgey-porgy like a rather pathetic little lap dog.

And the world was watching.

Fozz,

The Iraq war decision is an interesting one.

Let's start by understanding a simple fact. The decision was not whether Iraq should be invaded. That question was way above any Australian Prime Minister's pay scale.

The question confronting Howard was this:

Given that the Americans are going to invade is it AUSTRALIA'S best interests to tag along with a nominal force; or to sit this one out?

Whether or not the anti-war and / or anti-American side likes to admit it, this was not an easy question to answer. There were good arguments on both sides.

For what it's worth my personal view is this:

--The American decision to invade Iraq was ill-considered.

--Despite that I think, on balance, it was in our interests to tag along

Note that Rudd is having to perform a similar balancing act.

Yes, Australian troops are slowly exiting Iraq but we are sending more troops to what I would consider an equally ill-conceived intervention in Afghanistan.

RUDD, LIKE HOWARD, IS EVER MINDFUL OF US REACTIONS.

You write

"And the world was watching."

Actually they weren't. I cannot think of a single MATERIAL negative consequence we suffered in our relations with our Asian neighbours. On the other hand the refusal to sell uranium to India could have profound negative consequences.

The real nightmare scenario for Australia is this:

China decides to take Taiwan by force.

The US decides to help Taiwan.

Now what do we do?

Whatever you may think, this is not an easy one to answer. Even Howard equivocated when asked about that one. So maybe he was not content to trot "along all doe-eyed behind Georgey-porgy like a rather pathetic little lap dog" to the extent you think.

BTW Fozz,

Forget the schoolyard metaphor of foreign relations. Countries do not have mates. Countries have INTERESTS. At times that requires countries, especially small countries, to go along with their allies and hope for the best.

I doubt Howard was really stupid enough to imagine "Georgey-porgy" was his mate. That part was pure circus.

Tut Tut Fozz your true colours are showing.

My purpose in travelling the world is to broaden my mind with new experiences. I don't think I'll waste one jot on reinforcing any stereotyped attitudes and thinking ... behaviour you've just exhibited.

I'm much too mature for that sort of silly crap.

And I'm not so enamoured with social order safety nets as you seem to be. They have a cost. Just look to our neighbours across one of the seas that lap our eastern shore. And after years of a labor inspired safety net their social services are in a far worst state than ours.

I went to school with their treasurer and he to me then was a small minded dic.....! Little appears to have changed.

Keith,

Broaden your mind? Excuse me if I chuckle. I hope you succeed, I thought you would have been a lost cause in that department.

I did not present you with stereotypes but anecdotes of my personal experience. Only last year in fact. That means: I was there.

The US was a bit of culture shock for me and for every other Aussie I spoke to there (they are as thick as flies in California especially - must be all the sun and surf). While it differs from state to state, it is basically a society that has largely abandoned any sembalence of a social safety net as we know it, in accordance with neo-liberal ideaology. In city areas you will see FAR more beggars and homeless than you will here, it's way out of proportion per head of population. You will also quickly grow annoyed with people coming up to you, foisting upon you a service you never wanted and then expecting to be paid for it.

But you will enjoy Disneyland.

Canada is a MUCH nicer place in that regard, a more equitable society without the very obvious effects of slashing and privatising social services as the US has done.