Posted on 09/23/2004 9:43:08 PM PDT by Hazzardgate
Oui, l'expression serait quelque chose le français dirait MAIS, mais, nous ne pouvons pas ignorer les inquiétudes d'un allié. S'ils veulent avoir le processus démocratique alors nous devons ce respecter.
it's way past your bedtime too, sonny. You're a disgrace to FReerepublic.
Australia is an independent nation, though that can sometimes be hard for those outside this country to understand, because they don't know how things work.
Australia makes its own decisions as to its own affairs. London doesn't tell us what to do, although it did for quite a while. Australia did go to war in 1914 because Britain had. In 1939, with World War II, it was a lot more complicated - the decision was nearly automatic because of treaties but it was a decision taken in Canberra, and there was no compulsion about it.
Since World War II, Australia has gone to war in cases where Britain did not (Vietnam) and hasn't gone to war in cases where Britain did (the Falklands).
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, is our Head of State (not our Head of Government - that is the Prime Minister), but she is our Head of State as Queen of Australia, and she is our Queen because we have chosen to retain her. Our choice, in a referendum. We kept the system of government that has been stable for a hundred years now - when someone proposes an alternative that will be just as stable, it's likely to get support.
Lieutenant Governors are fairly irrelevant, BTW - it's the Governor-General and the Governors that have some importance, Lieutenant Governor is pretty much a completely ceremonial position whose only importance is to replace the Governor if needed.
When people start speaking French, it makes me wish my French Master had beaten me more often. Then I might understand them.
I'll argue with anyone who is, in my opinion, misrepresenting Australia's position, deliberately or otherwise. Even if I don't convince them, other people reading get more than one side and are more able to make up their own minds.
townhall.com
Undermining Australia
Charles Krauthammer
September 24, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Of all our allies in the world, which is the only one to have joined the United States in the foxhole in every war in the last 100 years? Not Britain, not Canada, certainly not France. The answer is Australia.
Australia not only shares a community of values with the United States. It understands that its safety rests ultimately on a stable international structure that, in turn, rests not on parchment treaties but on the power and credibility of the United States. Which is why Australia is with us today in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has taken great risks and much political heat for his support of America.
-- snip --
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/printck20040924.shtml
I see that you are as one with John Kerry in your derision of John Howard's Government and Australia.
Australia was a member of the coalition of the willing in Iraq. A coalition that Kerry described as "a trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted". How about that, pretty much your sentiments about John Howard exactly. Hey, perhaps Howard's support in Iraq was purchased with a farthing? He'd have a halfpenny when he adds that to the one he got for selling his mother.
Clearly you are at odds with George W Bush's fulsome praise of John Howard.
Make sure you vote tallhappy, the DemocRATS are going to need all the support they can get.
I would guess there is a sufficiently large new arrival of world libs to down-under, hoping to get away from it all, enjoy a socialist democracy, and make the money stretch farther. But they vote, too.
I believe so. Why would it not be?
Because the situation was not a hypothetical but 40 year old history.
In the 60s a situation directly analogous to the current one arose. Indonesia (read PRC) was making military threats over its supposed territorial claims aganist Malaysia (read Taiwan). Because Australia (Read USA) had a treaty to preserve the territorial integity of Malaysia, Australian troops were committed. For the purpose of facing down the aggressor, it would have been nice to have had prior acknowledgement from the US (read Australia) of an ANZUS committment.
However, because for some strange reason the US prefered to act as a surrogate for any third world thug not an open communist, the US did not make such public committment, even though internal US State Department memos of the time acknowledge that escalation into direct conflict might well lead to the ANZUS Treaty being invoked.
But that's all right. Australia does not expect the US to be Australia's lackey, even though it would make Australian foreign policy a lot simpler.
I believe so. Why would it not be?
Because the situation was not a hypothetical but 40 year old history.
In the 60s a situation directly analogous to the current one arose. Indonesia (read PRC) was making military threats over its supposed territorial claims aganist Malaysia (read Taiwan). Because Australia (Read USA) had a treaty to preserve the territorial integity of Malaysia, Australian troops were committed. For the purpose of facing down the aggressor, it would have been nice to have had prior acknowledgement from the US (read Australia) of an ANZUS committment.
However, because for some strange reason the US prefered to act as a surrogate for any third world thug not an open communist, the US did not make such public committment, even though internal US State Department memos of the time acknowledge that escalation into direct conflict might well lead to the ANZUS Treaty being invoked.
But that's all right. Australia does not expect the US to be Australia's lackey, even though it would make Australian foreign policy a lot simpler.
"Forgive him, naturalman1975 - he is a barbarian and considers that the customs of his tribe
are the laws of nature."
,,, your situation is even worse than knowing nothing, you're up crap creek without a paddle. Howard has everything to do with Australia's buoyancy as he stands for re-election. He's been firm on anti-terrorism, nailed up tough immigration policies and paved the path for continued economic growth. He'll get in again this time around. Labour have nothing to offer that country.
WHAT? Howard has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq war and the WOT. I think you are thinking of the British Howard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.