"Australia PM slams US candidate"

[apathy maybe]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6352785.stm
(Another article can be found at http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,228...688-921,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21216688-921,00.html) )
"Australian PM John Howard has criticised US presidential hopeful Barack Obama for saying US troops should withdraw from Iraq next year."

He says that it is a defeatist attitude from Obama and that "Mr Obama's stance on Iraq 'will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory'."

What do people think of this obviously fucked up claim by Howard? Personally I think that Johnny needs a bit of lead treatment.

[Janus]

And he's paying a pretty big price for his comment not only in terms of the political opposition but also the poll figures at home.

[The Unholy]

I'm no fan of Obama by any means, but Baraka (as I like to call him) did kind of pimp slap Howard....

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...006301,00.html
JOHN Howard's attack on U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's Iraq withdrawal policy has drawn a challenge to send 20,000 Australian troops there.

As international fallout escalated over Mr Howard's unprecedented action, the Democratic candidate yesterday said if the Iraq war was so fundamental to Australia's national interests, Mr Howard should shoulder more responsibility for the military presence there.


As U.S. politicians from both major parties told Mr Howard to keep out of U.S. affairs, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said Mr Howard had placed short-term politics before Australia's national interests.
Senator Obama, an African-American from Illinois, formally announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential race on Saturday.

On Sunday, Mr Howard suggested terrorists would be praying for a victory for Senator Obama and his party because of his pledge to pull out of the Iraq war.

Yesterday, Senator Obama said: "I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced (my decision to run)"

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400.

"I would suggest he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them up to Iraq, otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

Mr Rudd attacked the Mr Howard for his foray into the domestic politics of another country, saying the fact that both Houses of the U.S. Congress were now controlled by the Democrats opened up the possibility of anti-Australian farm policies.

During Question Time, every Opposition question was to Mr Howard and a motion, defeated along party lines, was aimed at censuring him over the comments.

The controversy came at a bad time for the Government, as the latest AC Nielsen poll showed Mr Howard trailing badly behind Mr Rudd as preferred prime minister, the first time an Opposition Leader has been in that position in six years.

The poll put the ALP ahead of the Coalition on a two-party-preferred basis by a massive 58 per cent to 42 per cent, with Mr Rudd's personal approval rating soaring to 65 per cent, the highest in the 35-year history of the poll.

Mr Rudd yesterday repeatedly called on Mr Howard to withdraw his comments. about Senator Obama.

He said Mr Howard had committed "a grave error of judgment", and had confused his personal friendship with Mr Bush with the overall interests of the U.S.-Australian alliance and trading relationship.

But Mr Howard refused to back down, defending his comments and saying many of the Opposition had criticised Mr Bush when it suited them.

"I refer to numerous occasions when the current President of the U.S. has been attacked personally by members who sit opposite and in the next breath they've said some of their best friends are Republicans," he said.

[The Anarchist Prince]

Ahahahaha, I don't mind Barack. I guess if there's going to be a "mainstream" prez, it should be him. His views on Iran are still distorted though.

[YSR]

Barack Obama is just the other side of the capitalist coin. Don't think for a second that he's better than any of these other parties.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 12, 2007 07:39 pm
Barack Obama is just the other side of the capitalist coin. Don't think for a second that he's better than any of these other parties.
He's not even the other side... he's not even a progressive democrat.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

He will help the people in the short term with his public healthcare plan, but in the long run it should be same old same old.

[bcbm]

There was a good article in Z Mag debunking him.

[The Anarchist Prince]

All I know is that about anyone at the moment is a decent alternative to Bush. As long as we stray just a ways off the path we're currently on, there's hope for bigger changes in the future. Sadly, these changes won't happen over night, so we have to hope for little things. I realize that he's a cut and paste democrat, and is most likely all talk, like most presidents have been/are. Anyway, we need to get what we can take. I honestly don't see a better candidate with a chance to win the election, so I guess we have to "settle" with the lesser of the evils once again. (I realize we shouldn't have to "settle" for anything, but I hope people understand what I'm trying to say")

[Janus]

He's not even the other side... he's not even a progressive democrat.
Concerning most socio-economic issues, he has the same views as the more libertarian Democrats as well as his opinion on the war. His comments on Iran may be disturbing to some but they're probably the same opinions of every major US politician.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+February 13, 2007 02:21 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ February 13, 2007 02:21 pm)
Young Stupid [email protected] 12, 2007 07:39 pm
Barack Obama is just the other side of the capitalist coin. Don't think for a second that he's better than any of these other parties.
He's not even the other side... he's not even a progressive democrat. [/b]
But.... he&#39;s black... and a democract&#33; <_<

He&#39;s like a US liberals wet dream, &#39;but... my favourite politican is black&#33;&#33;&#33;&#39; Or &#39;i&#39;m not racist, i voted for Obama&#33;&#33;&#33;&#39;

[StartToday]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 04:58 am
All I know is that about anyone at the moment is a decent alternative to Bush.
Not just anyone. I would hate to see Hillary Clinton in office. Hillary is just another Bush. She&#39;s not even six degrees away. Hillary is married to Bill, who is good friends with Bush 41, who IS a Bush, and father of current Bush, #43. She&#39;s also tied to Murdoch. How can shit get any worse than that?

Somehow I think that if Hillary&#39;s the Democratic nominee, Fox News will have nicer things to say about Democrats.

[Luís Henrique]

If the Iraqi withdrawal the Dems are proposing wasn&#39;t logically tied to the need to reinstate Latin America as the US main foreign concern, I could be less skeptical of them.

Luís Henrique

[Cheung Mo]

What&#39;s most pathetic is the Aussie "leftists" dumb/brainwashed enough to favour the reactionary Labor over the reasonably progressive Greens or our comrades in the Socialist Alternative.

[Black Dagger]

Socialist Alternative dont run in elections as far as i know; but why should i voted for a Marxist-Leninist party anyway? What exactly is that goin to acheive?

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by black [email protected] 13, 2007 05:02 pm
Socialist Alternative dont run in elections as far as i know; but why should i voted for a Marxist-Leninist party anyway? What exactly is that goin to acheive?
More than voting for the kinder, gentler stooges of America imperialism, reactionary social values, and crony capitalism would accomplish.

[apathy maybe]

You might be thinking of Socialist Alliance who do run in elections. They are reformists like the Greens (though not capitalists).

Personally I don&#39;t vote. It is easier then voting.

[Black Dagger]

How so? The SA will not win an election on ANY level of government, voting for them has no effect on anything.

[apathy maybe]

Did I say vote for them? I was suggesting that Cheung Mo may have confused SA with SAlt. It is possible.

But what you say is correct, they won&#39;t win. The people I know in SA say that they use elections to raise the profile of the party, but I don&#39;t know ...

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13, 2007 05:48 pm
Did I say vote for them? I was suggesting that Cheung Mo may have confused SA with SAlt. It is possible.

But what you say is correct, they won&#39;t win. The people I know in SA say that they use elections to raise the profile of the party, but I don&#39;t know ...
I did confuse the two organisations.

I hold the Greens in fairly high esteem for their commitment to social and economic justice (Reformist or not, they&#39;re considerably better than anything we have in Canada.), their consistent criticism of both American and Chinese imperialism and authoriarianism, their struggle to defend and expand the civil liberties and human rights of the Australia people, and their willingness to put our environment at the forefront of policy discussion and implementation.

Furthermore, there has been some degree of anarchist and Trotskyist infiltration in Oceania&#39;s Green parties (moreso in New Zealand) that stands in sharp contrast with the "eco"cappies who control Green parties in Canada, Germany, and Eastern Europe and with the GOP&#39;s use of the U.S. Green Party as a front to divide their liberal opponents within the bourgeoisie. (Recent example: Rick Santourm and his backers funding the Green Party candidate in 2006&#39;s PA senate race.)

[apathy maybe]

In the Australian Greens at least there is hardly any socialist let alone anarchist infiltration. There was a huge fight over the issue of DSP members joining the Greens around the start of the 1990s. They all got kicked out, and the Australian Greens introduced a policy of members only being allowed to belong to one party (just like the other parties). The DSP went on to form SA with a bunch of others and still remain the biggest grouping in SA (individual membership has been more then party membership for a while I think).

While the Greens do do what you say, it doesn&#39;t stop the fact that they are capitalists. None of their policies are more then simple reformist policies. There is only one &#39;major&#39; socialist party (that stands for elections) in Australia, and that is SA. No anarchist I know is a member of it. (Though I have heard that they do have some anarchist members).

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14, 2007 03:48 am
Did I say vote for them? I was suggesting that Cheung Mo may have confused SA with SAlt. It is possible.

But what you say is correct, they won&#39;t win. The people I know in SA say that they use elections to raise the profile of the party, but I don&#39;t know ...
My reply was to Cheung Mo, sorry; i should have quoted his post in my reply.