Jump to content

Pro-Iraq-War Prime Minister Triumphs in Election


Doug69
This topic is 6611 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Anti-war imbeciles Jacques Chirac and Gehard Schroeder have been getting their asses kicked in party elections ever since they devoted themselves to keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

 

By start contrast, Australian Prime Minister John Howard - a steadfast supporter of the war and a devoted member of the Iraq war coalition -- just destroyed his liberal anti-war opponent to win a fourth term in office.

 

It looks like standing with the U.S. in the war in Iraq is quite popular around the world, whereas those who worked so hard to keep Saddam Hussein in power are suffering at the polls.

 

For all of you who have been saying the opposite - I guess you don't allow facts to stand in the way of your beliefs:

____________________________________________________

 

Howard triumphs in Australia

 

By CNN's Grant Holloway

Saturday, October 9, 2004 Posted: 7:58 AM EDT (1158 GMT)

 

SYDNEY, Australia (CNN) -- Australia has returned incumbent Prime Minister John Howard for a fourth consecutive term of government, probably with an increased majority in the Parliament.

 

Main Opposition leader Mark Latham conceded defeat at 9.45 p.m. (Australian eastern time) Saturday.

 

"A short time ago I spoke to Mr Howard and I congratulated him and his family," Latham said.

 

"Tonight is not our night."

 

The Coalition looks set to win at least 80 seats in the 150 seat governing House of Representatives.

 

The victory is a sweeping endorsement for Howard's conservative coalition government.

 

A Howard triumph may give some comfort to fellow "coalition of the willing" allies, George W. Bush and Britain's Tony Blair, both facing imminent election -- Bush on November 6 and Blair possibly in May next year.

. . .

Howard has been a steadfast supporter of the U.S. action Iraq and committed 2,000 troops to the invasion.

 

Latham had been opposed to Australia's involvement in Iraq and had vowed to bring the remaining 900 troops base in Iraq home by the end of the year if he won government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the australians i know are like americans with great accents. they know what terror is like as many were killed in that bali nightculb bombing. they are great people so lay-off the "penal colony" stuff. if you want to critize them for their political actions, then do so logically; however, the name calling is out of place. i know many australians and everyone of them is terrific. as far as sexy men go, the place is great and highly recommended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the economy stupid - combined with your ignorance of the politics in the various countries you quote.

 

In both the UK and to a lesser extent Australia, the reason for the re-election of the current governments is also closely tied into the incompetence of the main opposition parties. In the UK at a Parliamentary by-election recently in one of the safest Labour seats, the official opposition pro-war Conservative Party plunged from second place to fourth. The main anti-war Liberal Democrats came from a poor third to second and almost took the seat as they had already in another by-election. Blair has annouced he will retire towards the end of the next Parliament but may well be thrown out by his own party before then - if they can find a way round the problem that the Labour Constitution (which Blair re-wrote) has no means of challenging the leader. Blair's deceit of Parliament will be tested in an Impeachment process likely due in the next month or so. He may well survive it as he has a huge majority and his MPs will be forced to vote for him but the Articles of Impeachment are being drawn up by his own wife's law firm.

 

You forget Chirac came to power with an overwhelming majority as a result of the French electoral system which elimates all bar the top two candidates if none get more than 50%. Those two then go into a run-off. Chirac got in because the second candidate was a neo-Nazi who just beat the Socialist. Chirac had long been accused of corruption but Le Pen was defeated by the slogan "Better the thief than the facist". None of the major French parties support the war so you are deluded if you think a vote against him or his party is pro-war.

 

The opposition to the current government in Germany is also largely based on economic factors, not war fever. As in France, the economic cycle has caused problems with meeting the strict fiscal constrainsts of the Euro and welfare cuts have been made which are very unpopulat. Germany has also never fully recovered from re-unification with the possible benefits of lower wages in the eastern lande attractiong investment being cut short by even more attractive posibilities in the new EU Accession countries further east and south. Again, none of the major opposition parties in Germany support the war.

 

 

Berlussconi survives in Italy by his owning or controlling virtually all the broadcast media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Anti-war imbeciles Jacques Chirac and Gehard Schroeder have

>been getting their asses kicked in party elections ever since

>they devoted themselves to keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

>

>By start contrast, Australian Prime Minister John Howard - a

>steadfast supporter of the war and a devoted member of the

>Iraq war coalition -- just destroyed his liberal anti-war

>opponent to win a fourth term in office.

>

>It looks like standing with the U.S. in the war in Iraq is

>quite popular around the world, whereas those who worked so

>hard to keep Saddam Hussein in power are suffering at the

>polls.

>

>For all of you who have been saying the opposite - I guess you

>don't allow facts to stand in the way of your beliefs:

>____________________________________________________

>

>Howard triumphs in Australia

>

>By CNN's Grant Holloway

>Saturday, October 9, 2004 Posted: 7:58 AM EDT (1158 GMT)

>

>SYDNEY, Australia (CNN) -- Australia has returned incumbent

>Prime Minister John Howard for a fourth consecutive term of

>government, probably with an increased majority in the

>Parliament.

>

>Main Opposition leader Mark Latham conceded defeat at 9.45

>p.m. (Australian eastern time) Saturday.

>

>"A short time ago I spoke to Mr Howard and I congratulated him

>and his family," Latham said.

>

>"Tonight is not our night."

>

>The Coalition looks set to win at least 80 seats in the 150

>seat governing House of Representatives.

>

>The victory is a sweeping endorsement for Howard's

>conservative coalition government.

>

>A Howard triumph may give some comfort to fellow "coalition of

>the willing" allies, George W. Bush and Britain's Tony Blair,

>both facing imminent election -- Bush on November 6 and Blair

>possibly in May next year.

>. . .

>Howard has been a steadfast supporter of the U.S. action Iraq

>and committed 2,000 troops to the invasion.

>

>Latham had been opposed to Australia's involvement in Iraq and

>had vowed to bring the remaining 900 troops base in Iraq home

>by the end of the year if he won government.

>

 

The article you cite went on to say:

"But this election has not been fought on the Iraq issue, mainly because Australia's commitment has been largely symbolic and no casualties have been recorded.

 

While a majority of Australians may be opposed to involvement in the war, it has not proven to be a strong enough issue to change voting patterns.

 

The Howard campaign has focussed strongly on its economic record, having presided over years of prosperity in Australia.

 

Equally, the government has hammered a simple message: That interest rates would go up under a Labor administration.

 

Those tactics have clearly paid off.

 

The campaign also hinged on personalities, with Howard seen as a colorless but a reliable steward of the economy, and Latham perceived as young and energetic, but also inexperienced and sometimes undisciplined."

 

>...George W. Bush and Britain's Tony Blair, both facing imminent >election -- Bush on November 6....

 

Doug, you be sure to vote on November 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> the remaining 900 troops base in Iraq home

>by the end of the year if he won government.

 

 

 

That includes about 200 personnel "on the ground" inside Iraq. The rest are serving on ships in the Gulf and air and logistics operations in neighboring areas.

 

 

The Australian election was decided on local issues -- and the recognition that the current government has done only the minimum Bush required ass kissing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

>The article you cite went on to say:

>"But this election has not been fought on the Iraq issue,

>mainly because Australia's commitment has been largely

>symbolic and no casualties have been recorded.

>

>While a majority of Australians may be opposed to involvement

>in the war, it has not proven to be a strong enough issue to

>change voting patterns.

>

>The Howard campaign has focussed strongly on its economic

>record, having presided over years of prosperity in

>Australia.

 

Now I wonder why the Dougger would only quote the portion of the article that suits his dyslexic take on all things Bush?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It was the economy stupid - combined with your ignorance of

>the politics in the various countries you quote.

 

Right. When Spain throws out its pro-war Prime Minister, why . . . that's PROOF that people around the world hate the war, and there's a total causal nexus between THAT election result and Iraq, and pro-war leaders are all going to fall.

 

But THEN, when the opposite happens over and over - when anti-war politicians get slaughtered and/or pro-war politicians are triumphant, why . . . .

 

in THOSE elections, Iraq had nothing to do with it; it was all about the "economy" and "local issues."

 

LOL! How does it make you feel to discard every fact that undermines your desired view of the world? Must be soothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>When Spain throws out its pro-war Prime Minister, why

>. . . that's PROOF that people around the world hate the war,

>and there's a total causal nexus between THAT election result

>and Iraq, and pro-war leaders are all going to fall.

 

Only in the minds of radio entertainers addicted to pain medication. When Spain blames an Al Qaeda attack on Basque terrorists, and refuses (like George Bush, when confronted with lack of WMD evidence) to admit its prejudice and error -- that's PROOF that local issues determine elections in that country as much as in Australia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Only in the minds of radio entertainers addicted to pain

>medication. When Spain blames an Al Qaeda attack on Basque

>terrorists, and refuses (like George Bush, when confronted

>with lack of WMD evidence) to admit its prejudice and error --

>that's PROOF that local issues determine elections in that

>country as much as in Australia.

 

You failed to comprehend the not-particularly-complex point, which should surprise absolutely nobody.

 

Liberals claimed that when Aznar's government was voted out of office in Spain, that was proof that the Spanish people hated the war in Iraq and that pro-war leaders were going to fall like dominoes, one after the next. LIBERALS, and not Rush Limbaugh, shrilly insisted that there was a causal connection between the election results and the losing candidate's stand on Iraq, because it served their agenda to claim this causal connection.

 

But then, whenever pro-war leaders win (as just occurred in Australia), or anti-war leaders suffer electoral defeats (as they have repeatedly in France and Germany), these same people who insisted that there was a causal connection between Iraq and the election results in Spain suddenly start protesting that in THOSE elections, Iraq was totally irrelevant to the outcome.

 

Get it now? I tried speaking slowly for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Now I wonder why the Dougger would only quote the portion of

>the article that suits his dyslexic take on all things Bush?

 

 

Could it be because Dougie is a xenophobic dumbass who thinks the whole world revolves around what the American government wants? I'd say yes.

Anybody who thinks Dougie won't vote for Bush is naive. Dougie lives to kiss Bush's smelly ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That includes about 200 personnel "on the ground" inside Iraq. The rest are serving on ships in the Gulf and air and logistics operations in neighboring areas."

 

And I am pretty sure our troops in Iraq are glad that they are. Thank you, PM Howard and Australia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It looks like standing with the U.S. in the war in Iraq is

>quite popular around the world, whereas those who worked so

>hard to keep Saddam Hussein in power are suffering at the

>polls.

>

>For all of you who have been saying the opposite - I guess you

>don't allow facts to stand in the way of your beliefs:

 

MPs are planning to impeach Tony BLAIR for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in taking Britain to war against Iraq, reviving an ancient practice last used against Lord Palmerston more than 150 years ago.

 

Eleven MPs led by Adam Price, Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, are to table a motion when parliament returns that will force the prime minister to appear before the Commons to defend his record in the run-up to the war. Nine of the MPs are Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, including the party leaders, Elfyn Llwyd, and Alex Salmond, and two are Conservative frontbenchers, Boris Johnson, MP for Henley and editor of the Spectator, and Nigel Evans, MP for Ribble Valley.

 

A number of Labour backbenchers are considering whether to back the motion, though it could mean expulsion from the party.

 

The MPs' decision follows the commissioning of a 100-page report which lays out the case for impeaching Mr BLAIR and the precedents for action, including arguments laid down in Erskine May, the parliamentary bible, on impeachments dating back to medieval times.

 

The authors are Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Newnham College, Cambridge, and Dan Plesch, honorary fellow of Birkbeck College, London.

 

Under the ancient right, which has never been repealed, it takes only one MP to move a motion and the Speaker has to grant a debate on the impeachment. This means, at the least, Mr BLAIR will have to face a fresh debate on his personal handling of the war and there will have to be a vote in parliament on whether to institute impeachment proceedings.

 

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1290832,00.html

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1292084,00.html

 

 

Cherie Booth's chambers, Matrix, are to draw up the document to impeach her husband, Tony BLAIR, for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in the run up to the war against Iraq, it was disclosed yesterday.

 

The 12 MPs planning to revive the ancient parliamentary procedure - last used 156 years ago against Lord Palmerston - have engaged his wife's chambers to frame the motion because of their record in taking up human rights issues.

 

....

 

It was disclosed that the House of Commons authorities have ruled that MPs can use public money - their researchers' allowances - to fund the impeachment process as it is a legitimate parliamentary procedure.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Good thing Doug never lets reality get in his way either....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Liberals claimed that when Aznar's government was voted out of

>office in Spain, that was proof that the Spanish people hated

>the war in Iraq and that pro-war leaders were going to fall

>like dominoes, one after the next. LIBERALS, and not Rush

>Limbaugh, shrilly insisted that there was a causal connection

>between the election results and the losing candidate's stand

>on Iraq, because it served their agenda to claim this causal

>connection.

 

 

Making stuff up without quoting sources, except for a general attribution to "liberals" .... find that man a job in the Bush administration, he'll fit right in!

 

Most of the liberals I know have enough education to recognize, then and now, that the Spanish election was influenced by local politics and not by Iraq. Even with the unpopular Spanish presence there, the Aznar government was leading in the polls as much as the Blair government does now. What turned the election was the attempted cover-up to blame it on the Basques. The same thing would happen in England if a few Saudis with box-cutters caused major damage, and Blair blamed it on the Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Another neo-facist in the Coalition of the Willing to be bought has crashed and burned in a round of elections. This time in Italy.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3954157.stm

 

 

The centre-right ruling coalition of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has suffered a crushing defeat in a round of by-elections.

 

The centre-left opposition maintained its hold on four of the constituencies up for re-election and took three new ones - in the Naples and Genoa region and in Mr Berlusconi's own power base, Milan.

 

The winning candidates will fill the seven seats in Italy's lower house vacated when the previous members died or took up posts in the new European Parliament.

 

Although the outcome of the by-elections will have no direct effect on Mr Berlusconi's majority, they represent a key test of the ruling coalition's popularity.

 

They come as outgoing EU Commission President and former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi returns to Italian politics to lead the opposition challenge to Mr Berlusconi at the next general elections in 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...