PeteEU

Rudd to be Australia's next PM | NEWS.com.au

Howards liberal conservative goverment has been frankly beaten to a pulp in the general election and as it look at the moment, Howard himself will lose his own seat.

Guess the US gonna need more troops in Iraq, as Australia is leaving as soon as possible.

__________________
PeteEU

Infinite Chaos

Do you know how many troops the Aussies have in Iraq? I know the Aussies have a very high opinion of their special forces and elite troops but there aren't that many in Iraq now.

If I recall, 2000 were deployed in the invasion and only about 1000 remain now so maybe the point is a token force may be removed but what was that token actually achieving on the ground in the first place?

RightinNYC

Rudd's Iraq plans unchanged after Bush meeting - Apec - Specials - smh.com.au


Of the 1050 Australian troops in Iraq, Labour has only said they would plan on a phased withdrawal of the 550 combat troops, which very well might just be shifted to Afghanistan.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

26 X World Champs

A true portend of things to come back home here in the USA. Interesting, don't you think that every western head of government leader that strongly supported Bush has lost his job and most often in a resounding defeat for his party....

The Liberal Party in Australia = The Republican Party in the USA.

Bush Ally Defeated in Australia

Kevin Rudd, the Australian Labor Party leader, greeted his supporters in Brisbane after his election victory.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/wo...hp&oref=slogin

battleax86

Yet Labour, with Brown having the same foreign policy, is still strong in Britain, while both France and Germany have elected more decidedly pro-American leaders within the last two years.

The reality of it is that elections in Western nations generally have little to do with foreign policy in terms of that nation's relations with another and have more to do with domestic issues. Sarkozy's election in France, Merkel's election in Germany, and Labour's continued dominance in Britain do not signal new public support for Bush in those nations, just as this election in Australia does not signal less support for Bush (especially considering that Howard won re-election while most Australians were firmly opposed to Australian involvement in Iraq).

The case of Spain even further proves this point, as Aznar's party was almost a shoo-in to win re-election until they botched their handling of the Madrid attacks. If they hadn't been so quick to blame it all on the Basques, they would have looked more honest, and Aznar might still be Prime Minister today.

DeeJayH

not too worried about this
the will still be a staunch ally for years to come

__________________
These days it seems that the deadliest place on earth for an American to be is inside the womb. - Joshua P. Allem

PeteEU

Token force?

Man the tone changes once people dont play ball anymore. First it was the Brits that were slamed by the US goverment, and Bush cronies because the Brits were pulling out of Basra, a move that has proven correct btw.

Now its the time of the Australian to get bashed by the Bush administration?

So do you think the aussie special forces is worse than the US special forces, since you have such a negative and patronising view in your comment? What about the British SAS?

battleax86

Out of a total force of nearly 170000, 550 combat troops isn't all that much. It sucks to be losing their support, but it's not a back-breaker.

A move that was proven allowable by the situation on the ground. And who exactly were these "Bush cronies" who slammed the Brits for it?

In what part of this article do you get the impression that Bush is slamming Rudd or Australia?

What makes you think the British SAS is leaving? They're not exactly given to announcing their whereabouts. As for the Aussie special forces...not only do they not announce where they are, but if 500 of them leave, 500 American special forces will replace them. There's not much difference between them.

26 X World Champs

I disgree. Had it not been for their support of Bush's war Blair and Aznar would still be in power. Spain was attacked for supporting Bush....Brown has already vowed to remove British troops in 2008...

battleax86

This is simply not true. Brown has not vowed to completely remove British troops in 2008. He has said that he would cut the number there in half as a result of the security situation improving in Britain's area of control. Those areas are being handed over to Iraqi security forces and foreign troops are no longer needed there. Claiming that this is some sort of lack of support for the mission in Iraq is intellectually dishonest. As for Blair, he would no longer be in power regardless of whether or not he supported Iraq. Labour was strongly re-elected in 2005, Blair was never defeated in an election, and Brown defends the decision to invade Iraq to this day. Blair was in power for 10 years and finally decided that he wanted to move on.

Aznar would also still be in power if he had been honest about the attack and not immediately tried to blame it on the Basques. It was his government's perceived dishonesty, not the attack itself, that caused Aznar to lose favor and, subsequently, the election. The Spanish people are not cowards who change their votes in attempts to appease an enemy.