Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
According to ABSNews.go.com: "Prime Minister John Howard scored a stunning victory in Australia's federal election Saturday in a vote ensuring the country keeps its troops in Iraq"
A fine example of what happens when a principled leader, who is not governed by the whims of the latest poll, runs for re-election. But, what other result would you expect from a country as stalwart as Australia?
Was the war in Iraq the big issue in that election?
It was a significant issue. His opponent promised to withdraw the troops ASAP. That position did not seem to help him.
Can someone tell me why Kerry's sister was in Australia trying to defeat Howard? I don't get it.
"Australian troops have not suffered any casualties and none have combat roles."
Good on the Aussies, but this may have made it an easier decision for them to stomach.
Does that make their contributions or risks any less than anyones elses?
Howard asked that the electorate judge him on his domestic acheivements
-- Does that make their contributions or risks any less than anyones elses?
No I wasn't implying that at all. But wouldn't you agree it is easier to stay in a war if you have not had any casualties?
Last edited by:
TTTorso: Oct 9, 04 10:15
Misunderstood your reply. I apologize. 18.5mile run this a.m. Still a bit bonked.
The troops in Iraq was a non issue. The majority of Aussies want them home but given a lack of casualties it was neve going to effect the outcome of the election.
Currently our economy is strong and historically the Aussie electorate won't change Gvt. in times of economic stability.
I also thought Latham was a risky and unpopular choice as ALP leader. He is seen as a bit of a thug and loudmouth. He at least made some hard choices with his policies unlike Howard.