Newsstand - Australian PM beats Bush in saying there is now a 'War' that is not a 'War'

Not sure when Bush declares the US position but our little lap-dog Prime Minister has been on national TV saying we are joining the USA in this "War" that they are not calling {here) a "War".

Bet there is an immediate downturn in air traffic by the more conservative travellers. I fully expect some deep fare discounts by many carriers on many routes, especially It'l in the next fortnight.

www.smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au)

------------------
~ Glen ~

Come visit HERE (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum13/HTML/000502.html) the most ** FRIENDLY FORUM ** on FlyerTalk. No flame wars, no personal abuse, no substance abuse. Not much of anything really!

It follows that you folks would be ahead of the announcement since it's already tomorrow there - reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

"Don't worry that the world is going to end today - it's already tomorrow in Australia."

- Charles Schultz

I believe Australia is one of America's closest allies (being in every war along side America this century). Not sure if this is a good thing but it is a fact. Australia did not get much news coverage like the UK but they always pull through from the beginning.

I would hardly call Howard a lap-dog. I would consider him to a loyal blue heeler. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by davistev:

I would hardly call Howard a lap-dog. I would consider him to a loyal blue heeler. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
</font>

davistev - you don't wanna hear what the GREAT majority of Australians call Little Johnny this week. Repeating it here would be a breach of the FT TOS. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

He was asked at the "We are going to the non-War" press conference two hours back: "IF this invasion allegedly has GLOBAL support how come only the USA, Britain and Australia seem to have agreed to commit troops on the ground to it now" and he dodged it nervously. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Massively unpopular conflict here. WAY under 50% public approval. No bi-partisan political support - vehement opposition in fact. Unlike the USA there has been no vote or even debate whatever on this at any time in our Parliaments. What a neat democracy we have down here.

We sure as heck will not be getting any oil out of this, or the $US20 billion tossed at Turkey just to use their bases etc. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

Come visit HERE (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum13/HTML/000502.html) the most ** FRIENDLY FORUM ** on FlyerTalk. No flame wars, no personal abuse, no substance abuse. Not much of anything really!


[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 03-17-2003).]

Folks,

I have worked closely with Australian DoD personnel during the last several years of my US military career before I retired. I have nothing but profound utmost respect for the Australian military and government leaders of both parties.

PM Howard was here in DC on 9/11, preparing to address a joint session of Congress that would have occured that day. He was the FIRST world leader who publically came out supporting us in the war on terrorism. Remember, you guys lost proportionally more citizens in the Al Quiada bombing in Bali than we did in NYC and DC. We in the US grieved for you.

I know there are a lot of domestic issues you're dealing with Down Under, but, let me tell you -- Australia is the definition of "ally." I would jump in a foxhole with an Aussie any day!

To bring this back to a topic that is related to frequent fliers:

I would choose to have true friends over "allies" any day. The Australians are certainly friend and ally. And they and their military brass are certainly a good lot in the BA first class lounge at Dulles Airport. Are they all BA Gold and flying in first at govt. expense?

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited 03-17-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ozstamps:
davistev - you don't wanna hear what the GREAT majority of Australians call Little Johnny this week. Repeating it here would be a breach of the FT TOS. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

</font>


He may not want to but I do. My son turns 18 tomorrow .... I wish there was something better to mark this day in his young history. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif


------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

There was a ticker line on CNN HN that said that France said "It takes one country to win a war, but more than one to win peace." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif Well, I'm counting 4 now: US, UK, Aus, and Spain. Oh, and all the other paid off countries, but they aren't truly with the US. Kuwait maybe, as they sure aren't happy with Iraq anyways.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bk42:
There was a ticker line on CNN HN that said that France said "It takes one country to win a war, but more than one to win peace." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif Well, I'm counting 4 now: US, UK, Aus, and Spain. Oh, and all the other paid off countries, but they aren't truly with the US. Kuwait maybe, as they sure aren't happy with Iraq anyways. </font>

Our troops go in first, with the Brits to clean up and hold the south. The 2k Australians will do some mop up work, and then the Poles and Bulgarians and the medical working Spaniards will sit and smile in the background. Real allies? ;-)

Oh, and the Turks will gobble up a few Kurds for breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert, for good measure.

The conventional portion of this upcoming war is a joke in light of our hyperpower capabilities, and the Iraqi's lack in capabilities and even willingness to fight a conventional war they have no chance in. An eagle in hunt of an wounded crow.

Hey Australia was not even invited to the Summit in Azores deciding on this "war"! Little Johnny our PM was not too impressed. Neither will he be on learning he may potentially face War Crime charges:

www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6144622%5E25777,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6144622%5E25777,00.html)

Back to flying related topics connected to the war, seems like the USA airlines all are taking a different spin on this:

www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/03/17/us.airlines.war.plans/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/03/17/us.airlines.war.plans/index.html)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ozstamps:
Not sure when Bush declares the US position but our little lap-dog Prime Minister ...
</font>

I happen to really like John Howard, and would like to publicly thank him for his staunch support of US policy in pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice.

It takes leaders of courage and vision (Blair, Aznar, Howard and Berlusconi come immediately to mind) to stake their political fortunes on doing what they believe to be right.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ozstamps:
Hey Australia was not even invited to the Summit in Azores deciding on this "war"! Little Johnny our PM was not too impressed. Neither will he be on learning he may potentially face War Crime charges:
</font>

John Howard (or George Bush, Tony Blair, etc.) is about as likely to face war crimes charges (except for those levied by Bagdad) as ozstamps is to voluntarily sit in seat 32F on a UA 744 near you!

Personally, I would like to express my appreciation to the British, Spanish, and Australian governments for offering their unwavering support in these trying times. America knows who her true friends are.

[This message has been edited by cAAl (edited 03-18-2003).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GUWonder:
Our troops go in first, with the Brits to clean up and hold the south. The 2k Australians will do some mop up work, and then the Poles and Bulgarians and the medical working Spaniards will sit and smile in the background. Real allies? ;-)

[QUOTE]

Brits to clean up and hold the South ? Not what I've been hearing.

Real Allies ;-), that's offensive to every non US combatant risking their skin.


Are these the same Brits that have been patrolling the no-fly zone with the US for the past 12 years ? Are these the same Brits that have special forces already operating inside Iraq. Are these the same Brits supplying minesweepers in the Gulf as the US doesn't have any. Are these the same Brits that apparently have been charged with taking Basra and the Southern oilfields.

Mind you they could have taken the easy way out and gone for Baghdad instead of the dodgy work of pushing thousands of troops through marshland.

Nigel

The Brits will be with us every step of the way, as their political leadership has been during this whole process.

And their partnership is greatly and gratefully appreciated by their sometimes rebellious offspring. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I have had the opportunity to work with both HM Forces and the Australian Army when I was in the US Army. They are capable and up to the task. I would fight with them along side, although still not that keen on the Challenger main battle tank.

To infer otherwise is insulting.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by eMailman:
I have had the opportunity to work with both HM Forces and the Australian Army when I was in the US Army. They are capable and up to the task. I would fight with them along side, although still not that keen on the Challenger main battle tank.

To infer otherwise is insulting. </font>

emailman I'm not up to speed anymore with the Challenger but I remember seeing a US tank crew ( on TV ) during the first Gulf War who were rather jealous of the fact that the Challenger had some form of kettle in it so the Brits could stop for a tea break !!. I'd rather have a bigger gun and a Thermos myself &lt; G &gt;

Nigel

I am one American that is quite unhappy, no angry, with the way Bush et al went about this. If there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, surely the U.S. would have proven it. But there isn't, and the rest of the world believes we are in this for oil. I think oil is a secondary motive, the first being a personnel vendetta against Saddam. I
don't think Iraq is as big a security threat to the U.S. as North Korea. Bush's blunder was not to make an effort to get buy in from the international community, like he has for 9/11, and his dad did for 1991.

That being said, I want this military action
to be swift and successful. I support all of our troops.

In fairness, the U.S. is not the most culpable party in this messy business. First is Saddam Hussein himself for thinking he is untouchable. Second are the French, for pulling the rug out from under the "coalition of the willing."

One interesting difference between Bush and Howard is that Bush's broadcast to the US made no mention of any US opposition at all to war.

Howard was at least realistic enough in his speech to admit that he doesn't have total support for his position and, what's more important, to make it clear that any abuse from opponents of the war should be directed towards the politicians, such as himself, and not towards those who are just doing their job.

kremmen -- well Little Johnny has clearly said he will retire way before the next election, (unlike Bush) so he for ONCE as a politician can look like a Statesman and invite everyone to "blame me" at the next election. It will not affect his superb pension by one cent. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by GUWonder:

Our troops go in first, with the Brits to clean up and hold the south. The 2k Australians will do some mop up work </font>

Well I am sure the USA media does not bother to report it, but Australian special forces troops will certainly be in the first wave of ground forces in. Australian FA-18s will with the British be in the first bombing raids, and our ships have been in the gulf for months now.

The Americans would wish it no other way so they can claim to the world they did NOT strike on their own.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by glenngpr:

Second are the French, for pulling the rug out from under the "coalition of the willing."</font>

I do not know why Bush singled out the French. It was always clear the Russians would also Veto, and most agreed China would too. That might be the main reason Bush backed off from seeking a final resolution. He'd look even more like an International terrorist if three of the five Security Council members voted against it, which was likely.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Kremmen:
One interesting difference between Bush and Howard is that Bush's broadcast to the US made no mention of any US opposition at all to war.</font>

He doesn't care what anyone else thinks.