US media is in black out mode on coverage of the huge

GAMEFACE · Oct 11, 2004

victory for President Howard of Australia who happens to be a conservative and a Bush supporter of the war.

The rats once again prove who they are. This is a big story because Kerrys cronies were over in Australia working against Howards re-election.

The pre-election polls in Australia showed Howards opponent was up by 7 points and Howard won by 5 points. You cannot trust these rats in the media or some of these rats putting out these polls.

GAMEFACE · Oct 11, 2004

When the pro-Bush guy in Spain lost the rats ran coverage night and day.

Some of you can't put two and two together. I can and I see what they are up to a mile away.

That's fine, you will be shocked election night when Bush wins easy. Good night.

eek. · Oct 12, 2004

So has fauxnews Newsmax etc been running non-stop coverage?
If I log on to their websites will I find it blasted across their homepage?

nyet comrade.

Shotgun · Oct 12, 2004

Game, you don't hear much about the Afghan elections either, unless it is Kerry/Edwards complaining about how the price of opium has gone down. The first election in 5000 years, pulled off without a single major attack by Al Queda, and those two lightweights are worried about poppy fields.

Good news sure is depressing to those folks.

eek. · Oct 12, 2004

The lack of attacks in Afghanistan is pretty cool.
Not a single major incident reported.

The election was a bit iffy, but all the same, it was peaceful.
Its not like there was a line at the bookies on who the winner might be, it was 'that kind of election' but its a starterpack.

It does make you wonder what the heck is going on in Iraq though.

Iraq is complete bedlam compared to Afghanistan.

eek. · Oct 12, 2004

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>Afghan success in the new 'great game'

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=416 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom>By Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The fact that an election has taken place in Afghanistan has to be counted as a major success in the new "Great Game" which is being played out in parts of Asia.

In places where the British, Russian and other empires once vied for influence, the new "game" seeks to establish stable and reasonably democratic governments in order to provide a long term solution to the threat from Islamic extremism.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

Afghanistan could serve as an example for Iraq

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The elections are also a huge relief for the Bush administration. After all, Afghanistan was the initial target in the "war on terror" declared by President Bush after 11 September 2001. It was the home not only of the Taleban but of Osama Bin Laden.

For the policy of intervention to work properly, the toppling of the Taleban had to be followed by the installation of a moderate government.

US foreign policy has moved on since the days when Washington did not care that much who ran a country as long as they were not communists. "He's a son of a ***** but he's our son of a *****" is no longer the basis for supporting a foreign government.

Boost for Bush

These days, the equation is more complex. The neo-conservatives who run American policy have a belief in the power of elections and the re-ordering of society.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=208 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>

</TD><TD class=sibtbg>

While Afghanistan has gone better than had been feared, Iraq has gone worse than had been hoped

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Mr Bush himself, despite his former refusal to contemplate "nation-building", now makes numerous references to "freedom" and "liberty" in his campaign speeches. Senator Kerry's language is rarely that vivid.

So the holding of the election will provide Mr Bush with justification in the critical last weeks of a close presidential campaign in which foreign policy has played an unusually prominent role.

He has hailed it as "a really great thing", and can be expected to make much more of it in the days to come.

Taleban 'absence'

He will use Afghanistan as an example for Iraq. However bad Iraq looks now, he will argue, it can improve, as Afghanistan has.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=208 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>

</TD><TD class=sibtbg>

Elections do not solve such problems, but without elections they probably cannot be solved

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>But while Afghanistan has gone better than had been feared, Iraq has gone worse than had been hoped.

In Afghanistan, the Taleban, though still active, have not proved to be a national threat. A US general remarked with satisfaction and some scorn that they did not "show" during the election.

The warlords are still around but if they can be changed into peacelords, their threat is diminished. Afghan's other problems, of opium and reconstruction, will have to be tackled.

Elections do not solve such problems, but without elections they probably cannot be solved.

Iraq is different

Iraq is much harder. The insurgent threat is greater and the electoral process is more protracted. Even the elections due in January are for a transitional government only. There is not due to be a fully constitutional government in Iraq until the end of December next year.

President Bush and his supporters will contend that Iraq is not impossible.

In his latest monthly column for the Washington Post, Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace took that view.

"For the past few months it has become common wisdom that the war in Iraq is lost, based on what any historian will tell you is far too little evidence to make such a final judgment," he wrote.

"Now, the United States could conceivably lose in Iraq. But the odds are against it, and it is certainly far too early to make that judgment." What has happened in Afghanistan will help that argument but it will not by itself ensure that it comes true. Afghanistan was the starter. Iraq is the main course. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3733454.stm
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

WildBill · Oct 12, 2004

Dammit I can't stop laughing here!

You really think Bush will gain ONE single vote out there from an American voter because John Howard won or because Afghanistan had a peaceful election??? You guys are crazy, victims of your own hyperactive imagination. I say the news out of Afghanistan is great for this weekend, but lets not forget people were KILLED for daring to register or work on the election so it wasn't exactly a peaceful process. Did you forget that news that was "buried" weeks ago. Yes lets congratulate Afghanistan for going forward with the elections and lets hope they can maintain whatever semblance of democracy they can in the 20% or so of the country the government actually controls. In the meantime I am going back to laughing thinking what sap might change his vote based on an election in Afghanistan.

5teamparlay · Oct 12, 2004

RE: Game, you don't hear much about the Afghan elections either, unless it is Kerry/Edwards complaining about how the price of opium has gone down.

Yeah, but what about the John Forbes Kerry opium inheritance that saved his Democratic Party nomination fight when dollars were short. He inherited 4 trust funds from Forbes family wealth in 2002 when mother died. Those trusts were built originally with money from China trade dealing opium, so much that Kerry's grandfather James Grant Forbes was born in China (later live with Rosemary Forbes Kerry in Paris and France on wealth) and his father was an opium dealer and poppy botanist, etc. with cousing John Murray Forbes. Interesting stuff!
See: John Forbes biography
http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnforbes.html

xpanda · Oct 12, 2004

Retardation prevails again.

Quotes taken from another board inhabited by many Aussies:

Howard is not Bush. The Howard government is running a budget surplus (Bush is running a record deficit I believe), the Australian troop commitment is token and protects Australian staff. Howard ran more on a platform of economic management, scaring the electorate by suggesting a Labor victory would mean a hike in interest rates and offering bundles of cash to families. The Iraq war had little to do with it. Probably most Australians were opposed to Australian involvement, it doesn't really concern Australia except as a US protectorate, but their financial well being has greater precedence.

The majority of Australians voted for parties that opposed the war and a lot of Australians voted for the Liberal Party on other issues.

Game: did you even know that Australia has a multiparty system??

the war in iraq isnt really that big an issue over here because, honestly, we've got bugger all people over there and im fairly sure they're not even in combat zones.

You're a typical arrogant fücktard, Game. The Spanish kick out their leader, it's because of the US. The Aussies re-elect their leader, it's because of the US. News flash: not everyone thinks the whole bloody planet revolves around you. Every once in a while, people make decisions about *egad!* domestic issues.

American · Oct 12, 2004

I'm happy for the Afgans. That was an amazing turnout for their election and everything seems to have gone as well as anyone could have hoped for.

eek. · Oct 12, 2004

I almost hate to rain on your parade but the US has really only messed about with the general area around the capital in Afghanistan.

The main cash crop, heroin base etc has being left alone to be freely exported by the Afghan warlords for hard $$$'s
The warlords/fiefdoms are not being molested in any way by the US, and they all have their little cash cow local empires.

Pakistani proverb.

You can never conquer Afghanistan.
But with enough cash, you can buy the place.

GAMEFACE · Oct 12, 2004

Bill,

If nothing else it shows the media rats for what they are. When Spain elected a leftist president and pulled their troops out of Iraq it was covered night and day. How about a little balance and cover pro-war Howard the conservative winning easily and keeping Australian troops in Iraq. I don't expect the slim ball Rather to be excited about this, but he could atleast suck it up and report the news.

Sonny2003 · Oct 12, 2004

GAMEFACE said:
Bill,

If nothing else it shows the media rats for what they are. When Spain elected a leftist president and pulled their troops out of Iraq it was covered night and day. How about a little balance and cover pro-war Howard the conservative winning easily and keeping Australian troops in Iraq. I don't expect the slim ball Rather to be excited about this, but he could atleast suck it up and report the news.

Can you please give us the name and or names of these so called RATS. Hmmmmmmm, Willard comes to mind. He was from that rat movie. Or, maybe they are mice, than Mickey and Minnie come up. Gameface>>>>>>:think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think:

GAMEFACE · Oct 12, 2004

sonny,

you're a gutter rat.

abc, nbc, cbs, msnbc and msnbc are not reporting the howard victory at all. go back and check they ran the leftist that won in spain night and day for a week and cover the spanish troops leaving as if we lost the war.

xpanda · Oct 12, 2004

GAMEFACE said:
Bill,

If nothing else it shows the media rats for what they are. When Spain elected a leftist president and pulled their troops out of Iraq it was covered night and day. How about a little balance and cover pro-war Howard the conservative winning easily and keeping Australian troops in Iraq. I don't expect the slim ball Rather to be excited about this, but he could atleast suck it up and report the news.

Seriously????? A freakin' BOMB went off two days before the election killing 200 people, and you're UPSET at the degree of media coverage??

Howard winning the Aussie election was a) covered by CNN over the weekend, and b) not overwhelmingly related to American politics in the first place.

Do you find that you often leave the house with your shoes on the wrong feet?

xpanda · Oct 12, 2004

Afterthought: in Canada, we held our federal election back in June and voted back in the same party that told Bush to piss off and that, no thank you, we aren't interested in a one-way trip to Iraq. Tell me, how much liberal media coverage did your American stations devote to this victory for the anti-war camp???

Let me answer that for you: sweet fückall. On CNN, a ticker went by saying the Liberals had won. There was more coverage than that of the Aussie election.

Face it, your media cares diddly about anything happening outside the US unless it directly involves you or has tremendous shock value. Re-electing Howard met neither condition.

JinnRikki · Oct 12, 2004

Canada has elections? U.S. "liberal" media, what are yuh gonna do?:neenee:

Shotgun · Oct 12, 2004

xpanda said:
Afterthought: in Canada, we held our federal election back in June and voted back in the same party that told Bush to piss off and that, no thank you, we aren't interested in a one-way trip to Iraq. Tell me, how much liberal media coverage did your American stations devote to this victory for the anti-war camp???

Face it, your media cares diddly about anything happening outside the US unless it directly involves you or has tremendous shock value. Re-electing Howard met neither condition.

Wasn't Canada choosing between two anti-war candidates? In Australia a pro-Iraq candidate was facing off against an anti-Iraq candidate just a month before the US elections. Throw in the fact that the John Kerry's sister was actively campaigning against Howard (part of Kerry's plan to build a stronger coalition I guess), and you have a high degree of interest.

The problem, however, is that Howard won. So the lefty loons over here had to shut their mouths, pretend it meant nothing, and move on to Christopher Reeves.