I assume that the vast majority of the American population is unaware that the government of my country, Australia, has been a staunch supporter, both politically and militarily (the latter no doubt insignificantly) to both the US ‘war on terror’ (although I’ve never comprehended precisely what that is) and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This is despite polls which unequivocally show that the majority of the population was against military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq from the outset.

I hasten to preface the following by stating that, in my experience, Australians do not dislike America or Americans. Sure, we find it incomprehensible that an intelligent, educated people would elect Bush/Cheney TWICE. We heartily ridicule the incompetence and inarticulacy of the ‘leader of the free world’ whose act would be hilarious if not so dangerous. We are still pissed that the ‘intelligence’ presented to the world to justify the Iraq invasion was maliciously fabricated.

No, not hate or dislike or even indifference. I think many people feel that America can now longer be TRUSTED, and that makes many of us very uncomfortable. Particularly so when our own elected officials (particularly our current Prime Minister) demonstrate nauseating sycophancy when dealing with the Bush administration. If there is one thing worse than being incompetent (and the Bush administration has admirably demonstrated that characteristic), its being incompetent and self assured to the pint of blinding arrogance.

We observed with discust the manner in which the French were treated with breathtaking distain by members of Congress, and US media pundits, because they took a different view on Iraq and the ‘war on terror’ (and who was right?). This frankly juvenile dismissal of a long time friend because they dared to disagree was troubling to say the least. It demonstrated (at least to me) that the US will turn on an ally for the most innocuous reason and will not entertain debate on the most vital of issues, which involve matters of life and death. The message I took from this is that the US, not as an enemy but as a friend and ally, should be approached with caution because it is untrustworthy and unpredictable, and will dump you like a two dollar whore if that suits its own geopolitical agenda.

BTW, US was much nicer to France than France was to Eastern European members of EU. As you may remember, the French president told them to shut up. Literally. And while we are at it, former German chancellor now works as a front man for Putin's oil company. So, I suppose, America is doing quite well, thank you.

Gringo,

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with electing a pro-US PM (although I wouldn’t vote for this one for any number of reasons). Every PM who has served during my lifetime could be properly characterised as pro-US. Hell, I’m pro-US. However, as acknowledged, much of my discomfort arises from the manner in which our PM approaches the relationship.

As to your supplementary comments, the article concerns the conduct of the US and the way it is perhaps perceived by others and, consequently, the US that was the focus of my post. No nation is unworthy of some criticism.

What exactly did you mean by this? Secondly, when you said that all nations err - why are US and Israel always singled out for critisism by the world? It's akin to racism - when certain groups are treated worse than others.

I mean that, in my view (for what that's worth) the US has been, on balance, an extremely positive influence in international affairs. Of course, I think this largely because the US and Australia share many of the same fundamental social, legal, economic and cultural values, most of which I have adopted almost by osmosis.

Why is the US target for critisim? Propably for the same reason the conduct of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia is more scutinised than, say, mine- the possession of power and the ability to influence. Having said that, many other countries are heavily critisied by and within mine- Nth Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan and, particulalry at the moment, Burma for example. But its fair to say that none of these have the ability to reshape the world in quite the same way the US has.

As for Israel, it doesn't recieve the intense attention here that it does in the US, so I don't know. I'm just grateful that I don't live in a country surrounded by others which feel it has no business being there. That's a tough gig.

The day the U.S. stops guaranteeing the freedom of Australia and New Zealand is the day of the beginning of their demise. No U.S. Say, hello to your Chinese overlords. They will buy out your assets from under you, migrate then vote and fundamentally change the culture to possibly reflect that of totalitarian China. If you try to take back what was yours that is now theirs by law you will find yourself at the point of a bayonet.

If not China then some other nearby densely populated country, care to guess which one?

And that is why Australia's leadership has understood that the English speaking people (of any creed or color) must understand and support each other.

I think one of your Prime Ministers has said as much.

Hey Spiker

I'm not sure I agree that a shared dominant language is the most sound basis for strategic alliance, but I take your point that countries with similar values benefit from solidarity and mutual support. I am optimistic enough (or deluded, you decide) to hope that counties that don't necessarily share core values can do the same.

However, I believe it is essential for any relationship (between people, organisations or nation states) that where points of view diverge, the parties are able to show some restraint, listen respectively, and perhaps undertake a little introspection and learn from eachother. Utopian? Maybe, but why not?

As for the US "guantanteeing" Australian soverenty, I believe that if it was not in US interests to intervene at the material time, we would be left hanging. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I don't feel that the US owes Aust anything. Still, it would be nice to know the cavalry was on the way.

Democracy in that part of the world is in America's interest. America would not come to Australia's aid only if it had been weakened beyond being able to do so.

G'day to you, too. It sems as if both of our great countries have elected leaders who have disappointed us. In our case we have gotten what we deserve because we believed the campaign slogans of hate and fabrication.

Here in the US of A we have had a run of bitter partisan disagreement over the election of a president, and that president's administration has led us into the foul mess that is Iraq. Many of us are in extreme discomfort at the disdain that administration has shown to traditonal allies such as your great country as well as to England, France, Germany, Japan, Poland, and Canada.

Canada has become so embarrassed at our obtuse and overbearing foreign policy that they want to be "non-Americans." It seems to work for them as they are now seen as an honest broker in many areas where the USA is not.

They are singled out because they actually expect America and Israel to actually be susceptible to criticism to do what they perceive, in their mind at least, to be the right thing.

That is why Russia and Myanmar aren't criticized as much as merely reported on.

Your 'akin to racism' comment is a rather mediocre analogy.

Was the US viewed as not trustworthy when President Clinton was in office.

Were we despised as much when half the Country was enraged over an extra Marital Affair?Be honest now.

Did the rest of the world despise us for having a President who had sex outside of marriage,as they do for having a PRESIDENT WHO LIED US ALL INTO WAR?

First of all MaryAnne I don't know where you are coming from. I'm neither conservative nor liberal. Your points in those terms me nothing to me.

I would reference your post to me to another post I made on the subject of Clinton-Lewinsky were I call the republicans involved actual traitors to my country but I can't. It is an adult themed site and it would be inappriate so you'll have to take my word for.

Now if you will just calm down an apply reason and less emotion to your thought process we'll get along better. <- Couldn't resist opening myself up to a claim of chauvinism but believe me it doesn't.

Hi MaryAnne

From my perspective, the answer would have to be yes. I think that Clinton was much respected and liked by Australians. Even now when Clinton visits Australia he is treated like royalty. I can't imaging Bush getting the same reception in 10 years, but who knows.

I have to be careful becuse I don't want to assume to speak for all Australians, or even some, but my recollection is that when, for example, NATO (led by the US) intervened in Bosnia, people felt (and still feel now) that the intentions were honourable and the evidence sound. This is in stark contract to Iraq.

As for the whole Lewinsky thing, I watched with bemusment as Starr did what Starr felt he had to do. What was most suprising was the importance of the affair to Americans. It really did stop the nation. As alike as our countries are, this demonstarted that we are very different in some respects. Our electrate doesn't really give a toss who our politicians sleep with. Even if this changes, I can say with confidence that we'll never have a sex scandle with the current PM in office bacause I can't imaging anyone would want to f--k him.

Get this, there were no fabrications of evidence to start the Iraq war. If you want to get technical Saddam declared war on the US way before the US cornered the little murdering weasel and rid the country of his and his sons murdering lot.

Secondly, The French were on the take. The UN oil for food program was busted for being illegitimate.

People read things they automatically think are completely true without looking into them.