Should John Howard be allowed to run? (1 Viewer)

[walrusbear]

if anyone should go to the hague, it's kissinger

 

[walrusbear]

i doubt US would have allowed us the FTA if we rejected their move on Iraq

 

[walrusbear]

WW2 and the iraq situation are too different to make decent comparison

 

[Bone577]

Actually the war was legal.

It was made legal by a certain UN security council Resoultion.

No, there is no such resolution.

You may be talking of the resolution calling on Iraq to allow weapons inspectors. The thing is even if Saddam doesn't let inspectors in, the UN must still give permission. The coalition can not act uni-lateraly.

And considering the way the US subverted the inspection process, Saddam had every right to dissalow inspections;

"Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. "United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors," the New York Times reported (1/7/99). According to the Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. "infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency." Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources," wrote the Boston Globe (1/6/99)." - http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

Now sure the different sides of the argument will interpret the reolutions wording in diferent ways....but really do you eally see George Bush, Blair, howard and the polish president going before the hauge?

No, they wont, to think they will is ludicrous. But just because they get away with crimes it doesn't mean he is any less of a criminal.

Look to quote shakespeare "whats done is done" (Lady Macbeth i think) we must look to the future. ANd the alternative to howard is latham's cut and run policy. BTW only about 80 troops will infact be home by christmas under labor....he is telling half truths.

I don't support labor.

Whats done is done? By that logic we should let murderers free since they committed crimes in the past but are not currently in the process of commiting more.

Get out of Iraq certainly, there is a deep sense of mistrust in the middle-east (thats what happens after 50 years of puppet regimes, genocide of Palestinians and imperialist policies) towards the US, and while the US is in charge of the country you will see no end to the violence. I suggest a group of UN nations headed by the UAE in charge, the UAE is the most trusted country in Iraq, and will be accepted much mroe readily.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The question is.. how much was too much?

Was it too much if John howard simply said ' i agree with america on this war '
or would it be too much sending a ship over there? or a small force? or what?

To me John Howard made an honest mistake given what he was presented with, and although Mark Latham wouldn't have done it.. mark latham may not have done it even if there was WMD's there.

 

[Bone577]

There was a powerful anti-war voice towards WW2...

He may have made a mistake, but he is hardly a criminal.. The FTA seems to be our countries version of oil.
In the US it was, or is a common belief that the US went to war over oil... which never really made sense to me.

Here, it seems we blame it on the FTA. 'Howard just did it to secure the FTA', we would of had the FTA either way...

The middle-east is commonly described by western intellectuals as "the greatest material prise of the century". Oil is a simplification, buisness interests in general is far more accurate.

 

[Bone577]

The question is.. how much was too much?

Was it too much if John howard simply said ' i agree with america on this war '
or would it be too much sending a ship over there? or a small force? or what?

To me John Howard made an honest mistake given what he was presented with, and although Mark Latham wouldn't have done it.. mark latham may not have done it even if there was WMD's there.

I have no doubt that Latham would have done the same as Howard. But thats just speculation.


Too much is providing material support in any way. Or intelligence for that matter.

Voicing support is not wrong according to any law i know of (except now in Aus vocaly supporting Hizbollah or Hamas is a crime, but thats the draconian rules we have now).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No it's not a simplification its as deceptive as George W Bush if he knew the intelligence was wrong telling the world that it was right.

 

[walrusbear]

saying that he supported the war personally is no crime, of course
i think sending troops against democratic will was very wrong.
i think you're forgiving of his decision far too much. 'what he was presented with' must have been completely dogshit given the flimsiness of the real 'intelligence'.

face it, howard isn't that stupid. either his grasp of international politics and history is atrocious for a prime minister or he had a real agenda. i'm pretty sure there is a reason, because it wasn't a popular decision.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Oh... how terrible, I feel sorry for the people that wish to support Hamas..

 

[Bone577]

No it's not a simplification its as deceptive as George W Bush if he knew the intelligence was wrong telling the world that it was right.

I don't think George Bush has any clue what is going on. I think he realy believes what he sais.

Geroge Bush isn't the only one who made the decision, his administration did. They are the ones that new the intelligence was rubish. As i said before, everyone knew. Israel knew, Colin Powell and Condeleza Rice knew.

And yes the war is for buisness.

Also, even if there WAS WMD, it is still a breach of international law. UN permission is still required.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Howard isn't stupid at all, neither is latham..They're both nerds.

If it was completely dog shit why didn't france or russia come forward and say 'we know that they don't have nuclear weapons'.

He was decieved as much as alot of other people were... there weren't many people around the world that didn't think iraq had wmd's.

 

[walrusbear]

except the us

 

[Not-That-Bright]

the UN passed a resolution stating that iraq must disarm certain things or they are allowed to use full force, the US used full force.

Iraq wasn't obeying the rules the UN had given them, they were building longer range missiles, they were disobeying trade embargo's placed on them.

 

[Bone577]

Howard isn't stupid at all, neither is latham..They're both nerds.

If it was completely dog shit why didn't france or russia come forward and say 'we know that they don't have nuclear weapons'.

He was decieved as much as alot of other people were... there weren't many people around the world that didn't think iraq had wmd's.

France and Russia are merely protecting there extensive pre-Gulf War 2 oil interests (they have inroads on Iraqi oil). Israel and Iran said that Saddam has none. Haans Blix (head of weapons inspections) said he had none. We know that 2 stories were complete fabrication ie. nuclear trucks and nuclear material from Africa. Condeleza rice and Colin powell said he posed no threat. How many times do i have to repeat this?

Bush may be an idiot and not know, in which case he is still a criminal since ignorance is no defence. But Howard must of known better, he is clever, and willfully went in knowing reality. Either way they are criminals, even if they had reason to believe there was WMD they are criminals, even if there actually WAS WMD they are criminals.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

except the us

Yea well if the US government did know, then still how was Howard to know..
The truth is not many people thought they didn't have WMD's, did you think they had wmds? honestly?
Im sure the evidence howard was given was believable, satellite photo's of apparent things etc...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What's more likely? that Howard was decieved as much as everyone else was, or that Howard was willing to risk the lives of 1000 Australian armed servicemen to help secure a FTA.

 

[walrusbear]

personally i really didn't think so
even if they did i don't support a pre-emptive strike

i'm kinda surprised the US just didn't plant some facilities there after they had overthrown the iraqi government

 

[Bone577]

the UN passed a resolution stating that iraq must disarm certain things or they are allowed to use full force, the US used full force.

Iraq wasn't obeying the rules the UN had given them, they were building longer range missiles, they were disobeying trade embargo's placed on them.

There is a reason why the inspectors were called off:
"Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. "United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors," the New York Times reported (1/7/99). According to the Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. "infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency." Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources," wrote the Boston Globe (1/6/99)." - http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

Also correct me if im wrong but Saddam allowed inspector full access just before the war.

Also, regardless of the resolution stating that force can be used, it is stil against the UN charter for it to be used without authorization from the Security Council. Uni-lateral force is illegal. The war was in no way lega.

Everything i just said i have said before, read my posts before you post new ones.
Just to end the question legality, go here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Kofi Annan himself stated quite clearly it was illegal.

 

[walrusbear]

What's more likely? that Howard was decieved as much as everyone else was, or that Howard was willing to risk the lives of 1000 Australian armed servicemen to help secure a FTA.

the latter