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

[Bone577]

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.

If i myself with a little bit of research knew there was no threat and no WMD i find it hard to believe Howard didn't know (look above at all the people that said there was none). But again, even if he did he would still be a criminal.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Kofi Annan might want to watch him self saying the actions of the 30 or so nations in iraq are illegal, he doesn't want to break the un down again does he?

Besides this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the war in iraq. It has to do with John Howard, who i believe DIDN'T know, he thought he was doing something good, which it turns out he wasn't, it is quite possible that Mark Latham, The Democrats (maybe not the greens..) but all the other parties could of gone to war off the same knowledge.

 

[walrusbear]

you're sidestepping the fact that irregard of whether Howard thought it was right, he explicitly went against the wishes of a majority of Australian opinion.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So you researched before the iraq war.. and u had amazing evidence that there were no wmd's and that all the points of the US were false.. you should have released it sooner, maybe then you would of stopped Howard from going to war.

Maybe you're the criminal for not releasing to the world this amazing intelligence information?

 

[Bone577]

Kofi Annan might want to watch him self saying the actions of the 30 or so nations in iraq are illegal, he doesn't want to break the un down again does he?

Besides this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the war in iraq. It has to do with John Howard, who i believe DIDN'T know, he thought he was doing something good, which it turns out he wasn't, it is quite possible that Mark Latham, The Democrats (maybe not the greens..) but all the other parties could of gone to war off the same knowledge.

Lathem i would expect. But this isn't about which partry is better but weather howard should run.

Now as i said a million times Condeleza Rice, Colin Powell, Israel, everyone at Zmag.org, Hanns Blix all said there was none, stories were fabricated blah blah blah.

And again, even if they had good reason to believe there was it is still an international crime. Under no circumstances was it legal, legitimate or whatever word you want to use.


The USSR had better reason for invading Afghanistan as terrorist acts WERE carried out in the USSR by people known to be in Afganistan, though the question of the USSR's legality is not an issue, we all know it was an act of agression. Apply the same standards here.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

it was only a slight majority.. and that majority was taken by phone polls there was no vote on this.

If WMD's had been found, a weapons program etc like howard believed then I'm sure the majority of australians would have ended up saying it was a just war.

 

[walrusbear]

true, though with such an explicit voice of dissent, where popular media had sourced a majority number of people opposing the war, he should have followed advice.
or if he doubted the phone polls (which i guess is reasonable), then he should have had his fucking vote.

 

[Bone577]

So you researched before the iraq war.. and u had amazing evidence that there were no wmd's and that all the points of the US were false.. you should have released it sooner, maybe then you would of stopped Howard from going to war.

Maybe you're the criminal for not releasing to the world this amazing intelligence information?

Everything you need is at zmag.org

But here is about 20 pages of info on how Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...ine_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_alleged_wmds

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Condeleza Rice, Colin Powell - when did they claim BEFORE the war that the documents were faked?

If there were wmd's in there.. and we had gone in there and stopped them would you really care?

If John Howard is a Criminal.. he's a criminal for doing something that he thought was right given the intelligence he was presented with.

 

[walrusbear]

Condeleza Rice, Colin Powell - when did they claim BEFORE the war that the documents were faked?

If there were wmd's in there.. and we had gone in there and stopped them would you really care?

If John Howard is a Criminal.. he's a criminal for doing something that he thought was right given the intelligence he was presented with.

ignorance is no excuse

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Everything you need is at zmag.org

But here is about 20 pages of info on how Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...ine_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_alleged_wmds

and this was put together before the war?
the prime minister can only work with what his advisers present to him, and his advisers were working through intelligence given to them & through their own research..

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i do believe criminals are allowed to run, im sure if ur an ex con they won't say 'hey no ur a criminal'.

End of discussion.

 

[Bone577]

Condeleza Rice, Colin Powell - when did they claim BEFORE the war that the documents were faked?

If there were wmd's in there.. and we had gone in there and stopped them would you really care?

If John Howard is a Criminal.. he's a criminal for doing something that he thought was right given the intelligence he was presented with.

The site i sent you had this in it. You should have searched it, not doing so makes you look a bit foolish.


"Secretary of State Colin Powell travels to Cairo and meets with his counterpart Amre Moussa. During a press conference, Powell says: “He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” [US Department of State, 2/24/03; The Mirror, 9/22/03; Associated Press, 9/25/03] Some nineteen months later, when Powell is asked to explain why his assessment of Iraq had so drastically changed over such a short span of time, Powell says, “... I did not say he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) didn't have weapons of mass destruction.... He was a threat then. The extent of his holdings were yet to be determined. It was early in the administration and the fact of the matter is it was long before 9/11 (the date of the 2001 attacks on the United States).... A lot changed between February 2001 (and the invasion), but I don't find anything inconsistent between what I said then and what I've said all along.” [US Department of State, 9/25/03; Washington Post, 9/26/03; Associated Press, 9/25/03]
People and organizations involved: Amre Moussa, Colin Powell"


"National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice says, “Saddam does not control the northern part of the country. We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” [The Mirror, 9/22/03] "


Go read the site, as i said its HUGE, and it pretty much goes on about how little threat Saddam posed.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Its 2am and ur asking a guy to read a huge article, you criminal.

 

[Bone577]

i do believe criminals are allowed to run, im sure if ur an ex con they won't say 'hey no ur a criminal'.

End of discussion.

What? So a criminal who attempts to dodge the law is righteous? So if Hitler ran away, for that time in which he isn't caught, he is a good man?

I'm not saying they will ever be braught to trial. Im saying they are criminals, they are murderers, they SHOULD be trailed, they SHOULDNT be voted for... unless of course you dont mind voting for known murderers.




EDIT: And by the way, those quotes as you will notice are dated before the war started.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If you want to believe howard is a murderer u can..
If I want to believe that howard made the right decision that I think should have been made if the evidence he was presented with was accurate..

What if in ww2 our pm was presented with information from the US saying 'germany needs to be stopped blah blah' and we simply said 'we need to stand back and assess this a bit longer'.

What's wrong with that.. is that Powell then comes out and says 'the reason i changed my mind is because new intelligence was brought up'..

 

[walrusbear]

btw not-quite-bright, why are you defending the PM so much? is it for the sake of argument?

you idealise him like he made a silly mistake and he can be forgiven for it. fact is he rashly ignored majority world opinion and world law to involve australia in an uncertain at best invasion.

 

[walrusbear]

If you want to believe howard is a murderer u can..
If I want to believe that howard made the right decision that I think should have been made if the evidence he was presented with was accurate..

What if in ww2 our pm was presented with information from the US saying 'germany needs to be stopped blah blah' and we simply said 'we need to stand back and assess this a bit longer'.

What's wrong with that.. is that Powell then comes out and says 'the reason i changed my mind is because new intelligence was brought up'..

oh c'mon!
Germany and Europe in WW2 is incredibly fucking different for countless reasons.
the comparison is too weak

 

[Bone577]

If you want to believe howard is a murderer u can..
If I want to believe that howard made the right decision that I think should have been made if the evidence he was presented with was accurate..

What if in ww2 our pm was presented with information from the US saying 'germany needs to be stopped blah blah' and we simply said 'we need to stand back and assess this a bit longer'.

Howard knew there were no weapons. Bush maybe not, he is an idiot. Know or not he is a criminal though.

This isn't about WW2. This is Iraq. Not comaprable. Hitler DID pose a threat, in fact he was attacking people. Iraq was not a threat to anyone, as you can see above. He didn't attack anyone (except for Iran and Kuwait, but as you can see above he posed no threat pre gulf war 2, funny to know that the US supported him and called him "our kind of guy" while he was warring with Iran, causing over a million deaths in his illegal war).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Not for the sake of argument, because I agree with his decision given the information he was given..

And also i believe this type of thing serves only to hurt John Howard and no other purpose, you acknowledged that you believe almost any party would of done it... If anyone would of done it, then i guess Howard was just the unlucky one that had to do it?