Should John Howard be allowed to run? (2 Viewers)

[Bone577]

This isn't realy a question. I don't think there is a single person here thinks that going to Iraq was legal. So the question is, why should a criminal be allowed to run for Prime Minister?
If I'm not mistaken, according to the Nuremberg Trials, John Howard should be hung. According to current international law, he should be trialed at the Hague.

The way to vote for me seems like a no-brainer, John Howard shouldn't even be here, he should be trialed for his crimes. I don't much like Labor either, considering they have a bad record of crimes themselves.

Go greens!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

omg.. It's the australian Mike More!!!

John Howard being our prime minister cannot be a criminal unless he breaks OUR laws.

Nuremberg Trials? Ur accusing John howard as being the same as nazi generals who assisted in the murder of 6 MILLION innocent people based on their religion?!

Go greens? You know.. keeping POT is currently a crime, jumping over people's fences and tying yourself to a tree is a crime.

I hope that labor supporters and liberal supporters alike don't buy into this kinda thing..

 

[Rorix]

This isn't realy a question. I don't think there is a single person here thinks that going to Iraq was legal. So the question is, why should a criminal be allowed to run for Prime Minister?
If I'm not mistaken, according to the Nuremberg Trials, John Howard should be hung. According to current international law, he should be trialed at the Hague.

The way to vote for me seems like a no-brainer, John Howard shouldn't even be here, he should be trialed for his crimes. I don't much like Labor either, considering they have a bad record of crimes themselves.

Go greens!

 

[Bone577]

omg.. It's the australian Mike More!!!

Micheal Moore? I would like to be called a Noam Chomsky , i try and write in his style.

John Howard being our prime minister cannot be a criminal unless he breaks OUR laws.

But it is part of OUR laws. Australia has become member to the UN, accepting the UN charter, it is ratified and has become part of Australian domestic law. So he is indeed a criminal. There is no argument on the criminality of the matter.

Nuremberg Trials? Ur accusing John howard as being the same as nazi generals who assisted in the murder of 6 MILLION innocent people based on their religion?!

According to the Nuremberg trials he should be hung. I never commented on scale, but regardless of raw number of deaths the trials present a presedence which if applied to this case would mean John Howard should be hung.

Go greens? You know.. keeping POT is currently a crime, jumping over people's fences and tying yourself to a tree is a crime.

Besides the fact that i support the legalisation of Marijuana, I am voting for greens purely on foreign policy, since I don't want to vote for a known criminal.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Do you support the legalisation of Marijuana because ur currently off your face and probably wont even make it to the elections?

 

[Bone577]

Do you support the legalisation of Marijuana because ur currently off your face and probably wont even make it to the elections?

I'm an ex-pot smoker. Haven't smoked for a year now.

There is a double standard considering how dangerous ciggerettes and alcohol are. Marijuana in comparison is a harmless drug. Also illegalisation of marijuana has negative social implications, but lets not get into that, it is not part of this thread at all.

Stick to John Howard and his criminality.

 

[walrusbear]

hanging is a bit extreme

but he has a point. the fact that our prime minister boldly went directly against popular consent and involved us in the veritable shitstorm known as the iraq invasion.
i think it's pretty obvious in retrospect (though many people knew this a long time ago) that a pre-emptive strike is ridiculous and the shebang was a fucking big mistake. but whether you think it was worth it or not, howard is none short of a cunt for making such a huge international decision that was so explicitly opposed by a majority of the country.
i can't believe he has virtually been forgiven for it. most people seem not to care, but i seriously think we all should.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes.. marijuana is a harmless drug.. *ozzy ozborn... more tar than cigarettes... depression greater than that which alcoholics suffer..*

Anyway, I'll let you get back to your pointless rant which no one in their right mind will agree with i'm afraid.

 

[neo o]

Marajuana and driving gets the thumbs up from me.

 

[walrusbear]

marijuana doesn't seem worth the effort

 

[Bone577]

Yes.. marijuana is a harmless drug.. *ozzy ozborn... more tar than cigarettes... depression greater than that which alcoholics suffer..*

Anyway, I'll let you get back to your pointless rant which no one in their right mind will agree with i'm afraid.

More tar than ciggerettes is true, though it is misleading to say that since people dont smoke 20 joints every day.

Depression yes of course, it happens, and i have seen people have this happen due to pot. But, marujana kills far less relative to its usage, thats not even a point you can argue against. Alcohol is a factor in 80% of murders and is the biggest killer of young people. Marujana use isn't necessarily a good thing at all, but i would prefer it over alcohol or ciggerettes, and this is coming from a pack-a-day smoker and a social drinker.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes...
Ok, let me give you a picture.

Sudam hussein was widely believed to have wmd's, the greatest spy agencies in the world were telling John howard that this was true. There were possible links between al-quidea and suddam too which were presented.

All the evidence pointed towards iraq, a volitile nation having wmd's. America the worlds most powerful nation was asking australia to join in this war, which howard believed would be the liberation of an oppressed people (which it still was) and would remove significant threats to the world.

He didn't know, and he had no way to know. He went in with our traditional allies (UK, USA) in a cause which he thought was just... he had no way to know, perhaps George W Bush did.

 

[Rorix]

dude, take your facts and stop wasting trees

we're trying to smoke pot ITT

 

[Not-That-Bright]

80% of MURDERS or deaths?
that would be going by the ammount of people that die behind the wheel drunk, often people stoned behind the wheel are saved as their heart rate has slowed down etc.

And how is it that you can say 'marijuani is bad, but it should be legalised because alcohol and cigarettes are'.

If it was up to me I would be moving to slowly get rid of cigarettes, alcohol & illicit drugs...

 

[Bone577]

Yes...
Ok, let me give you a picture.

Sudam hussein was widely believed to have wmd's, the greatest spy agencies in the world were telling John howard that this was true. There were possible links between al-quidea and suddam too which were presented.

All the evidence pointed towards iraq, a volitile nation having wmd's. America the worlds most powerful nation was asking australia to join in this war, which howard believed would be the liberation of an oppressed people (which it still was) and would remove significant threats to the world.

He didn't know, and he had no way to know. He went in with our traditional allies (UK, USA) in a cause which he thought was just... he had no way to know, perhaps George W Bush did.

Nobody actually thought there were any threats. Condaleza Rice and Colin Powell both stated that Iraq posed no threat. Israeli intelligence said they posed no threat. Iran who is still technically at war with Iraq said they pose no threat.

But lets assume for a second that they DID have WMD, no reason at all to think so but lets assume for argument.
Then the invasion is still against international law. Article 51 of the UN Charter under which the US attempted to justify its actions clearly states that there must be a definite and imminent threat. There simply was none barring the fabricated stories of Saddam being able to launch a nuclear strike in 40 minutes (which still doesn't mean he poses an immediate threat).

Kofi Anan himself stated about a week or two ago that the invasion was by all definitions a blatent breach of international law (as do pretty much all people concerned with international law, professors, intellectuals, UN members and people holding positions in the UN).

 

[Bone577]

80% of MURDERS or deaths?
that would be going by the ammount of people that die behind the wheel drunk, often people stoned behind the wheel are saved as their heart rate has slowed down etc.

And how is it that you can say 'marijuani is bad, but it should be legalised because alcohol and cigarettes are'.

If it was up to me I would be moving to slowly get rid of cigarettes, alcohol & illicit drugs...

I said 80% of murders.

Prohibition is not effective in stopping drug use, especially marijuana. What it does achieve is getting high-schoolers in shit with the law. Hardly what i would call intelligent social policies.

 

[Rafy]

Actually the war was legal.

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

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?

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.

 

[walrusbear]

the situation was never that simple

the hidden agenda for the us behind iraq was always lingering. it cannot be stressed enough that the us supported saddam hussein in the 1980s.
they've been bombing the area for nigh on a decade.
suddenly, the US claim to have 'intelligence' that connects iraq to WMDs and that immediate pre-emptive action must be taken. notice the double standards (ignoring North Korea's growing nuclear facilities and Pakistan's countless WMDs). from a different perspective you could point out that america itself is a volatile country with WMDs. if i was living in south america i'd be much more scared as fuck by the US than iraq.
anyway, back to the real issue.

howard should have recognised the complexity of the issue and not just 'join the allies for the sake of alliance'. it's like vietnam all over again, only the threat of terrorism is far more than communism ever was. howard should have demanded to see the quality of 'intelligence', which now turns out to be complete bullshit anyway.
even with this tough decision to make, he decided to make a completely undemocratic decision. the anti-war voice was ignored by howard's decision, which really is unforgivable.

i'm guessing the whole real reason he did it was for the FTA though

 

[Not-That-Bright]

"Gun control is not effective in stopping gun related deaths, it just gets people in trouble for having guns"

lol

 

[Not-That-Bright]

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...