• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

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

Bone577

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
603
Location
Parra
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Not-That-Bright said:
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?
OMG, we can all see obviously that he must be an imbecile to think there was WMD, and he is NOT an imbecile.

Hurt John Howard? Sure, rest of his life in gaol would be a nice start. The purpose is justice, real justice. You want to be selective about who the laws of the world apply to?

I said Latham would have done it. Thats just speculation though and should be taken with a grain of salt. Your argument is weak, Howard did it, weather anyone else in his shoes would or not is different, I would think YOU would aswell, but that doesn't mean i think you should be put in prison.
What i do know is the Democrats or Greens would most definitely NOT do it.
 

walrusbear

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
2,261
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
woah yeah

i suppose world war two and the iraq invasion are totally comparable since australia wasn't directly threatened

and also, why are you assuming that howard was given some sort of valid information? the US couldn't provide FAKE intelligence any well when answering to an international community. you'd think they must have had even worse proof when trying to convince a solitary allie.

btw, goddamn you for starting this thread. i'm never going to get this assignment finished
 

Bone577

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
603
Location
Parra
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Not-That-Bright said:
Did the Nazi's pose a threat to Australia? lol
No, not an imminent one anyway.

But the Allies in world war 2 had popular world support.

the UN didn't exist back then but the equivelant of that now would be UN authorization. Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US in the first gulf war (in fact up until the US attacked Iraq they were very close allies).

But you cant compare to this since in the case of Iraq there was no world support and no authorization of any sort. In fact most of the world considers the US a bigger threat than Iran, Iraq, Al Quaeda and North Koea. Support didnt reach 20% anywhere besides UK, Israel, Aus and the US.
 

Bone577

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
603
Location
Parra
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
walrusbear said:
btw, goddamn you for starting this thread. i'm never going to get this assignment finished
LOL, yeah sorry bout that, things like this get big and eat up your time real quickly.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The greens wouldn't have gone to war in ww2.

I believe that Howard made a decision that I would have made given the same evidence and therefore i dare not judge him.

You believe that you would have done differently, that's ok.

It's good that everyone has different opinions and see's this idea differently. I'm sure there's alot of people that agree with u, and alot of people that agree with me.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Do you believe australia needs world support to do what we do?
The majority of the world might want to use australia as a dump, doesn't mean we want it..
 

walrusbear

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
2,261
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
so you did support a pre-emptive strike?
you think that at the time it was a good idea?
 

Bone577

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
603
Location
Parra
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Not-That-Bright said:
The greens wouldn't have gone to war in ww2.

I believe that Howard made a decision that I would have made given the same evidence and therefore i dare not judge him.

You believe that you would have done differently, that's ok.

It's good that everyone has different opinions and see's this idea differently. I'm sure there's alot of people that agree with u, and alot of people that agree with me.
This isn't about which party to vote for, this is about Howard.

Now, don't speculate what the greens would and would-not do, its besides the point.


"You can play the blind man, but my eyes are wide open" - Vince Vega
I have given you all the evidence you could possibly want, there is little more i can do, you keep repeating the same things over and over and i feel like i am repeating myself. Be dogmatic, im not here to change anyones opinion, im here to have a good debate, one where i dont repeat myself a million times.
 

saladsurgery

kicking the cack
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
943
Location
over there
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
representative democracy sucks, eh
you end up pleasing half of the people, half of the time

if that
 

Bone577

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
603
Location
Parra
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Not-That-Bright said:
Do you believe australia needs world support to do what we do?
The majority of the world might want to use australia as a dump, doesn't mean we want it..

You have no understanding of international law. We can do as we wish within our country, we cannot interfere in others without significant reason. We have a right to self-governance, though this does not include the right to attack others, regardless of what we want to do.

What type of argument is that anyway? FFS.
 

walrusbear

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
2,261
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
please stop pushing the ww2 analogy
it is poor! face it

nazi germany and iraq are so fucking different it is just trite to think there is any valuable comparison
 

walrusbear

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
2,261
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
saladsurgery said:
representative democracy sucks, eh
you end up pleasing half of the people, half of the time

if that
:uhhuh:
this thread has gone on for an absurdly long time
with circular arguments
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
they were both wars, both didn't require australia's involvement. It seems although alot of your arguments are that 'australia didn't have to go to the war even if we thought there were wmd's', 'howard knew that the evidence was fake.. somehow'.

You guys can as u know tell me again and again 'but i think howard knew', I think howard didn't & i think it's a fairly extremist view to believe that our government is that corrupt..
 
Last edited:

Bone577

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
603
Location
Parra
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Not-That-Bright said:
Howard believed he had a significant reason.
Firstly rubish. for the reasons i mentioned a million times.

Significant reason is defined in the UN charter, namely article 51. go read it or something. Howard had no significant reason.
 

Bone577

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
603
Location
Parra
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Not-That-Bright said:
they were both wars, both didn't require australia's involvement.
And thats where the similarities end.
 

saladsurgery

kicking the cack
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
943
Location
over there
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Not-That-Bright said:
You guys can as u know tell me again and again 'but i think howard knew', I think howard didn't & i think it's a fairly extremist view to believe that our government is that corrupt..
well paint me extreme and call me an extremist, then. i have uni in six hours, and these threads usually end up annoying me anyway

this one was ok though
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top