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

[walrusbear]

ok
sorry

i'm still working on this fucking essay
it won't be done until 6 or later i bet

 

[Not-That-Bright]

lol what's it on?

 

[walrusbear]

the quiet american
the film and novel

haven't even started yet

i have to grammatically analyse both as well

it was due yesterday

 

[walrusbear]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1214727.htm

 

[Suvat]

I don't see how howard's advisors managed to deduce that the war was legal.

The resolution which the government's advisors relied on was SCR (security council resolution) 687 which was implemented in 1991 for a completely different purpose, which was to eliminate or reduce iraq's ability to threaten kuwait.

There is nothing to justify the conclusion that when the Security Council was formulating these resolutions it had in mind authorising military action some 12 years later in respect to an entirely different issue.

Furthermore, both SCR 687 and SCR 678 clearly states that even if Iraq did violate its obligation to destroy its chemical and biological weapons (as stated in SCR 687), the UN was to 'remain seized of the matter'. That should've clearly indicated to the govt's advisors that individual nations such as US and Australia were not permitted to take matters into their own hands.

In my opinion, John Howard decided to send troops because he thought it would be best for Australia if they didn't piss Bush off. I'm not going to argue whether that's valid reason or not, but howard's action was clearly illegal under international law, and to say he was ill advised is no defence. Also, when questioned about why he did it amongst widespread public disapproval, he clearly said 'if the public didn't like what we're doing, they'll throw us out at the next election'.

Thus voters who were clearly against the invasion and voting for howard in the coming election are inadvertantly saying to howard and any future government "as long as it's not near election time, feel free to use our military in any way you see fit, even if it's against international law and public opinion."

 

[thorrnydevil]

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.

Actually, the war WASN't opposed by the majority of the country. Just like Vietnam, it was a fair while after major combat operations started that it was opposed. Yes, there were 100,000 people who protested in Sydney (please correct me if this figure is wrong), however, this 100,000 came from a population of 4 MILLION, in the city alone.

Also, you know, in Australia, the death penalty is illegal...meaning Howard shouldn't be hanged. No government would ratify such a policy.

 

[thorrnydevil]

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.

Yeah, tell that to the mother of the boy at my school. After smoking pot he got scitzophrenia (however its spelt), and commited suicide...all from smoking pot.

 

[Generator]

Ummm, from what I know, that may have a been a catalyst, not the actual cause.

 

[saladsurgery]

Actually, the war WASN't opposed by the majority of the country. Just like Vietnam, it was a fair while after major combat operations started that it was opposed. Yes, there were 100,000 people who protested in Sydney (please correct me if this figure is wrong), however, this 100,000 came from a population of 4 MILLION, in the city alone.

the feb 2003 protests had a turnout of about 250000 (by police and media estimates -- organiser estimates range from 300000 to 500000 -- so i'd say it was somewhere between police/organiser estimates)

 

[OZGIRL86]

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!

John Howard is not a criminal...

 

[thorrnydevil]

John Howard is not a criminal...

He isn't. By law, Mark Latham is a criminal.

 

[glycerine]

Yeah, tell that to the mother of the boy at my school. After smoking pot he got scitzophrenia (however its spelt), and commited suicide...all from smoking pot.

i'm sorry, but i have no sympathy for someone who smokes pot and develops schizophrenia. it is WIDELY known that smoking pot can trigger schizophrenia and if you do it known that, you've essentially facilitated your own illness. it's like smoking cigarettes and saying "oh, my throat is fucked! however could such a thing happen!". i'm sorry that your friend died, i really am, but somehow i doubt he smoked it once and went schizo. he obviously had schizophrenic predispositions which were then activated through repetitive smoking of weed.

 

[glycerine]

UM WHEN?.............

i think he's referring to the taxi driver incident?

 

[Bone577]

Just to reply to a few things.

1) I wasn't saying he WOULD be hung, just that using the Nuremberg trials as a precedence he should be. Under current international law he would be imprisoned for life.


2) Of course pot has negative effects. But the dangers of alcoholism and tobacco are greater.


3)Howard is a criminal. If you want to say otherwise provide some argument at least. But it is widely known, there is little doubt. He is guilty of agression which was described during the Nuremberg trials as the "supreme crime" which embodies all evils. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew18.HTM

 

[dangerousdave]

Just to reply to a few things.

1) I wasn't saying he WOULD be hung, just that using the Nuremberg trials as a precedence he should be. Under current international law he would be imprisoned for life.


2) Of course pot has negative effects. But the dangers of alcoholism and tobacco are greater.


3)Howard is a criminal. If you want to say otherwise provide some argument at least. But it is widely known, there is little doubt. He is guilty of agression which was described during the Nuremberg trials as the "supreme crime" which embodies all evils. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew18.HTM

Explain how pot is worse than alcohol or tobacco?

 

[lengstar]

Alcohol/Tobacco does not have immediate dangers from single use whereas Pot does. Tobacco and Pot on the other hand can cause long term damage as with Alcohol to a smaller extent. Pot even taken into mderation can cause irreversible harm and as Glycerine states, may trigger schizophrenia.

 

[dangerousdave]

At my old school we uesd to have heaps of speakers come along to "teach us about marijuana". I remember them saying that pot has the same effect on the lungs as tobacco. It has a worse effect on brain cells because it contains THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) which screws around with nurves or something. Alcohol is only considered worse because it is a larger problem because it is a legal drug and access is easier. There was heaps more said, but thats all I can remember, it was all the way back in year 7 (5 years ago).

 

[Bone577]

At my old school we uesd to have heaps of speakers come along to "teach us about marijuana". I remember them saying that pot has the same effect on the lungs as tobacco. It has a worse effect on brain cells because it contains THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) which screws around with nurves or something. Alcohol is only considered worse because it is a larger problem because it is a legal drug and access is easier. There was heaps more said, but thats all I can remember, it was all the way back in year 7 (5 years ago).

Though you dont smoke as much pot as ciggerettes. You smoke 20 ciggerettes in one day but it is far fetched to say anyone smokes 20 joints. So the actualy diseases caused by the smoke are less.

Pot isn't physically addictive either, i have quit pot myself, it was one of the easiest things i have ever done, but i will be damned if i can quit ciggerettes.

Alcohol is a problem in that it causes the death in many young people. While alcohol WILL eventually kill you if you arent responsible, it is not close to the deaths caused by ciggerettes, however the deaths it causes are in much younger people. People don't die of ciggerette related illness at 20, yet in a accidental death at that age alcohol is a likely mitigating factor.


Pot of course has it's own problems, depression and slowness are two obvious ones, i would not call the problems as significant as ciggerettes which is the big killer and the most dangerous consumer product in existance. The argument that pot is stronger in its smoke is ludicrous considering how little pot people smokei n relation to ciggerettes.

 

[samuelblayden]

Go greens![/QUOTE]
yea mate up the greens and get jonny out

 

[migsy2202]

The fact is, if the majority were so concerned about Iraq, they would not have provided the government with such a mandate at the last election. The thing about you greenies is that you are only part of a very small minority who unfortunatley tend to make the most noise..... Get over it....