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

[Bone577]

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..

The facts aren't hard to find. I gave you about 20 pages of it. Howard probably knows most of it.

Australia, even if it did believe there were WMD, would still have to prove it to the Security Council and have them vote on it. Illegal under all definitions.

It isn't extremist at all, god knows if you even realise what you are saying. Our government is corrupt. I have just showed you how. Not "somehow" either, it is obvious to anyone that does any research on it.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...ine_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_alleged_wmds

I feel like i am spamming with the way i am repeating myself. This is rediculous.

 

[walrusbear]

and you're also sidestepping that he made his decision against public will
ignored explicit anti-war sentiment that made up a supposed majority of the country

 

[walrusbear]

Those are the only similarities i have mentioned.

which are simplistic and irrelevant

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You saying 'but the following people knew' doesn't convince me, i think you'll find that those poll's u like were saying that most people believe iraq had wmd's.

Howard made a mistake, it may have been against the UN, the majority of the world may have disagreed with him.

I don't believe he is a criminal, just as perhaps socialists don't believe Che was a criminal.

 

[walrusbear]

The facts aren't hard to find. I gave you about 20 pages of it. Howard probably knows most of it.

Australia, even if it did believe there were WMD, would still have to prove it to the Security Council and have them vote on it. Illegal under all definitions.

It isn't extremist at all, god knows if you even realise what you are saying. Our government is corrupt. I have just showed you how. Not "somehow" either, it is obvious to anyone that does any research on it.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...ine_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_alleged_wmds

I feel like i am spamming with the way i am repeating myself. This is rediculous.

politics boards are always like this
you can argue your way into justifying whatever you want to believe to fit your own ideology pretty much
everyone does it.
no one who cares enough about politics to take hours arguing on a board are ever going to change their mind

 

[saladsurgery]

arguing on the internet, hurrah!

and whenever your case seems to be flailing, pop on over to google to pick up a few statistics to boost your credibility

i'm still here. fuck.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think the best way to have a debate is to set rules.. perhaps we should of set a rule that you people can't prove that the war was illegal,etc.

I believe you guys would win that debate.. the problem is that to me Howard didn't do anything that is morally wrong to me.

 

[Bone577]

You saying 'but the following people knew' doesn't convince me, i think you'll find that those poll's u like were saying that most people believe iraq had wmd's.

Howard made a mistake, it may have been against the UN, the majority of the world may have disagreed with him.

I don't believe he is a criminal, just as perhaps socialists don't believe Che was a criminal.

Don't believe? Do you know anything about international law? He is a criminal, Kofi Annan said it, i say it, everyone who knows crap all about tha matter knows it. I showed you with reference to legal documents that he is a criminal.


Look, barely anyone outside of US, Aus and UK thought he had WMD. Not even Colin Powell or Condelezza Rice thought he did. I gave you 20 pages of people who stated he doesnt. US officials on TV who said it. Either John Howard lied or he is an imbecile.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Kofi Annan isn't the one true source of knowledge on international war.
For as much 'proof' as you have that John Howard knew i'm sure there is proof i could google up about how it's a legal war and 20 pages of people who stated he did.

 

[Bone577]

This isn't about idealogy to me. I am not advocating socialism or anarchism or capitalism or any such thing. This is about Howard and his crime.

Set rules that say i cant prove he was acting illegaly? It isn't a matter of opinion. This is the very issue at hand. I have proven that he IS a criminal, he knew what he was doing, and even if he had no clue he is STILL a criminal.

Morality is not the issue, though i would argue his actions are immoral, lets stick to the topic.

 

[walrusbear]

i'd have to look it up, but i'm pretty sure polls indicate a majority against the war.

even if howard is as stupid as you say, and somehow 'innocently' went against international common sense and followed america's imperialistic agenda and he cannot be blamed for being wrong, it should be known for the record that he rules this country on his own beliefs, which he inflicts on others undemocratically. which is bordering on dictatorship really...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well i'm sure however there are alot of people that have 'solid proof' that the actions taken by george W bush , howard are not criminal.

 

[Bone577]

Kofi Annan isn't the one true source of knowledge on international war.
For as much 'proof' as you have that John Howard knew i'm sure there is proof i could google up about how it's a legal war and 20 pages of people who stated he did.

Go for it. The UN charter is dead clear on this.

I already know the arguments;
1)exception under article 51 of the UN charter
2)exception under the dissarmament resolution

In case one the argument is void since the charter specifies an imminent and certain threat. "Pre-emptive defence" is against the very nature of the article.

In case two security council authorization is still required anyway.

Edit: Im going to bed, im just repeating myself. For a rebutal of anything that may be said, just refer to my above posts, nothing new is coming anyway.
Those are the only two argment i came across. They are both void of meaning.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

People don't always know what's good for them..
Lets apply your advice to everything.. i'd say the MAJORITY of people wouldn't care about gay rights issues. Therefor do we simply take a poll and say 'the majority said we don't care about gay rights, lets not worry about it'

 

[walrusbear]

those issues are incomparable also
of course a majority isn't always right

but the social taboo of homosexuality and gay rights aren't really in the same sphere as imperialism and pre-emptive wars
extremely different issues

 

[Not-That-Bright]

How can you say a majority isn't always right yet keep bringing up how most people didn't want this war?
Is it because a majority didn't want it and neither did you? or is there some other criteria.

 

[walrusbear]

a majority is only ever right for the both of us when it suits are argument
for me presently, it does.

the real issue is though, in a democracy the 'majority rules'. thus your prized liberal government can shove its 50s values down my throat and i have to take it because i'm in the minority. in this one case, the majority didn't agree with Howard and he explicitly defied it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So although u claim this has nothing to do with the parties.. you two are obviouslyy.. agains the liberal government? hate it? I like it.. it's amazing how neither of our opinions match on this matter lol

 

[walrusbear]

i'm sure your opinion of john howard and his decision making have nothing to do with your preference for the Liberal Party.

btw, you also didn't really address what i was saying.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I said i like it, i was meaning I like the liberal government.. sorry im tired.