Oceania After the events of 16 February, will you be returning Johnny as PM?

I mean it's all well and good for us to sit here and debate the issue, but when millions of Australians tell him NO WAR and he says he won't listen to them...??

Who the hell does he think he is?

And why is he thinking of an early election?

(EDIT: Don't forget to post your reason)

 

Apparantly the biggest public protest in Australian history is no indication of public opinion?!!


I voted no (big shock I'm sure)

 

DON'T mistake John Howard's willingness to continue backing the US against Iraq, in the face of apparently overwhelming public opposition to war, as a show of bravado.

Privately, he is just as certain that he is doing the right thing by Australia's national interests. The linkage between weapons of mass destruction and terror, and Australia's vulnerability in that equation in the wake of the Bali bombings, weighs much more heavily on his mind than any concern to hitch a ride with US foreign policy in the name of the ANZUS treaty.

Howard does not believe that either the polls or the huge anti-war demonstrations witnessed in the past few days are a true reflection of where voter opinion will finally come to rest. In his view, the present sentiment is part formed because the case against Iraq is part heard. In other words, the eventual public judgment will only be known when all the negotiations are played out. If the US, along with Britain and Australia, are seen to exhaust all UN processes and Saddam Hussein continues to defy the Security Council, Howard still believes that a second resolution authorising the use of force is possible. With the situation fluid, he thinks public opinion is also, by definition, changeable.

He also believes that the opinion polls have been narrow in the "black-white, war-peace" cast of their questions, a view shared by Liberal pollster, Mark Textor. For instance, Howard says privately, if the question was: "Would you support a military strike against Iraq if it refuses to surrender its weapons of mass destruction?", you would get an entirely different result to the present poll figures.

Howard's analysis also goes to the political demographic involved in the protest marches. In his view, it's the Left broadly defined ? and that includes the inner-city upper middle class ? galvanising in the same way as they did over the cause of Aboriginal reconciliation. Remember the marches in Sydney and Melbourne? They drew a combined crowd of 400,000, as Howard watched, seemingly isolated and alone, from Kirribilli House. Except he wasn't, and when the election came around he won. From that experience, Howard is convinced that voters compartmentalise issues. They can feel strongly about the war on Iraq. But they can end up voting on economic management, interest rates and strength of leadership.

Provided the war is not a wholesale disaster, who says the same principle might not apply? Some evidence for it is already on the table in the form of Newspoll. In late January, the Coalition vote was 44 per cent, compared with Labor's 36 per cent. Howard was preferred prime minister by a margin of 58 per cent to Simon Crean's 19 per cent. The last Newspoll, on February 4, had the Coalition on 43 per cent against Labor's 37 per cent and Howard on 56 per cent, compared with Crean's 23 per cent. In Howard's mind, this suggests if people are exercised about a possible war, they're not changing their votes on the issue in dramatic numbers. Having said that, tomorrow's Newspoll will test the validity of his theory.

Thanks to Glen Milne and The Australian for that piece from today's paper.

Basically he is counting on the war being brief and succesful, and for damning evidence to emerge from Iraq after the war is over. To take a punt I would say the odds are in his favour. What with the senate obstructing everything, a DD around november isn't too unlikely.

 

2 'yes' votes so far but no reason for them. (EDIT: d'oh! stoopid slow machine!!)

I voted no. I can't see how a man put in that position to represent the people of this country can say he won't listen to the opinion of those same and still be fit to rule.

Don't forget, he works for us, not the other way around.

 

The linkage between weapons of mass destruction and terror... weighs much more heavily on his mind than any concern to hitch a ride with US foreign policy in the name of the ANZUS treaty.

Um... what link? Glen Milne needs to read a little more about the history of terrorism, particularly the part where Saddam outlaws religious fundamentalism and fights for 30 years to get rid of it, and the bit where Usama calls Saddam 'an infidel apostate that must be killed.'

 

I didn't put Howard there, so I won't be returning him. If Howard used some real leadership and made a proper case for our involvment, then I'd reconsider it. But he's let the anti-American/anti-establishment elements to get out a horribly embellished account of what's going on.

A war in Iraq may cost innocent people's lives, but no war in Iraq is still going to cost lives as well and will also ensure Hussien stays in power. February 16 was a basic show of support for the Iraqi people that will acheive nothing, even if no war happens.

 

A war in Iraq may cost innocent people's lives, but no war in Iraq is still going to cost lives as well and will also ensure Hussien stays in power.

Like I've said, US Foreign Policy objectives are the reasons behind this invasion, and not disarmament, liberation, or destroying ties to terrorist groups, and as a result of this, terrorism will surge, achieving exactly what the world doesn?t want. The only way to really bring peace to Iraq successfully is through the weapons inspections. If UNSCOM could get rid of a substantial amount of Iraq?s WMD infrastructure with no cooperation from the Baath party, then UNMOVIC clearly has an easier task this time around. Once Iraqi disarmament has been verified, than economic sanctions can be lifted, and Iraq can begin to reconstruct itself economically. The development of a viable middle class that cuts across religious, ethnic, and tribal lines is the only thing that can give birth to peace and democracy. Dropping bombs and installing puppet regimes will never achieve this.

 

I wasn't planning on voting for him before Feb 16... he just isn't working for the country anymore. His mandate has become too cushy and he is out of touch in many regards.

 

I wouldn't have voted for him, anyway.

 

I don't really see the point of this poll, and for a very good reason.

WAR HAS NOT YET BEEN DECLARED.

At this stage, as I'm sure I don't have to explain to you, war is and has been a last resort.

The only reason that Saddam Hussein is cooperating the little he has, is because of the pressure that other nations are putting on him. If there weren't thousands of troops in the Gulf right now, Saddam would probably have a much larger covert weapons manufactoring operation going on.

Wether or not he has links to terrorist groups (he probably does) there is a dammed good reason why the UN banned Saddam Hussein from producing WMD - because he has used them in the past, and is more than likely going to use them again if he is appeased by nations of weak will. The UN Security Council has clearly established the fact that they will use force if Iraq does not cooperate, and they MUST go by the rules they set, or else the UN faces irrelevancy.

Crimson Larko, US Intelligence has established through its sources that Iraq has been hiding weapons. As much as I'm sure the weapns Inspectors are doing everything they can, I doubt very much that they will find their needle in the haystack.

You don't change your policies as soon as people start marching on the streets.

Why is he thinking of an early election? Well, its only speculation of course. But if the Iraq issue passes thriugh easily as it should, the polls are likely to change in his favour.

 

War hasn't been declared?

Riiiiiiiight.

That's why Howard is, as we speak, trying to convince the NZ PM (and others) why it is 'vital' to join the coalition in the war against Iraq...

I'm sure Australia will never ever be involved in war in Iraq.


(If Howard isn't committed to war in Iraq, why is he saying that he hasn't been swayed by the peace protests? Swayed from what? If he hasn't committed, if he is indeed waiting to decide whether Australia will be involved, why would he already dismiss public opposition to the war?)


The one thing that these protests have shown is just who is going to war here: the politicians, not the public.

 

I didnt say that war is unlikely scenario. Hell yeah it is!

Oh and look...if it isnt the boy who deosnt like generalisations! Welcome OzHaggis!

These protests are not rallies for peace - they are nothing less than rallies for appeasement.

 

I had no intention of voting for Howard before February 16, and my intentions have not changed one bit.

There are many issues at play which both sides seem to ignore. Quite frankly, it is rare to see Australians in the streets protesting about anything. To me, that says a lot right there. The numbers in Brisbane were too many to mostly made up of uni student rent-a-crowds, and the numbers in Sydney and Melbourne were even greater. Howard is trying to repeat the Liberal leadership's Vietnam war-cry of "All the way with LBJ", and expecting that Bush will come and help if we need it in the future.

As to why Howard refuses to put the issue to a referendum, the answer is simple - very few referendums have been successful in our history, regardless of how cleverly phrased the question has been. The first notable failure I can think of was the issue of conscription in 1916. That referendum was soundly defeated, and Australia possessed the sole volunteer army of all nations fighting the Great War.

Is it overly facetious of me to assume that, based on historical evidence, America's real reason for any invasion of Iraq is economically motivated? Since independence, the US has not entered into a war unless they could see a clear economic gain. America even shelled Tokyo Bay in the 1860s to "persuade" the Japanese it was in their best interests to open up trade relations. War is big business in the US, and always has been. About the only people to do well out of the Vietnam War were the contractors supplying the US military with equipment and services. I admit to not being as well informed about all of the issues as I possibly should be.

In the end, on the surface, and even a couple of layers below it, there is no justifiable connection between Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Crimson_Larko nailed it earlier. bin Laden went as far saying some time ago that Hussein was an infidel and a heretic - those words aren't exactly jokes made over a pint of beer.

 

These protests are not rallies for peace - they are nothing less than rallies for appeasement.

and this shows excactly how much you know about peace protests. people there offer alternatives, the organisations, and the speakers.
not appeasment.
if you actually went to one, you might know.

and no, i would not return johnny. not that i got him there in the first place. or would have, had i been eligable to vote. which i probably won't be this time either. so this was kinda pointless.

yes.

 

[kindergarten mode]

I don't go to the rallies because I don't think peace is a viable option. I support WAR!

[/kindergarten mode]

 

I don't really see the point of this poll, and for a very good reason.

WAR HAS NOT YET BEEN DECLARED.

This isn't about war. I never mentioned it. I was referring to the protests held across the country, and our leader's statement that he is not going to be swayed by popular opinion.

(EDIT: I did mention the word 'war')

 

I wonder what the results will be, especially considering the obviously broad political cross-section of the Australian community we have inhabiting these boards You could've dropped the "after the events of 16 february" from the title and the same result would have occurred.


I voted "yes" for reasons I've outlined on several occasions and in several threads (most of them very similar to this one, strangely). I'd rather have a PM with the conviction to overthrow an evil and oppressive regime (such as the one in Iraq) than one who would sit on his/her hands and continue to let a ruthless dictator reign.

If Howard used some real leadership and made a proper case for our involvment, then I'd reconsider it.

He's actually stated his case and reasons for involvement a number of times through various mediums (radio mainly). How strange that the media chooses only to show very tiny snippets of those interviews. Though I think, if it actually came to war, the PM would give a national address (similar to what he did with Timor). We aren't at that stage yet, however

Quite frankly, it is rare to see Australians in the streets protesting about anything.

According to the latest news bulletin, a poll will be released tomorrow indicating that Australians think otherwise. The majority still seems in support of a UN-backed strike

In the end, on the surface, and even a couple of layers below it, there is no justifiable connection between Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Despite that, you would still be comfortable in a world that allows a nutcase like Saddam to have these weapons?

people there offer alternatives, the organisations, and the speakers.

I find that quite amusing considering Simon Crean was BOOED simply for saying peace lies in disarming Saddam (notice: he was indicating peaceful methods, not war). The only "alternatives" many of these protestors want is to do nothing.

 

And what generalisations are they, Marvin?


And a bit of advice: you're patronising and condescending attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you reflects poorly on you and tends to detract from any points you might be trying to make.

 

I added 'After the events of 16 February' because it was these events and the PMs reaction to them that I wanted to discuss. Not the argument for/against war, or his statements and interviews before it.

It was him saying that he would take no notice of the opinion of the people at the rallies that inspired the poll.

Just like in high school, read the question first, then read it again, then answer.

 

The only "alternatives" many of these protestors want is to do nothing.

Indeed - as I mentioned, appeasement. Some more extreme elements of the protestors even support Saddam's regime can you beleive.

 

that's fantastic Marvin.

Now, back to the topic. It was his absolute arrogance and the way he considers his opinion superior to the population. His almost dictatorial air, if you please. Discuss that.

There are a whole bunch of threads you can dig up to discuss war

 

To Kahli you listen. I'm getting tired of every thread even vaguely related to politics turning into a debate about our involvement in Iraq. This is about Howard and his actions in light of the protests, please continue to talk about that.

 

Interesting that in the leadup to the 2001 election he was accused repeatedly of pandering to base populism. Now he's arrogant and doesn't listen.

Maybe this is a wild leap, but I would bet that it's the exact same people who made those contradictory observations.

Howard is a conviction politician, he does what he thinks is right. If people agree, they vote for him. So far he has won three in a row. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

 

I think you'll find I answered your question, kahli. I support "Johnny" because he has the conviction to stand up for what he believes is right, even if not everyone agrees with him.

Now, back to the topic. It was his absolute arrogance and the way he considers his opinion superior to the population. His almost dictatorial air, if you please. Discuss that.

So, basically, this is another bash Howard thread? Don't we have enough of these already (for proof, see: every other thread in this forum)?