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

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

Yes, I am. Mainly because I know that Saddam can't threaten us directly with these weapons. The only nation Saddam can threaten who has a friendly ear in the west is Israel, and they have proven many times over the last 55years that they are not afraid to use force to protect their interests. Or have you forgotten they bombed Iraq's only nuclear reactor in the early 1980s?

It pains me that these weapons exist, certainly, but the mere existence of biological and chemical weapons in Saddam's hands isn't to me, sufficient justifiable cause for a war, when many other nations possess them as well, not to mention the fact that America has frequently made use of radioactive weapons on battlefields over the last fifteen years. Last time I checked, the US military was still making use of depleted uranium in armour piercing shells, and using them in combat.

Going to war in Iraq is morally reprehensible if the justification is the removal of WMD from the hands of a madman. It reeks of hypocrisy when the weapons used to disarm the nutter are as distasteful as the toys being taken away.

Editted for mark-up codes.

 

geez, is this a star wars board or a political one?

 

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.


Being Prime Minister does not give you the right to do what you please no matter how strongly you believe it.


Hitler stood up for what he believed was right (and no I do not see Howard as Hitler)

 

edited

*stops*

*looks around*


*shakes head*

I wont even bother.

Don't make me have to edit something like that again, Raincloud - calling the people on this board freaks isn't acceptable.

 

...and where do you get off calling people on these boards freaks?

Because they believe in their own opinion and not yours?

As far as I'm aware, these boards are not representative of a facist society led by your rule.

Back on topic though... I voted NO which I'm sure comes as no great shock. If ever Howard was a fit man to represent our country as a leader, his time has long past.

 

I saw you answered it Stinrab. I also saw you then posted para upon para italicising other peoples statements and then rebutting which wastes so much time and I know I for one stop reading after about 3 paras.

You're not the only one who wandered off into the whole pro/anti howard/american/war sentiment.

I asked what I thougt was a simple question. It was really a yes/no and 'cos he's a git' or 'cos he's the strong leader this country needs!' thang.

 

Yeah there do seems to be a lot of Howard threads...and if I'm not mistaken, gasp, I think the last one was started by you khali! Isn't one enough?

They call it a representative democracy for a reason - we elect people to make our decisions, we don't.

...ever Howard was a fit man to represent our country as a leader, his time has long past.

Why? Because you don't agree with him? I have never ever agreed with anything with what Bob brown says, but I'm not going around saying he's not fot to be a Senator.

 

I was foolish enough to think that maybe the events of last Sunday, from the street rallies to the 60 minutes interview etc might have changed or firmed people's opinion of our honourable PM. That some fanforcers might have something to offer in their interpretation of those events.

I was mistaken. As this thread has shown no one was listening and in fact lack basic comprehension skills, so I would suggest this thread be made redundant and you can all go back to the more generalised threads.

(sorry if that sounds like flaming, but I seriously could not find a more PC way to express the fact that depsite repeated requests, people keep bringing up the war issue and others not directly related to the poll)

 

Sign. Life sux eh?

 

indeed.

At least, judging by the way you avoid the question, you'll make an excellent politician.

 

You people are beginning to sound just like the ignorant masses.

There is much more to this little conflict that meets the eye I would say and you could only analyse all of the costs and benefits if all of the information was available to you.

That is why I don't have an opinion anymore on this issue.

 

Too bad you completely missed the 'issue' of this thread, Nyder.

...and after Kahli went and explained it all again, too.

 

Let's all chill a bit. It's getting a wee bit firey in here

Anyway, back on topic
kahli; you can't say with conviction that the people who went to (and/or supported) those protests make up the majority of Australians. Heck, some of the people who marched probably would support a UN-sanctioned war (and were just against a US-Brit-AUS-only coalition). Most opinion polls still show support for such an attack and the Coalition is still way in front of any other party.

 

Wasn't the topic about what Howard said regarding the people of Australia? Why does everyone insist on bringing this back to the 'war'?

 

Because thats what the "events of 16 February" refer to.

 

The "events of 16 February" are the protests, and Howard's reaction to it. The protests may have been about the war, but that's not what the topic is asking.

 

I voted no.

Its not that I don't like war, I do. Its just the way Howard bows down to the US, which doesn't care about Australia that really annoys me. I can't see anything that makes me want to be proud in this country when our leader runs around kissing the coat tails of a Texan Oil Man.

No respect.

Tayschrenn

 

I know, strinrab, I know. That's why I was asking for opinions on the PM, not the people marching.

 

I was speaking in reply to this comment, BTW:

It was his absolute arrogance and the way he considers his opinion superior to the population.

My point was that the marches don't represent "the population"; hence, my position

 

Well, khali and other here dont seem to like Howard that much.

So what do you think of Saddam? Do you think he is a nice bloke? How come you weren't protesting against him?

 

He's not the only dictator in the world, should we go after all of them?

 

So what do you think of Saddam? Do you think he is a nice bloke?

Is anything in the world as black and white as that? There is so much in this issue. Justification, war, oil, peace, public opinion, etc. I think in this topic we just have to look at: is Howard listening to public opinion or not and/or is he worth re-electing?

stinrab brought up polls Vs. the rallies - good point. How accurate do you think these polls are, do you think that a poll could be as great of an indication of the rallies that have taken place? Would as many people who voted 'yes' in a poll take to the streets to support the war as those that voted 'no' would?

Tayschrenn

 

Do you think it's unreasoable to think that for every person who went to the protest, there is at least one person who didn't go to the protest but did support the protest?

Or how about ten?

Or one hundred?

What about people who couldn't travel to Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, New York, or Paris, but still support the protests?

The protests only represent the people who were passionate enough about the issue to get off their couches and make the trip to the city.

Using them as a definitive headcount is as reliable as using a headcount of a FF meet to measure the public's opinion of Star Wars...

 

Using them as a definitive headcount is as reliable as using a headcount of a FF meet to measure the public's opinion of Star Wars...

Truer words have never been posted on this board.

By refusing to have a legally recognisable poll on the matter, Howard is demonstrating that he is afraid of the result of such a poll. The question can be sugar-coated until our teeth rot, but the fact is, there appears to be sufficient disapproval of the matter that question of Australian involvement should be reconsidered carefully, with all the pertinent facts in the open. Howard is blindly following Bush and Blair down a road to perdition, and as our elected leader, he has a responsibility to public to provide the evidence that can counter the argument in favour of not going to war.

Personally, I'm in favour of supporting Howard if justifiable cause to do so exists. However, if that cause cannot be provided, then my support for such support evaporates faster than a snowball in hell.

 

No.