31 May 05
Leading up to the invasion of Iraq and resulting deaths of up to 100,000 people, the John Howard government in Australia:
1. Supported the lie that there were WMD's.
2. Referred to people marching against the invasion, and representing half the population, as a "mob" and "give comfort to Saddam".
3. Did not put support of America's invasion to a parliamentary vote.
4. Physically blocked delivery of a petition to George Bush when visiting our supposedly democratic parliament.
5. Raised the risk of terrorism in Australia while jailing and severely fining people who painted "NO WAR" on the Opera House. (I don't necessarily support those people but you can see the irony).
Australians are proud to be Australian, blah, blah. I have to say that my pride was more to do with a love of the environment and wanting to share the experience with visitors.
However, I am no longer proud to be Australian.
31 May 05
Originally posted by STANGYou are just mad because its June the 1st and Bush is still here.
Leading up to the invasion of Iraq and resulting deaths of up to 100,000 people, the John Howard government in Australia:
1. Supported the lie that there were WMD's.
2. Referred to people marching against the invasion, and representing half the population, as a "mob" and "give comfort to Saddam".
3. Did not put support of America's invasion to a par ...[text shortened]... nting to share the experience with visitors.
However, I am no longer proud to be Australian.
31 May 05
Originally posted by STANGI beat you (General).
Leading up to the invasion of Iraq and resulting deaths of up to 100,000 people, the John Howard government in Australia:
1. Supported the lie that there were WMD's.
2. Referred to people marching against the invasion, and representing half the population, as a "mob" and "give comfort to Saddam".
3. Did not put support of America's invasion to a par ...[text shortened]... nting to share the experience with visitors.
However, I am no longer proud to be Australian.
01 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by STANGWhat do you mean 'so much for DEMOCRACY'? Last year Australians exercised their democratic right to re-elect the Howard government - POST INVASION. Note that since the invasion of Iraq and subsequent severe doubts over the existence of WMDs in Iraq, Bush Blair and Howard have all been re-elected. That's democracy. Just because a vocal minority don't get things all their own way does not mean democracy is compromised. Grow up.
Leading up to the invasion of Iraq and resulting deaths of up to 100,000 people, the John Howard government in Australia:
1. Supported the lie that there were WMD's.
2. Referred to people marching against the invasion, and representing h ...[text shortened]... with visitors.
However, I am no longer proud to be Australian.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by STANGYou will always be welcome in the USA, Stan.
Leading up to the invasion of Iraq and resulting deaths of up to 100,000 people, the John Howard government in Australia:
1. Supported the lie that there were WMD's.
2. Referred to people marching against the invasion, and representing half the population, as a "mob" and "give comfort to Saddam".
3. Did not put support of America's invasion to a par ...[text shortened]... nting to share the experience with visitors.
However, I am no longer proud to be Australian.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by dfm65Democracy was compromised.
What do you mean 'so much for DEMOCRACY'? Last year Australians exercised their democratic right to re-elect the Howard government - POST INVASION. Note that since the invasion of Iraq and subsequent severe doubts over the existence of WMDs in Iraq, Bush Blair and Howard have all been re-elected. That's democracy. Just because a vocal minority don't get things all their own way does not mean democracy is compromised. Grow up.
John Howard had the money to advertise crap about the oppositions' financial track record in our own movie cinemas and spammed the public with messages to their mobile phones.
His political party also resorted to thuggery to block political opposition in marginal seats leading up to the election.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by STANG
Democracy was compromised.
John Howard had the money to advertise crap about the oppositions' financial track record in our own movie cinemas and spammed the public with messages to their mobile phones.
His political party also resorted to thuggery to block political opposition in marginal seats leading up to the election.
Man, can't believe you're giving up this easily...
The obvious solution would be to make July 1 "Get rid of John Howard Day".
You've got a month... get your a** in gear!!
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by TheBloopIt might clash with a campaign I've already got going and goes to House Of Reps this week.
Man, can't believe you're giving up this easily...
The obvious solution would be to make July 1 "Get rid of John Howard Day".
You've got a month... get your a** in gear!!
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by STANG1. John Howard supported the "lie" that there were WMDs, before it was found out it was a lie. Bush went on what UN weapon inspectors told him.
Leading up to the invasion of Iraq and resulting deaths of up to 100,000 people, the John Howard government in Australia:
1. Supported the lie that there were WMD's.
2. Referred to people marching against the invasion, and representing half the population, as a "mob" and "give comfort to Saddam".
3. Did not put support of America's invasion to a parliamentary vote.
However, I am no longer proud to be Australian.
2. What would you call them? Friends? They were a mob, of people. And of course they would give comfort to Saddam. So, John Howard was telling the truth. You going to beat him up over that as well?
3. Of course not. It was America, their parliament.
4 I never heard about, and 5 I didn't agree with the protestors. They did something illegal, and were punished.
No longer proud to be an Australian? How about you go to Bali. I will pack your bags personally. If you don't like it, leave.
Or won't your mother let you? Too young to travel on a plane by yourself?
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by D43M0NBush went on what UN weapon inspectors told him.
1. John Howard supported the "lie" that there were WMDs, before it was found out it was a lie. Bush went on what UN weapon inspectors told him.
2. What would you call them? Friends? They were a mob, of people. And of course they would give comfort to Saddam. So, John Howard was telling the truth. You going to beat him up over that as well?
3. Of ...[text shortened]... t like it, leave.
Or won't your mother let you? Too young to travel on a plane by yourself?
If you really believe that, you are incredibly ignorant of what happened in 2003. UN weapons inspectors NEVER told Bush that Saddam had existing stocks of WMD's and requested more time for inspections which were ongoing. Please get your facts straight; Bush did lie when he said "We know that Iraq has WMD's" when he, of course, knew no such thing as they didn't. If Howard repeated that lie to the Australian people, then he lied too.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOK, I did not know that part, I only remember what was in the news.
Bush went on what UN weapon inspectors told him.
If you really believe that, you are incredibly ignorant of what happened in 2003. UN weapons inspectors NEVER told Bush that Saddam had existing stocks of WMD's and requested more time for inspections which were ongoing. Please get your facts straight; Bush did lie when he said "We know t ...[text shortened]... h thing as they didn't. If Howard repeated that lie to the Australian people, then he lied too.
However, would Bush let people who were on his side in on that it was a lie? No. So, Howard was repeating what he thought was true at the time.
I am aware the press does not show and tell all...there is a heap of stuff that we don't know about in some big news cases, I am totally aware of that.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderhow do you know that and what is your evidence?
Bush went on what UN weapon inspectors told him.
If you really believe that, you are incredibly ignorant of what happened in 2003. UN weapons inspectors NEVER told Bush that Saddam had existing stocks of WMD's and requested more time for inspections which were ongoing. Please get your facts straight; Bush did lie when he said "We know t ...[text shortened]... h thing as they didn't. If Howard repeated that lie to the Australian people, then he lied too.
ttfn ...
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by STANGI do not agree with who is in office boo hoo they must be to my liking to be in office boo hoo democracys arnt supposed to have differing viewpoints i want a socialist state not a democracy boo hoo
Leading up to the invasion of Iraq and resulting deaths of up to 100,000 people, the John Howard government in Australia:
1. Supported the lie that there were WMD's.
2. Referred to people marching against the invasion, and representing half the population, as a "mob" and "give comfort to Saddam".
3. Did not put support of America's invasion to a par ...[text shortened]... nting to share the experience with visitors.
However, I am no longer proud to be Australian.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotHans Blix's report to the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003 said this:
how do you know that and what is your evidence?
ttfn ...
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks?
While co-operation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure,
it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions.
It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
http://www.mideastnews.com/blix070303.html
Read the whole report as well as the one on February 14, 2003. At no time did the UN weapons inspectors state that Iraq had WMD's in 2003. Those are the facts.