Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413

    Australia : Howard rejects Iraq war 'lie' claim

    Howard rejects Iraq war 'lie' claim
    Tuesday April 9, 2013



    Former prime minister John Howard has emphatically rejected the 'most notorious claim of all' about his government's conduct - that Australia went to war in Iraq based on a 'lie' about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

    After Sydney protesters forced a last-minute change of venue for his speech on the 10th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, Mr Howard said there was a 'near universal' belief that Iraq had WMDs, including from former Labor leader Kevin Rudd.

    'After the fall of Saddam, and when it became apparent that stockpiles of WMDs had - to me unexpectedly - not been found in Iraq, it was all too easy for certain people to begin claiming that Australia had gone to war based on a lie,' Mr Howard said.

    'Not only does (that claim) impugn the integrity of the decision-making process at the highest level, but also the professionalism and integrity of intelligence agencies here and elsewhere.

    'Some of their key assessments proved to be wrong, but that is a world away from those assessments being the product of deceit and/or political manipulation.'

    The chants of street protesters could be heard faintly inside the city hotel where Mr Howard spoke on Tuesday night.

    The venue was switched from the nearby Lowy Institute, whose director Michael Fullilove said he was determined not to be cowed by an 'anti-democratic minority' who wanted to stop Mr Howard from speaking.

    Mr Howard acknowledged that his government's most controversial decision had polarised attitudes in Australia, and that time probably had not softened them.

    But the decision was right because it was in Australia's national interests, and the removal of Saddam's regime provided the Iraqi people with opportunities for freedom not otherwise in prospect.

    Mr Howard said the circumstances of the US-led invasion necessitated a '100 per cent ally, not a 70 or 80 per cent one'.

    He said Australia's relationship with China had since burgeoned, apparently unhindered by concerns in Beijing that 'we were too close to the United States'.

    'I have long held the view that the Chinese 'get' our alliance with America. They understand its historical, political and cultural provenance,' he said.

    'If anything, our actions in Iraq reinforced the reputation of Australia as a nation that stands by its friends, even in difficult circumstances.' Mr Howard said that early in 2003 the world still lived in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks.

    The US had entered a new phase of 'profound vulnerability' and remained preoccupied with when and where the next terrorist attack on her homeland would occur.

    The fact that no further attacks had taken place was greatly to the credit of presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama, but 'little of that credit has been forthcoming'.

    President Bush's 'troop surge', committing 30,000 more soldiers when pressure was growing to pull out of Iraq, was a 'gutsy call' which had proven overwhelmingly successful.

    Mr Howard said it was too early to determine to what extent democracy had really taken root in Iraq.

    skynews.com.au

  2. #2
    IV
    Wally Dorian Raffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    12-09-2019 @ 05:24 PM
    Location
    Location: Location: Three sausages went to the station, and wound up at immigration!
    Posts
    5,499
    In a 'war' against Islam extremists, the only country in the region that did not enforce extremist Islamic views was invaded - with no evidence that they were behind the attacks on America.

    Saddam was a ruthless bastard, but as was proven, he was mostly full of hot air regarding his anti-American rants.

    I will never forget the day the war started, and thinking WTF?

    Dubwa was obsessed with getting revenge on him for 'trying to kill his daddy' and his famous 'mission accomplished' banner proves that he predicted the war to be over in a matter of weeks, as it was when his daddy was in power.

    The war was 'based on' 911, then WMDs, then finally human right abuses in the 1980's.

    The reasons for invading kept changing.

    Defininatly a farce war.

  3. #3
    Thailand Expat
    sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    04-09-2019 @ 05:06 AM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    30,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Mid
    Former prime minister John Howard has emphatically rejected the 'most notorious claim of all' about his government's conduct - that Australia went to war in Iraq based on a 'lie' about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
    The Frauds were exposed before the invasion even commenced. The mainstream press avoided publicising these rebuttals all together, or just added them as an 'opinion' at the closing paragraph of an article. I know, because I was following the whole situation closely, aghast at the apparent stupidity and mendacity of the Bush administration.

    It doesn't matter that you are a bare faced liar little johny. You are irrelevant.

    probes Aliens

  4. #4
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    1,400
    I personaly dont think Howard to be all that honest.

  5. #5
    Thailand Expat terp80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Online
    25-03-2018 @ 12:52 PM
    Location
    Chiang Mai - Maryland (US)
    Posts
    1,626

    Unhappy Unjustified . . .

    According to the reports of Hans Blix of the IAEA, there was no evidence that Iraq had WMD's, and there was no evidence that Iraq was a "present danger" to the U.S. So I contacted my senators and protested in Washington. [However, in 2001, I was in favor of the Allied invasion of the Al Qaeda/Taliban stronghold of Afghanistan.] Do I think I am brilliant? Absolutely not. Is it disheartening to accept that so many intelligent people, including members of various governments and especially the press, were so eager to go to war under those circumstances? Absolutely.

  6. #6
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    1,400
    I agree with what you have said.

  7. #7
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    23-10-2014 @ 05:31 PM
    Posts
    1,201
    A shit load of Saudi citizens supposedly brought down the towers etc on 9/11 so what does America do ? Attack Iraq. A country that had nothing to do with the attack and actually was against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Evidently they have arrested yet another saudi for the Boston marathon bombings. Who this time Iran ?
    They most certainly won't be troubling Saudi Arabia over this as they didn't the last attack !
    Treat everyone as a complete and utter idiot and you can only ever be pleasantly surprised !

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •