Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Jenny, you have written that you are “uncomfortable with tyrants, who kill their people, and threaten the world.” I am sure that most people would agree with you.

The problem I have is that war is not the best way of removing a tyrant. Often we end up replacing on tyrant with another. If we use war to remove tyrants we often kill and maim many who are innocent.  

I think we should charge tyrants in the international court and if found guilty we should use all methods possible short of war to bring the tyrant to justice. If we kill innocent people to bring a tyrant to justice we risk becoming tyrants ourselves.

Phil: You say: From memory Saddam stated that there were no WMD left in Iraq. Yes your memory is correct.

And you go on to quote Blix and Co. Why not Butler who voiced a different view and he was there too, and had been given the real runaround? And why the sanctions if the UN did not believe they existed? I suggest there were good reasons not to trust Saddam Hussein when it came to WMD or anything else for that matter. He will deny he used gas on the Kurds I am sure when that comes up in his trial. Should we believe him if he does?

Let us take your farm analogy. The whole town believes I am concealing drugs out there (God forbid!). I deny it till the cows come home. I have been known to have drugs there in the past, and supplied them to my workforce. I have even attempted in the past to extend my paddocks to grow a bit more on the neighbour's land, but the neighbours pushed me back with the help of some tough guys on their side. I am not letting anyone on the place now if I can help it. And I've got my own army at the gate. But you can take a bit of a look around here and there if you l don't believe me. No. You cannot go in that shed. I only keep my tractor there and I need it to bury things. No, Not drugs. Other things. (Like people Phil?) And you cannot have my files. Tax office you know. You might tell I have more than the place is worth and they'll start asking questions. Might reveal my plans.  Private you know. And no, you cannot talk to the lads working on the place if I am not present. You cannot take them to town and question them. Hell now. You say you don't believe me so you are going to wreck the place for me, because I am obstructing the search. Well, we'll see about that. Some of the lads will fight for me. They might get killed but I will take my chances. I've got billions in the bank anyway. I'll be OK.  

Well, Phil. Would not my sensible reply have been, knowing I was telling the truth as you say, have been:

Feel free. Come on in. Turn over every damned stone on the place, look under every log, prise open every locked shed, do what you like. Crawl over inch of the place if you like. Take the lads home and talk to them by all means. I say there are no drugs here. Just make sure you leave things as you find them when you go, and pay any bills you run up.

Saddam did quite the opposite to that. No, he had choices, and having his country attacked is one that he could have avoided. But he chose not to. One must wonder why. He just played games. When you have a track record like him, you cannot afford to play games with the world. You do so, at your peril. Sadly, the lads did get killed. But does he care? No. All he cares about is whether he gets a pen or some clean underwear. That is the mark of the man.

Phil. If there is one image I cannot erase from my mind. It is that of those men, women and children in those ghastly poses, those 5000 gassed Kurds clutching their children as they died in agony. I think that more than anything that told me we cannot afford to believe this man, not on anything. Yes, people are getting killed in this war, and yes it is ghastly. And it appears there were no WMD. But ask me to believe that he was never going to get them or use them again once the sanctions had gone. Well sorry, but I simply cannot buy that for one minute. This man had to go, sooner or later, and he and his murderous sons were never going to go peacefully. He was a Hitler at heart. And they do not change their hearts. Never. They bide their time, and then all hell breaks loose. And gas is their speciality. And we all say, why did we believe this guy, after millions died, having to deal with him. Yes, the wisdom of hindsight. Useless to the dead I am afraid.

Quite frankly. I will not be sorry when my time comes to leave this planet. It is not a happy place. And believe me. I have no illusions about certain individuals in the US either. See the latest on who benefits most from the Tamiflu vaccine.

Will, there seems to be some thread-crossing here. I am not sure about how appropriate that is, nor how practical.

In regard to your question. The UN charter clearly states all members ...

I would have thought the term 'members' is what is relevant here. Israel, as a member, and as a signatory to the Geneva Convention has responsibilities which other groups who are not members or signatories, do not have.

That's not to say that aggression wherever it is found should not be challenged but that those who claim to abide by an established 'bar' will be judged according to the 'height' of that 'bar.'

The actions of the UN, like the actions of government in democracies, are accountable to law. Both the UN and Government are also accountable to public opinion. What may be considered acceptable at one time is not considered acceptable at another. The world today, legally, or morally, would not accept a partition of Palestine or any country.

In the same way, when Australia and the US were colonised, people accepted this in a way they would not today. Because of current attitudes, those nations which exist by colonisation an which were founded in the past few hundred years have been called to account.

Ditto the UN. This is not 'my' view per se:. It is a view which I share. It did not come about because I came to this conclusion... it came about through increased enlightenment in the world and I accepted it because it makes sense and is just.

But all this has been said over and over again. Subject closed. It's circular and the wrong thread anyway.

What is relevant to this thread Will is the reality of war, and the inevitability of atrocities and suffering which always accompanies war. The reality of war for the Iraqis, who are not surprised by Haditha because it is the norm, not the exception, is a reality which people sitting safely in their cosy homes would inflict on Iranians as well (excerpt):

The reason is simple: For Iraqis, American atrocities are old news, dating back to the invasion in March 2003 and a full decade earlier. (U.S. planes dropped so many bombs on Iraqi schools, hospitals and power plants during the 1990s that they ran out of targets.)

Meanwhile, in the "new" Iraq, Abdel Salam al-Qubaisy of Iraq's Sunni Muslim Scholars Association says, U.S. massacres of civilians occur routinely. "The American soldier has become an expert in killing," he shrugs. Like many Iraqis, Baghdad shopkeeper Mohammed Jawdaat says that U.S. troops have never shown respect for the lives of Iraqi civilians. "Six months ago," remembers Jawdaat, "a car pulled out of a street towards an American convoy and a soldier just opened fire. The driver was shot in the head. There were no warning shots and the Americans didn't even stop."

Abd Mohammed Falah, a Ramadi attorney, says: "U.S. forces have committed more crimes against the Iraqi people than appears in the media. The U.S. defense secretary and his generals should be sent to court instead of two or three soldiers who will be scapegoats."

This is the reality of war. How anyone can choose to inflict this on yet more people, the Iranians, beggars belief.

And, as discussed before, the world at large, some 86.9 percent in a 2003 survey judged the US to be the greatest threat to world peace. Israel is also a front-runner in those stakes. The survey was done before the war and Iraq came in as a threat at 6.3 and North Korea at 6.7. One presumes, given the disaster of the Iraqi invasion and occupation and now threats of war against Iran, that those figures have increased and not decreased.

Phil, well I will pass on tangling with you on all that. But I take your interpretation and view of history past and in progress on board. And I note you say the war in your view is about more than oil. Believe it nor not, I did not support going to war. But my reasons were not the same as yours. And yes, the Vietnam boys. I saw what it did to them. We took a lot of young fellows on R and R and I note today the suicide rate amongst the children of the Australian vets is four times the national average, which does not surprise me one bit. But I still maintain we have to see that war in the context of the historical times, and in the context of the fears of the generation of those who led us into it. I saw what WW1 and 2, did to my parents generation. I could understand a bit where they might all be coming from in their fear of the domino theory, whether it be real or not.

Now about your little analogy. Don't shoot! You can take the bloody place. Ian calls it Hypocricy Farm anyway and it's not worth dying for. It's dry as chips and now they say there's a rat invasion coming from Belke country. So I am out of there. You can have the rats for free. Feed them to snakes. ;As for the abattoirs. None would employ me. The last time I went near one I nearly ended up in gaol. I let out all the cattle you see and pinched their hay to feed them. No. Let those who eat the beast slaughter the beast I say. But count me out.

You would not be calling me an intelligent punter would you? ;Punter maybe, intelligent probably not. You see, I lost my university degree. Five years of hard work down the drain. But worthless piece of paper in my view. You see, I happen to believe if you teach ethics, then you practise it. And that mob I studied under told me a monumental lie, and the public (about the monkeys they had and what they were doing with them and I caught them out) so I took it back and threw it in the VC's face. So sadly, I am once again relegated to the ranks of the uneducated.

Angela, yes, knew that. Hitler and Bush as you all say, one and the same. Well OK. I note your comparison. The Amish. No. You won't find me there though if the price of fuel up our way gets much higher, well then I might just have to hire a horse. 1.52 and rising fast. A horse would be cheaper on reflection. Maybe the Amish have got it right.

Roslyn, I do wish you a safe trip wherever you are headed. Not to Angola again I hope. If to Africa you might let me know if Childcare is spending my money how they say they are. And CBMI too if you run into them. And if any of them are into spending even part of my money on building churches then tell them from me the Covenanters managed to pray in the fields and use a rock as the altar, so they can too. God does not need a house. Cheers folks.

Will Howard, you wrote:

"Actually, Bob, the map you linked us to was one of the ones I used to make my estimates."

This is when I posted the map I found:

Previously:

"Submitted by Will Howard on May 18, 2006 - 11:09am.

Here's what I meant to get out there:

The site of Deir Yassin is not at the same location as Yad Vashem. The two sites are a few kilometers* away from each other, as a look at the two maps will establish."

The above extracts are from Roslyn's thread. This is from Should Iran be attacked:

For starters, the site of Deir Yassin is not at the same location as Yad Vashem. The two sites are a few kilometers away from each other, as a look at the two maps will establish."

Seems to be a bit of a discrepancy.

Jenny writes: “Saddam Hussein had the choice of co-operating fully over the WMD issue and he chose not to.”

From memory Saddam stated that there were no WMD left in Iraq. Saddam allowed UN inspectors into Iraq. Hans Blix could not find any WMD. Scott Ritter said there were no WMD that posed a threat. Scott Ritter said the disposal of WMD was pretty well completed (by the early 90s) and if there were any left they were past their use by date and not a threat, nor did the Iraqi’s have the means to deploy same. Scott said if the records showed they (WMD) were not all destroyed then this was due to “accounting errors”.  Hans Blix wanted more time to find WMD. George said “no” get out of Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz stated (after the war commenced) that WMD “for bureaucratic reasons” was the best to get everyone to agree on a war with Iraq.

Saddam was telling the truth, Scott was telling the truth, and Hans was discovering the truth. Paul admitted the truth. If war was the last resort then why did GWB pull Hans out of Iraq, and what was the hurry? Bush, Blair and Howard were telling lies.

It is sad (even embarrassing) seeing intelligent punters clutching at straws, twisting the truth in their desperate attempts to rationalise their own naivety and the simple fact that they were stooged. I suppose it is a bitter pill for “intelligent” people to swallow that a murdering tyrant was far more honest than those “noble” liars who had their minds made up to have the war they just had to have.

As long as “intelligent” people can be so easily stooged then what hope for the future? 

For those wanting links re the above then go find them yourself (if you are game). All the above is well documented not only on this site (thanks to Bob Wall and others) but all over the internet.

Jenny whether you like it or not, it was BB& H who had the choice to avoid war not Saddam.

Jenny; thank you for the comment. The domino theory was once again a successful tactic (in the short term) to scare people into supporting an unnecessary war. It always amused me what would happen when the dominos reached the southern tip of the Minh Hai province. Vietnam was not Russia so once again we have the problem of apples and oranges. To be honest I doubt whether most Australians even knew were Vietnam was.

In the dying days of the Vietnam War I lived near an American military base thus knew many young enlisted men. My girlfriend was an entertainer who had spent seven months in Vietnam entertaining the American troops and also had many relationships with these frightened young men or really boys. Poorly educated, frightened and knowing nil about the people or culture of Vietnam it is no wonder that many atrocities occurred. The world finally woke up (thanks to the efforts of such human beings as your other half) and the rest is history, to our shame. The Vietnam adventure cost the lives of over a million innocent Vietnamese, 50,000 Americans (the majority draftees of colour), 500 young Australians and billions of dollars; for what? Dominoes? Who were the financial benefactors of this debacle? I learnt much about the American military in those days and it probably comes as no surprise corruption and exploitation were common attributes within this “noble” establishment. I won’t give examples for fear of incriminating myself.

Now Iraq; once again fear and lies were the weapons of choice to encourage the ordinary and generally ignorant punters into supporting this unnecessary war; at least in America. It would also appear that judging by current polls in America the majority of Americans no longer buy it. Probably as the ugly reality of the daily atrocities committed by frightened and poorly trained young boys (who once again know nil about the people and culture of those they are supposed to be liberating) surfaces in the MSM then even more Americans will oppose this debacle.

You say that this war was all about oil and that we cannot survive without oil. The latter would be hard to disprove however the former is arguable. America could buy a hell of a lot of Iraqi oil for the billions and possibly trillions of dollars this war has or will cost the American taxpayer. Once again I ask: who are the financial benefactors of this adventure? Personally I tend to look at this adventure as a redistribution of wealth from the American taxpayer to the American military industries and supporting corporations. A protection racquet, that make the mafia look like rank amateurs. GWB as the puppet Don promises to be the protector of the people while skimming their hard earned dollars to the benefit of his daddy and his daddy’s mates. At least the mafia generally tries to avoid the killing of innocent women and children. GWB and his mates have no such scruples. Hopefully one day they will have to answer for their crimes but I won’t hold my breath waiting.

Oil is only part of the equation and to infer that securing oil supplies in some way justifies the actions of the COW is erroneous. If somebody owns a commodity that you need then war is not the way to negotiate; at least not for the “civilized” person. If for whatever reason that commodity is withheld then surely diplomacy and peaceful negotiation is the way to go. If that does not work then war is still not an option.

It would be a bit like me saying I need a property to live on so I will ask Jenny to sell me some of hers. Jenny says; “No, this property belongs to me and I want to keep it all”. I say; “But I have nowhere to live and it is only moral and fair that you sell me some of your property, as such I am within my rights to take to necessary action to look after my interests, whether you like it or not.” Jenny says; “I have a few weapons to protect myself; a .22 for small vermin and a .303 for bigger vermin. I say: “So what, I have RPGs” and thus make it known that Jenny is now a threat, not only to me and vermin but probably her neighbours as well. I now feel I have a moral right to protect Jenny’s neighbours and thus fire a RPG into the homestead, “accidentally” killing Ian and relieving Jenny of her legs. I then move in, take a slice of the land, sell off the stock and pay Jenny (a pittance) for the land I stole and to compensate for the loss of Ian. Jenny will also have to repair the now destroyed homestead with the pittance she received from the sale of her stock. Jenny will then have to continue on with her life as a double amputee, without her loving partner, and now relying on the good nature of others for her survival. After a while the “others” tire of supporting Jenny, call her a bludger, withdraw her benefits, and make her seek employment at the Cowra meatworks where she toils under a new work place agreement for $8 an hour.

You ask: what would happen if Saddam was not removed (although the removal of Saddam was not the reason for war, WMD was, though many choose to forget this). My answer to that is: how long is a piece of string? We will never know however those who support this atrocity will speculate to the cows come home to rationalise and offer some justification for being stooged.

Morality; a dangerous and reckless term that when introduced by those who support theft and murder do so at their peril. Personally I see very little morality in this world today, only interests, where morality is twisted and perverted to justify greed.

I like snakes and have had a number of them as pets, but I love rats and if you want to learn a little more about morality then spending some times with rats (and snakes) would be a good starting point. Long after we humans disappear up our own "moral" backsides it will be rats (and cockroaches) who will inherit the earth, and good luck to them.

Yours sincerely,

Phil Moffrat.

Will Howard: "I thought Arab media outlets like al-Jazeera et al covered the Haditha story fairly thoroughly? No?"

And if I'm not mistaken, it was that bastion of anti-American sentiment Time Magazine who actually first pushed this story.

Odd how some people are so selective in their outrage of incidents like Haditha. While all the while being quite at ease when the "resistance" deliberately targets civilians and women and children all the time.

"We cannot afford to be choosy. While we abhor and condemn the continuing loss of innocent life in Iraq, we have no choice now but to support the resistance, for if the resistance fails, the “Bush gang” will attack another country."

- John Pilger.

There won't be an inquiry into "resistance" murders, will there Bob?

Will Howard, the question on the matter of the reaction to Haditha is covered in the material I linked. I have posted a great deal of material previously about events in Iraq. Perhaps you missed it all.

But wait, there's more:

A BBC report of more possible murders.

11 people this time.

As to the election fraud mention, the relevance was to one of the justifications used by war apologists, you might have seen the words I used in the post:

'All the talk about spreading democracy ...'.

As to further evidence, you must have missed my statement:

'There is a lot more about electoral fraud in 2000 and 2004 on Irises.'

Perhaps you missed all the material there as well.

Please excuse me for crossing threads but as you seek clarity, there is something I would like you to clarify:

How did you calculate that Deir Yassin and Yad Vashem were "a few kilometres apart, as the maps will show"? And how did the maps show that?

Mike. They are not living in the Twilight Zone. They are not even on this planet. You don't mention Saddam? Well, he was just a nobody it would seem. Quite harmless one would think. Just a naughty boy perhaps? Maybe those whose bodies are lying under the desert sands might have a view on that. But as Roslyn Ross would have it, the dead are dead. Let them be. Don't worry now about what opinion they might have had about Saddam. Just let us talk about the current dead, victims of the evil US. Well, I happen to think Roslyn in so far out in space one would have trouble finding a star. She is a pacifist she says, but I am beginning to wonder what that keyboard of hers was feeling when she wrote that diatribe above to my other half. But he can deal with that, though I think I might give him all the housework to do instead. Nothing is going to come of all this, nothing at all.

The massacre at Haditha has been receiving a lot of attention in the western media. Not so much in the Arab and Muslim world - some of the material I will link explains why.

First, an eyewitness account - a 10 year old girl who saw seven members of her family killed. Video, 3 mins.

From BBC Newsnight, Iraq veterans on their experiences.

Video - short and full versions available.

Ted Rall - "The 10,000th Haditha".

Meanwhile, in the "new" Iraq, Abdel Salam al-Qubaisy of Iraq's Sunni Muslim Scholars Association says, U.S. massacres of civilians occur routinely. "The American soldier has become an expert in killing," he shrugs. Like many Iraqis, Baghdad shopkeeper Mohammed Jawdaat says that U.S. troops have never shown respect for the lives of Iraqi civilians. "Six months ago," remembers Jawdaat, "a car pulled out of a street towards an American convoy and a soldier just opened fire. The driver was shot in the head. There were no warning shots and the Americans didn't even stop."

Abd Mohammed Falah, a Ramadi attorney, says: "U.S. forces have committed more crimes against the Iraqi people than appears in the media. The U.S. defense secretary and his generals should be sent to court instead of two or three soldiers who will be scapegoats."

A personal account of an earlier incident.

All the talk about spreading democracy yet back in the USA ...

Bush was reelected. Or was he?

There is a lot more about electoral fraud in 2000 and 2004 on Irises. And conjecture about 2008 and how it will be done.

There is talk in some circles that Jeb Bush would make a good president. Oh. Governor of Florida, brother of the incumbent and presided over the 2000 shenanigans in Florida.

Back to the search for WMD - development of new Bio-weapons revealed.

Invasion, anyone?

Phil, I see you pose this question to my other half.

As you clearly state you opposed the Vietnam War from the very start. Does this mean you were giving comfort to communists (from the very start) or did you have other reasons for your opposition?

I'm sure you will get a reply. I will be most interested to read it, because the Vietnam war is a rather touchy subject in this house and has been for the past 30 years. We long ago agreed not to discuss it, an agreement just broken. Oh dear!

I certainly believed that those who opposed the Vietnam War were giving comfort to communists, and I thought at the time they were traitors. While that war with hindsight was ill advised, I have always argued to Ian that it had to be seen in the context of the time. In 1964/5 the world was just 20 years down the track from WW2 and was still very traumatised. Many world leaders genuinely feared a Third World War in the 1950s and 60s, and the threat of that was seen, understandably as coming from communist regimes. Stalin. Remember him?

The world was also just 13 or so years from the Korean War. The Cuban missile crisis was only three years earlier. In 1956 we had the crushing of Hungary, and in 1967 that of Czechoslovakia. I think the world had a genuine and understandable paranoia of anything that looked like communist expansion and why not? Vietnam happened in the middle of all that. The Vietnam war in the context of its time, was quite understandable, and our parents' generation who were running the show back then, I think had justifiable concerns. I was very angry that the anti-war movement would give comfort to communist regimes around the world, given the threat communism was seen as posing to world peace. We'd all like to have the wisdom of hindsight.

Now I have just been told by Ian I should state my position on Iraq in terms of the above question also. So yes, I do believe that the opposition to the Iraq war gave considerable comfort to Saddam Hussein, and is no doubt also now giving comfort to the insurgents in that country.

The Iraq war has to be seen also in the context of its time. And I do not have to elaborate on that. We all know what that is. And of course it is about oil.

What annoys me most about the whole argument on this and related threads, is that no one is prepared to examine what Saddam Hussein might have done once the sanctions, through their total failure, were lifted. No one has been prepared to look at the possibility that within a very short few years, he might have been engaging on a few more adventures against his neighbours, this time with WMD again at his disposal, possibly in time, even nuclear weapons. The man's behaviour was unpredictable and very dangerous to world peace. Of course it is about oil. If there was no oil, of course Saddam would have been left to do what he liked. The Mugabes may not be able to threaten world peace much, but Saddam Hussein could. Because he had oil. Oil gave him capacity to acquire, if left unchecked,  whatever he wanted, and to wage war if it suited him. And wage war he did, on his neighbours and on his own people.

Germany had its industrial might. Hussein had oil. He was just as mad as Hitler. And he had the power to deprive the world of a vital and diminishing resource, and to use that resource as blackmail. Does anyone here think we can do without oil? And yes, Iran is a similar concern with its nuclear program and its mad leadership, and its oil. I can well understand the US position.

About to fly off around the world are you Roslyn Ross? Well just remember you need oil to be able to do that. I guess we could all agree to go and live like the Amish. Interested anyone?

Ian also wrote: “Sorry, but from day one the Vietnam War demonstrations got progressively bigger. I happen to know this, as I was involved in the organisation of it all (well, at least in part), from right at the outset.”

As you clearly state you opposed the Vietnam War from the very start does this mean you were giving comfort to communists (from the very start) or did you have other reasons for your opposition. Would you like to enlighten me?

Also Ian if you read my post properly you will note that I wrote: “The Vietnam War peace movement didn’t get any real traction until around 1968; the war had been going a lot longer than the Iraq war has so far.” “Sorry” but in no way did I contradict you statement relating to the progressive nature of the peace movement.

I will be waiting for your reply re the above question regarding your opposition to the Vietnam War and a lecture or at least an answer to the morality question posed in my previous post (after all you chose to introduce this term regarding the "left"), personally I steer clear of the term for risk of being exposed as the hypocrite I am.

Ian MacDougall, there is a world of difference between suspicion that the Iraqis possessed chemical and biological weapons and their ability to threaten the USA, Britain and Australia in a way that justified an invasion on the grounds of self-defence. Regime change is a political objective and aggressive war to achieve it is proscribed by international law.

I am intrigued by your assertion that the Nuremberg Charter, developed by the Allies after WWII, can be consigned to the dustbin of history because some Indonesian Generals have not been prosecuted for war crimes. I would love to see you develop this argument further. What legal framework would you suggest for the prosecution of those who choose to wage aggressive war for political gain? Who should be held accountable and how?

You say you are cynical about the UN and its system of international law. What do you propose in its place? What processes do you support for the peaceful resolution of international disputes? Or do you believe that anarchy will serve us better?

You claimed that those who did not support the invasion of Iraq were acting out of reflex anti-Americanism. More incredibly, you state that those opposed to the war were supporters of Saddam Hussein. Quite frankly, this is so simplistic as to be ludicrous. For example, ever heard of General William E. Odom? Obviously, he is a reflexive USA hater and Saddam lover if I ever saw one.

Since you see reason to be cynical about the UN, can you not see that others would see reason to be cynical about the motives of the USA et al? I bet that the first thirty years of the 21st Century will be dominated by energy wars. Iraq is the first battle. For me, this analysis by Richard Heinberg is a far more compelling rationale for the conflict we are witnessing than the childish notion that the USA and its allies are motivated by concern for the hapless people of the Middle East.

You ask me if I think the fall of Saddam was a good thing? Viewed in isolation, my answer is yes. Was it worth the cost in blood and treasure, the trashing of already weakened international institutions absent any credible alternative, and the lost opportunity to address the truly great global issues of climate change, energy depletion and economic instability? Hell, no!

The humanitarian argument is a non-starter. You don't save people by killing them and you don't save people by atomising thousands of tonnes of depleted uranium in their environment. And if I accept your proposition, I challenge you again to show why Iraq should have been the number one humanitarian mission for the free world when 37 million people are infected with HIV and most have no access to life-saving medicine. If, perchance, we had already addressed every humanitarian cause amenable to peaceful resolution then you just might find an emaciated, logical leg to stand on.

Ian writes: “In other words, the word 'moral' is unusable in any context”

Experience teaches me that morality usually takes a back seat to pragmatism. Only Pollyanna would require examples. If you feel that I lave lectured you then so be it; but do you think it is moral for our leaders to lie and deceive their way into an unnecessary war? If you want an example then you have one staring you in the face but like all those who support this debacle you keep telling the truth to go away.

For those who were stooged into believing this debacle was a noble venture it would appear the only thing you can salvage (to save face) is that Saddam is gone. Your question to Michael alludes to same;

“And finally Michael, in your view, was the fall of Saddam a good thing?”

Michael may or may not wish to answer, however when we look at what is happening today in Iraq I feel that under the circumstances removing Saddam was a somewhat stupid thing to do. Ian maybe you would like to tell me who has profited (financially) from this debacle? Also John Howard (to protect his back side from International Law) stated we were not getting involved in this war to remove Saddam but his WMD.

Finally as far as Vietnam goes I would suggest you do a little more homework regarding the peace movement. Yes it did grow but it took many years to gain traction and all of that occurred over thirty years ago. Street protests (for the ordinary punter) were the only way to be heard in those days; today we have the internet so many voice their disgust in an alternative manner. This forum is a fine example. Once again old mate I would suggest you are comparing apples with oranges. The times are a changing, but if you have a closer look at America you will find the protest movement is growing however this is not reported in the MSM.

So Ian, do you think it is moral for our leaders to lie and deceive their way into this war that has resulted in the slaughter (including cold blooded murder) of thousands upon thousands of innocent people?

P.S. Ian if the removal of Saddam was such a good thing would you be prepared to die for same?

Roslyn: I promised myself not to get back into this thread as it is like the Israeli threads. Basically no one ever shifts position and one can waste a lot of time going round in circles, so, as interesting as all this may be, I should attend to other things. But I cannot let a couple of things pass, so here I am! Sigh. Another excuse not to head north again to cut burrs. Maybe tomorrow. 

But I do try to be mindful of what Carlyle said - at least I think it was him, but I may be wrong. Here dawneth a bright new day. Wilt thou let it slip useless away? Not that gal burr cutting is much motivation to get moving.

One of the problems I have with what you write is that you deal a lot in generalisations, reframing them over and again. When you are more specific I find you make some very good points. But, from my experience most, if not all generalisations are false, even that one. I don't find them very helpful.

Now. I cannot find your post but in one you said: That's us. You were referring to the massive number of deaths in Iraq from the sanctions. I in no way accept that the rest of the world should take responsibility for the deaths due to sanctions. They are attributable solely to Saddam Hussein who chose to invade another country (and I assume you agree he had no right to do that), used WMD on his people, and had an arsenal and a continuing program of production of WMD at the time of the first Gulf War. The sanctions at the time were designed to deal with Saddam, as he was well and truly showing his true colours, and was clearly a threat to peace in the Middle East, and because of that, to world peace. Whether we like it or not, peace in the ME is important. Yes, oil, and even you need that Roslyn. 

Well that failure of non intervention, ie. to drive Saddam out after the first Gulf War, left hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die. They were murdered by Saddam's henchmen, and/or starved as the world tried to peacefully pull him into line, through sanctions. All those deaths are attributable to him. It is ridiculous to attribute the sanctions deaths to "us".

If the world cannot use sanctions to curb the Saddams of this world, then what other means has it at its disposal? You say you are a pacifist, yet you condemn the only thing that has any hope of bringing about regime change peacefully. So as far as I can see your position is. Let every tyrant rule, and rule as he wishes, murder as many as he wishes, but whatever you do, don't invade his country and don't apply any sanctions against him. Well I do not think that is living in reality. I think it is just a pipedream that the world will have peace as a result. Tyrants without check Roslyn will ultimately move on their neighbours given half the chance. Or if not on their neighbours, then viciously on their own people. Mugabe and his ilk? Ultimately appeasement when a tyrant tries to move outside his borders does not work and when they engage in those adventures unchecked, we have history to tell us where that can lead. Saddam had two major attempts at reshaping his borders. He had to be checked, somehow.

Secondly, you say the peoples of the world see the US as the greatest threat to world peace. Well I for one do not and I suggest the 52% of the people in Australia who vote for John Howard do not either. But let us not argue over statistics, and surveys. Most are unreliable to say the least.

Finally, let us try and imagine the world without the US as a super power. I guess some would like that. Well I put it to you that it is quite likely that without the US, then we would see quite a lot more Saddam Husseins around, with people all over the world ending up in mass graves. Without any counterbalancing powerful countries committed to freedom and democracy, then I put it to all of you, tyrants worldwide would be moving on their neighbours here there and everywhere without any fear of reprisal. Kuwait type invasions would be the order of the day. So I for one see the US as a very important player in holding the line on  world peace.

Would you all prefer it was a Saddam Hussein type that was holding the reins of world power? Oh, I know some of you will say, Bush is just another Saddam. Well let's get real for once.

Thanks Mike, I tend to agree.

I recall a lot of controversy about weapons of mass destruction and the pressing self-defence necessity of it all. There was no talk of altruism. Indeed, I remember John Howard telling us all that Saddam could stay if he would just cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors.

Have you forgotten about the cooked intelligence reports, Plamegate, The Downing Street Memo and all of the other evidence of extraordinary lies told to justify the attack?

The vast majority of those who opposed the war of aggression in Iraq did so for reasons that have nothing to do with support for Saddam Hussein. For starters, the Nuremberg Charter is very specific: It is the ultimate war crime to wage a war of aggression to achieve a political objective. The responsibility for all of the consequential crimes that flow from the chaos of war belong to the political and military leadership of the aggressors.

It is precisely because of this inconvenient little bit of international law that our dear leaders and their mainstream media whores went to such lengths to peddle the lie that Iraq was an immediate threat that justified a preemptive attack.

What Bush, Blair and Howard have done is to normalise the most dangerous of ideas. It is now OK for any nation to attack any other nation on trumped-up charges of imminent danger whenever it suits the political objectives of the attackers.

And the bastards have the nerve to argue that they did it in the name of security.

Arguing that this war was a humanitarian act is a sad joke. If we, the free nations of the world who attacked Iraq were such humanitarians, why haven't we spent the necessary, scarce resources on things that could save millions of lives like finding a cure for Malaria? Why not use the resources we can spare to alleviate desperate poverty and hunger? What makes Iraq the priority for allocating all these resources, using methods that kill many, many thousands of innocent civilians and that have highly unpredictable consequences?

IMHO, this is a battle over energy resources and the Iraqis have the very sad misfortune to live in the wrong place at the wrong time. The USA and it allies are locked into a dance of death with the rest of the world as we fight for control over dwindling energy supplies. Project for the New American Century were very specific about their plans for Iraq in the document Rebuilding America's Defenses (pdf). Establishing a permanent, large-scale military presence in Iraq was a primary goal. The Bush administration and its allies implemented the plan.

Ian writes: “As the Vietnam War proceeded, the street demonstrations around the world just got bigger and bigger. The opposite is true for the Iraq War, suggesting a certain recognition by the International Left of the moral problems involved involved in supporting Saddam, the Iraqi 'resistance' and the jihadis.”

I would suggest you wait a few more years before offering the above. The Vietnam War peace movement didn’t get any real traction until around 1968; the war had been going a lot longer than the Iraq war has so far. Also in both the US and Australia conscription was an issue. Your suggestion regarding the left is interesting and using similar logic one may argue that those who protested against the Vietnam War were giving comfort to communists. At this point in time I would suggest you may well have your apples mixed up with your oranges.

One thing for sure there are “moral problems” regarding this war and one would have to agree that these problems do not only lie with those who support peace but more likely (and rightly) with those who lied and deceived their way into this debacle in the first place. You have to be very careful old boy when you talk about morals for experience teaches me that the word to follow “moral” is usually “hypocrite”. I don’t think I need to give you examples.

Mike, do you have any ideas on why black Americans commit or are convicted of far more violent crimes than white Americans?