Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

General George Casey (The top US general in Iraq) is reviewing a report that finds that some of his officers failed to act on complaints their troops killed 24 civilians at Haditha. The report into whether officers failed to investigate or even covered up for Marines accused by Iraqis of killing men, women and children in cold blood was passed to General Casey on Friday.

US generals and diplomats strive to assure a sceptical Iraqi public - and their new government - that soldiers are being held accountable for a string of suspected abuses.

Those include a rape-murder case that has outraged the nation and fuelled calls for the 127,000 Americans to go home. See : Here

It is time for the coalition of the killing to go home. We are not winning the hearts or minds of the Iraqi people. Let the Arab nations work out the power struggle without interference from Western Nations.

Angela Ryan: "So...is that like demanding that a leader proves that they are NOT developing WMD..or programs of WMD....or nuclear weapons instead of nuclear power? ... or else ,or else, ... or else we will nuke ya!"

Or else we will nuke ya?

I must have missed that bit on the morning news.

Are we talking Iran, here? Or North Korea?

Look, while we are on the topic of North Korea, I think it's time we started denouncing the USA for “backing” or “supporting” the North Korean regime. 

Don't you?

How about this for a start? A direct money laundering link  between George W Bush and Kim Il Jong;

“U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency documents, which I obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, showed Moon’s organization paying millions of dollars to North Korean leaders. The payments included a $3 million “birthday present” to current communist leader Kim Jong Il and offshore payments amounting to “several tens of million dollars” to the previous communist dictator, Kim Il Sung, the partially declassified documents said.”

There you go. Proof.

And if there's any doubt, try this;

“…North Korea became the largest recipient of US aid in Asia.”

Well, that clinches it. The USA created the North Korean monster

Also, if by some chance the UN imposes sanctions on North Korea over Chinese objections, be sure to always refer to these as “US led” sanctions.

Those pictures we keep seeing of starving North Korean peasants will be handy as proof how the brutal US-led sanctions have crushed the Iraqi, er, I mean, North Korean economy.

An economy which, just like Cuba's, would be prospering if it wasn’t for the US trade embargo.

Here's an angle you should explore. The Zionists are pushing for a nuclear strike on North Korea because North Korea supplies Iran’s missiles.

It's obvious. It’s all because of the Jews. Er, I mean, Zionists.

Or how about this: “The North Korean missile programme is a direct response to the provocation of the US missile defense programme”?

That should do for the front page of Green Left Weekly

If the US didn’t have a missile defense programme, the North Koreans wouldn’t be forced to develop missiles, would they?

Also, does anyone have a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Kim Jong Il?

Or of anyone else of even remotely Asian appearance? At anytime in his life?

Did Avril Glaspie ever say something like: “I dunno. What they do in North Korea is their business I suppose?”

That should be enough "proof" of a US “Green light” for North Korea’s missile development programme.

Look, I'm only trying to help you guys. We could brainstorm this.

How about Richard Nixon raising a toast to Mao Tse Tung?

China is North Korea’s main ally, after all.

Also, why didn’t the US finish the job properly in 1953? Instead of “backing” North Korea with that truce?

That's what I'd like to know.

Could Michael Moore do a “documentary” showing crowds of happy North Korean peasants praising their avuncular, kindly President at some state sponsored picnic somewhere.

We could call it “When will the USA stop sending its fascist troops forward to rape North Korean virgins with bayonets of hate?”

SBS could show it on prime time as “educational” television.

Judy Davis could narrate it.

Good start, what do you think?

Anyway, Angela.

How you going naming someone on the Left, other than the interventionist Bob Brown, criticising Saddam hussein ever?

Any luck?

Here is a thesis by a harvard graduate about the British empire suppression of resistors in Kenya, and try this for echo:

[extract] 

"Mau Mau was an uprising among the Kikuyu tribe of British Kenya, essentially a response to economic privation due to losses of land at the hands of British settlers. Beginning in 1951 and ending in 1959, the rebellion included an oath of loyalty among adherents, attacks on settlers, and a poorly armed movement based in Kenyan forests. Thirty-two Europeans were killed in rebel attacks.

But in the British campaign that followed, thousands of Kikuyu, many of them innocent, were abused, tortured, or killed in a system of camps known as the Pipeline. By Elkins's calculations, as many as 320,000 men and women were held in the camps, and as many as 50,000 were killed.

Elkins uncovered hundreds of stories of tortures committed in the worst of these camps, some in grisly detail: castrations, clamping of women's breasts with pliers, fatal beatings. Equally compelling is her account of the British denial of the truth, which extended from local colonial officials right up through Winston Churchill and his successors, Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan...."

It is facinating read. Some are stewing about it,some feel the evidence is not definite enough and biased:

"..Kenyan historian Bethwell Ogot questioned Elkins's honesty in quoting anonymous settlers' confessions of tortures: ``How do we know these are not fabricated confessions intended to paint the British in the worst possible light?" he wrote in The Journal of African History. In a review in the Times of London, historian Lawrence James wrote, ``Like other American academics, Elkins is an heir of the American war of independence and schooled to believe that all empires are intrinsically evil, corrupting and integral to the `old Europe' of current American demonology. . . . The reputation of the British empire can withstand the defamation of holier-than-thou American academics."

``I've been called many things that aren't printable," Elkins said. ``I've gotten, `You're absolutely wrong; this didn't happen.' At the same time, settlers in Kenya have said to me, `It happened, but the book isn't balanced. Why isn't there more about Mau Mau atrocities?' My feeling is that the book is about proportionality. Thirty-two European settlers died, and the response to the uprising was Draconian. The way I wrote this book reflects the nature of the war that occurred..."

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/bost19.html

History is such a difficult place to find absolute truth. But each settler who died and each MauMau who was harmed in response knows their version all to clearly. isn't it nice we only have to examine it ,not know it? Does it not make you wonder how Iraq will be written in 20yrs? And then again in 100 as the victors disappear in influence by their opponents? I find it facinating comparing history truths with friends from other countries,so very different some times even now.

Cheers

Stuart McCarthy. You write: ‘The sad fact is that the only consistent, coherent intellectual opposition to the Iraq war, before, during and after the invasion, has come from conservative intellectuals, indeed mainly US conservative intellectuals.’

In your posts here, you’ve recommended Gwynne Dyer – good choice. I respect him, particularly in his almost unique ‘insider’s’ ability to strip away the military mystique and imperial pretentiousness common to most right-wing ‘anti-war’ commentary. And if you cross-check him against the writings of Noam Chomsky (who also doesn’t put a high priority on the ‘war for oil’ premise), you’ll find they share a great deal of common ground.

But, as for your recommendation of William Lind and his article: A Left-Right Anti-war Alliance? – Eeew! Yuk!!

Consider this stunningly ‘coherent’ comment, part of which you quoted in one of your posts:

“Seldom does [the anti-war left] amount to more than a few aging hippies trying to relive their youth by resurrecting the Vietnam-era anti-war movement.”

Wow! Such originality! I just wish I could write like that. 

So … the 1,000,000 plus protestors who took to the streets in February 2003 in Australia alone (without going in to the tens of millions worldwide) – comprising  virtually every church group in the country, the Democrats, the Greens, the Australian Labor Party, and more than a few Liberals; plus school students, university students, grandparents, migrants, artists, writers, actors, journalists, trade unionists, bikies, office workers, tradespeople, corporate executives, mums and dads with prams, making up many of the hundreds of thousands of people who had never marched in their lives before –  were all just a bunch of aging hippies pretending to be ordinary people! 

And, for that matter, those who marched against the Vietnam War in the 60s, including some young Americans who got shot down and killed by the US National Guard in the process, were just hippies who hadn’t aged yet. Obviously I’ve been misinformed – so they didn’t comprise a majority of young conscriptees and young men in their late teens looking down the barrel of the lottery draw from hell, nor the loved ones of both the former and the latter.

Anyway … I checked out the article link you provided, and this is what the ‘coherent’ Mr Lind went on to say:

‘So let me put some questions to those on the Left who advocate a “Grand Coalition” against more wars in pursuit of American Empire: Are you prepared to work with people who

·        Believe America’s (and Britain’s) culture should remain Anglo-Saxon?

·        Think men and women are inherently different, and that their traditional social roles reflect those inherent differences?

·        Acknowledge distinctions between races, and among ethnic groups within races?

·        Reject egalitarianism and think differences between classes both natural and beneficial?

·        Believe all sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, and homosexual acts especially so?

·        See Victorian America and Britain as models to be emulated rather than examples of “oppression?”

Insist not only on believing all these things, and more like them, but also on expressing their beliefs publicly, as representing what is right, true and good? …

For my part, as a conservative, I am willing to participate in a Grand Coalition against imperial folly … But I will do so puffing my pipe and reading Mencken as a frolicsome Irish serving wench makes sure my glass stays full. The Politically Correct Left can put that in their pipes, but if they try to smoke it, I suspect they will turn a delightful shade of green.’

Well, according to this Irish 'wench', and all PC irony aside, the odious Mr Lind is much more interested in ending any threat to his outdated privileges as an affluent, white, sexist (and almost certainly Christian) male than putting an end to any wars, either in Iraq or elsewhere.

Serves him right if that serving wench of his slips him an LSD mickey! Peace, man … Now, where did my grey-haired hippie hubby park the Harley Davidson?

phil kendall: "The task for pro-wars is to prove that the US is not running a brutal, illegal and plundering occupation with the ultimate intention of ripping-off the entire Iraqi economy (obviously including oil, even if only 'control' of, or sales in $US to prop-up their otherwise tending to worthless fiat currency). "

I actually burst out laughing when I read that.

While I'm at it, should I also prove that George Dubbya is not the Demiurge and Anti-Christ come to usher the End Days of the Apocalypse?

It takes a certain delusory conceit to demand proof that something not be happening.

I think the onus is on you, old boy, to prove that the elected government of Iraq is the "imposed ...version of a "New World Order" on the Iraqi nation" as you described it.

Otherwise, it stands as the elected government of Iraq, made so by an overwhelming vote of the Iraqi people.

Try proving that it is not.

jane lahey: "Even so, the quotes I provided, though much more recent than you required, at least show in no uncertain times that the left are by no means in the pro-Saddam camp, as the right is so fond of claiming."

Then why do they almost without exception support the militias trying to overthrow the popularly elected government of Iraq?

Why do they, as our own phil kendal does, denounce the popularly elected government of Iraq as;

"...the 'democratic' processes being foisted on Iraq do not fulfil democratic requirements. "

- even though it was the result of a series of internationally monitored elections with overwhelming popular support?

Thus trivialising both the people of Iraq and their sacrifices in the political process? In keeping with the rhetoric that emenates from Saddam and his cohorts even to this day?

Why do they do that?

C. Parsons. Much as I hate to do so, I must apologise for misinterpreting your request to Angela to supply leftist criticisms of Saddam Hussein. When I wrote my previous reply, I didn’t pick up on the fact that you were referring to circa pre-1991.

Even so, the quotes I provided, though much more recent than you required, at least show in no uncertain times that the left are by no means in the pro-Saddam camp, as the right is so fond of claiming. As for providing evidence that lefties dared speak against Saddam Hussein when he was ‘Rummy’s bastard’, here are two references that date to that era:

The left-wing magazine New Internationalist did a profile on Iraq in its February 1988 issue. On a rating scale of five stars (*****excellent, ****good, ***fair, **poor, *appalling), Iraq’s report card was as follows:

Income distribution ***
Self-reliance **
Position of women ***
Literacy ****
Life expectancy ****
Freedom *

http://www.newint.org/issue180/profile.htm

Note the ‘freedom’ category is hardly an endorsement of Saddam’s regime. Neither is the following quote that accompanied the report card:

“War has not improved the Ba’athist regime’s unenviable record on civil rights. The Party has long been dominated by members of the Sunni Arab minority, who have shown little patience with the Kurds of the north or the Shi’ite Arabs of the south. The Kurds have been victims of particularly intense repression.”

Another example is an article by Noam Chomsky in Z-net magazine, May 1991. As one of the left’s major spokesmen, the following quotes from Chomsky’s article give some indication of where it stood on the subject of the Saddam Hussein regime during the 1980s:

“US intervention was instrumental in enabling Iraq to gain the upper hand in the war [with Iran]. Western corporations took an active role in building up Iraq's military strength, notably its weapons of mass destruction. Reagan and Bush regularly intervened to block congressional censure of their friend's atrocious human rights record …

When Saddam was reported to have gassed thousands of Kurds at Halabja, the White House intervened to block any serious congressional reaction … But he was "our gangster," joining a club in which he could find congenial associates. Repeating a familiar formula, Geoffrey Kemp, head of the Middle East section in the National Security Council under Reagan, observed that "We weren't really that naive. We knew that he was an SOB, but he was our SOB … "

Saddam's record was already so sordid that the conquest of Kuwait added little to it, but that action was a crime that matters: the crime of independence. Torture, tyranny, aggression, slaughter of civilians are all acceptable by US-UK standards, but not stepping on our toes. The standard policies were then set into motion…”

http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/articles/z9105-what-we-say.html

As for the original Bob Brown quote you gave, which came from another left-wing bashing post at Online Opinion, and taken out of context – the Greens leader was pleading for the government to take some form of action to stop the slaughter of the Kurds, just as human rights groups of many countries had been doing, as well as calling for similar actions regarding Tibet, South Africa and other regimes at the time that abused human rights - Brown’s choice of verbs was: ‘to put pressure on’, ‘intervene’, ‘speak up’ and ‘put the full weight of this country behind’. None of these verbs translate to ‘invade Iraq’.

phil kendall:

"1. The US 'led' an illegal, aggressive and murderous invasion, culminating in an equally brutal - and equally illegal occupation.

2. The US then imposed their version of a "New World Order" on the Iraqi nation; the Bremer '100 orders'. "

Well, actually, Phil, there has been a sequence of internationally supervised elections in Iraq leading to the formation of a national constitution; the election of local and provincial governments and a national  government which is fully recognised by the international community and holds a seat in the United Nations.

And all this with the overwhelming participation of the Iraqi people.

Even the Sunnis have representatives in Iraq's government, for Chrissakes.

Not quite the situation you describe, but I don't have access to the latest Ba'ath Socialist Party media releases, so I'm not entirely sure where you get your material.

jane lahey:

"C.Parsons. You wrote to Angela: Could you name two "lefties" who dared criticise Saddam? ...[In addition to Bob Brown] … You name the other.'

There you go again, C.P. Barking orders at everybody to go away and do your bidding. What on earth are we going to do with you?"

Well, you could try answering the question for her. I note Angela hasn't.

And Bob Brown not only criticised Saddam, he called for direct intervention to subdue him;

"The House calls on the Prime Minister Bob Hawke to act immediately to put pressure on Australia's allies to intervene in Iraq to stop the slaughter of the Kurds and establish their right to self-determination ... we're in the disgusting position of sitting on our hands while these people are absolutely slaughtered - the least we can do is get our Prime Minister to speak up and put the full weight of this country towards the protection of these innocents."

- Bob Brown

Angela Ryan: "Interesting, the last-minute moves to remove Saddam peacefully. There were also meetings discussed elsewhere too with certain Lebanese businessmen, and at least that shows that not all wanted a military solution."

So, Angela. Did Saddam show any interest in retiring voluntarily?

And apart from Bob Brown's call to intervene in Iraq, can you think of any other single Leftie who openly criticised Saddam Hussein while he was in power?

I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Can you please post this re-edited version of my post above (particularly the indented quote). Thanks.

----------

Thank you Phil Kendall. You highlighted exactly the sort of ideological sloganeering that I mentioned in my previous post.

Firstly, the question of the legality/illegality of the invasion and coalition governments’ accountability for this, while it may well be worth debating elsewhere, is irrelevant to this thread. The simple fact is that, right now, the coalition presence in Iraq to support the establishment of its democratic government is mandated by the United Nations. Indeed in my view, were Australia and the other coalition countries to abandon Iraq today, as you seem to be suggesting, this would be a manifest failure of accountability. Furthermore, how exactly would such an abandonment of Iraq correspond with your purported ‘handle on morality’? There is no small degree of contradiction, even downright hypocrisy, in such an argument.

Secondly, the war-for-oil myth has been totally debunked by left-liberal author (and strident critic of the US and its conduct in Iraq) Gwynne Dyer in Future: Tense two years ago (pp.136-7):

Popular wisdom may cynically believe that “it’s all about oil,” but it actually isn’t. The notion of “strategic security of oil supply,” if it ever had any validity, lost it at the end of the Cold War. Nobody is going to blockade or sink the tankers bringing oil to the consumers, and the producers themselves simply cannot afford to stop pumping the stuff and selling it to all comers: their people live off the proceeds. The Iranian regime may hate the Great Satan, but Iran has pumped oil right up to the limit imposed by the OPEC cartel every month since the Revolution in 1979 (and often beyond the limit), and willingly sold it to any Western country that wanted to buy it at the going market price. How else is it going to pay for the shiploads of frozen Australian lamb that sail up the Gulf most days to feed 70 million Iranians? You don’t have to occupy oil-producing countries militarily at vast expense to get oil from them, you just write them a cheque: Saddam Hussein himself sold half of Iraq’s oil exports to the United States … the month before the United States invaded Iraq. And as for keeping the oil price down: when did it become an interest of the U.S. oil industry, Bushes closest political ally, to keep the oil price down?

The two other oil-related explanations – that military control over Gulf oil supplies would be a strategic asset for the United States in a future confrontation with China, and that oil concessions in a conquered Iraq would allow the Bush administration to reward its major contributors in the U.S. oil industry – hold a considerable amount of water, given the strategic obsessions of the neo-conservatives and the Bush administration’s close, almost symbiotic relationship with the U.S. energy industry. But nobody would invade an entire country out of the blue solely to improve America’s future ability to exert strategic pressure on China or to reward campaign contributors.

I would invite you to read this book, because it provides a much deeper and more damning critique of the neo-conservatives hijacking of the Bush administration in the prosecution of their cynical ideological crusade than you could ever attempt to emulate with your silly little ‘war-for-oil’ sloganeering. You might even be able contribute to this forum with an informed opinion.

Thirdly, what do you actually mean by “NO WAR!”? Do you mean that there was ‘no war’ in Iraq, that there is ‘no war’ in Iraq, that there was/is ‘no war’ in general, or that there should not have been a war in Iraq/in general?

Finally, what do you actually mean by “Stop the killing?” Do you mean that Australia should continue to support Iraq and its security forces in their efforts to prevent the killing of Iraqis, that opponents of Iraqi democracy should stop killing Iraqi civilians, government officials or members of the Iraqi security forces, or that coalition and Iraqi forces should not kill anti-Iraqi elements who attack them or the civilians who they are required to protect? If the latter, what do you suggest they do – hold hands?

There you go again, C.P. Barking orders at everybody to go away and do your bidding. What on earth are we going to do with you?

Having said that … I’ll rise to the bait, however. Not for your sake, or for Angela’s sake, but for the sake of my beloved lefties. Here are two Saddam criticisms from the left, as requested (BTW I'm not including the bloody links. As I've indicated in the past, you know how to Google.):

‘There is about Saddam Hussein a peculiar ruthlessness, an almost calculated cruelty, perhaps even an interest in pain. It wasn't enough to order the murder of his sons-in-law after their return from exile in Jordan. They had to be dragged away with meat hooks through their eyes.’ – Howard Fisk, ‘Saddam Hussein, the last great tyrant’, Independent, 30 December, 2000

 ‘…Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and a long list of others, some of them easily as tyrannical and barbaric as Saddam. Had it not been for the sanctions, Saddam probably would have gone the same way…’ – Noam Chomsky, quoted in ‘Noam Chomsky interviewed’ , Znet, 13 April, 2003

That’s two, C.P. But, hey … I’m feeling generous… Here’s two more:

‘The Bush administration is determined to attack Iraq and take over a country that is the world’s second largest source of oil. The aim is to get rid of America’s and Britain’s old friend, Saddam Hussein, whom they no longer control, and to install another compliant thug in Baghdad.’ – John Pilger, ‘Not in our name’, Daily Mirror (London), 5 April 2002

‘[Saddam’s] crimes against Iraqis, Kurds, Iranians, Kuwaitis, and others cannot be written off in the process of bringing to light Iraq's more recent and still unfolding tragedy. However, we must not forget that when Saddam Hussein was committing his worst crimes, the US government was supporting him politically and materially. When he was gassing Kurdish people, the US government financed him, armed him, and stood by silently.’ – Arandhati Roy, ‘The most cowardly war in history,’ Baltimore Chronicle, 27 June, 2005.

If you really wanted to get Angela well and truly stumped, C.P., perhaps you should have challenged her to find a leftie who had anything decent to say about George Bush or John Howard.

Actually, come to think of it. Why don’t you go away and do just that. Grab yourself a chardonnay while you’re at it. It might slow down your ridiculously prolific anti-left postings for a while. (Let's hope.)

Thank you Phil Kendall. You highlighted exactly the sort of ideological sloganeering that I mentioned in my previous post.

Firstly, the question of the legality/illegality of the invasion and coalition governments’ accountability for this, while it may well be worth debating elsewhere, is irrelevant to this thread. The simple fact is that, right now, the coalition presence in Iraq to support the establishment of its democratic government is mandated by the United Nations. Indeed in my view, were Australia and the other coalition countries to abandon Iraq today, as you seem to be suggesting, this would be a manifest failure of accountability. Furthermore, how exactly would such an abandonment of Iraq correspond with your purported ‘handle on morality’? There is no small degree of contradiction, even downright hypocrisy, in such an argument.

Secondly, the war-for-oil myth has been totally debunked by left-liberal author (and strident critic of the US and its conduct in Iraq) Gwynne Dyer in Future: Tense two years ago (pp.136-7):

Popular wisdom may cynically believe that “it’s all about oil,” but it actually isn’t. The notion of “strategic security of oil supply,” if it ever had any validity, lost it at the end of the Cold War. Nobody is going to blockade or sink the tankers bringing oil to the consumers, and the producers themselves simply cannot afford to stop pumping the stuff and selling it to all comers: their people live off the proceeds. The Iranian regime may hate the Great Satan, but Iran has pumped oil right up to the limit imposed by the OPEC cartel every month since the Revolution in 1979 (and often beyond the limit), and willingly sold it to any Western country that wanted to buy it at the going market price. How else is it going to pay for the shiploads of frozen Australian lamb that sail up the Gulf most days to feed 70 million Iranians? You don’t have to occupy oil-producing countries militarily at vast expense to get oil from them, you just write them a cheque: Saddam Hussein himself sold half of Iraq’s oil exports to the United States … the month before the United States invaded Iraq. And as for keeping the oil price down: when did it become an interest of the U.S. oil industry, Bushes closest political ally, to keep the oil price down?

The two other oil-related explanations – that military control over Gulf oil supplies would be a strategic asset for the United States in a future confrontation with China, and that oil concessions in a conquered Iraq would allow the Bush administration to reward its major contributors in the U.S. oil industry – hold a considerable amount of water, given the strategic obsessions of the neo-conservatives and the Bush administration’s close, almost symbiotic relationship with the U.S. energy industry. But nobody would invade an entire country out of the blue solely to improve America’s future ability to exert strategic pressure on China or to reward campaign contributors.

I would invite you to read this book, because it provides a much deeper and more damning critique of the neo-conservatives hijacking of the Bush administration in the prosecution of their cynical ideological crusade than you could ever attempt to emulate with your silly little ‘war-for-oil’ sloganeering. You might even be able contribute to this forum with an informed opinion.

Thirdly, what do you actually mean by “NO WAR!”? Do you mean that there was ‘no war’ in Iraq, that there is ‘no war’ in Iraq, that there was/is ‘no war’ in general, or that there should not have been a war in Iraq/in general?

Finally, what do you actually mean by “Stop the killing?” Do you mean that Australia should continue to support Iraq and its security forces in their efforts to prevent the killing of Iraqis, that opponents of Iraqi democracy should stop killing Iraqi civilians, government officials or members of the Iraqi security forces, or that coalition and Iraqi forces should not kill anti-Iraqi elements who attack them or the civilians who they are required to protect? If the latter, what do you suggest they do – hold hands?

phil kendal: "'Liberating' or 'democratising' (by killing, aka mass-murder?) is just part'a the 'lip-music' used by the sellers of "The big lie". Let's face it, they've gotta try to make their murderous theft 'look good'.

So, Phil. The Iraqis have got this elected government in place now.

And the so-called "resistance" (Sunni militias and Islamicst psychopaths in the main) are murdering civilians all over the place in an attemmpt to overthrow the elected government.

The actually brag about how many Shi'ites they kill, and then they accuse the Shi'ites of conducting a genocide against the Sunnis.

For example...

“….al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in an Internet audiotape attributed to him, warned of retaliation against Iraqi Shi'ites, who he said have been waging a campaign of "genocide" against Sunnis….”

So, do you - like so many others on the Left of politics - support the Iraqi "resistance"?

Or do you support the idea of an elected government in Iraq?

If the former, who are you to talk about "liberating" by "mass murder"?

If the latter, shouldn't you be expressing your support for the popularly elected government or Iraq, or at very least the political reform process underway there?

Allow me to blow the whistle, Stuart McCarthy; "Twee-eet!" - it's not "blood for oil," it's "murder for oil."

Although I may be a (primitive?) 'boy from the Bush,' I nevertheless claim to have quite a good 'handle' on morality; for example, I think that lying, cheating, theft and murder are in increasing degrees simply wrong to outright criminal.

Let's consider bullying. I do not know, nor can I phantasise, of any ('normal') parent wishing to have a child bullied (except possibly that the sprog is a bully him/herself, and really needs a lesson.)

This last could be analogous to Saddam (yeah. He's a thug/tyrant alright, but he was their thug/tyrant.) Sooo, let's give him a lesson, shall we? "Shock and Awe" followed by "Let's go play in Iraq" resulting in the 'pink-misting' of 10s, possibly 100s of 1000s of more or less innocent Iraqis. Hmmm?

Let's consider a domestic siege situation.

Do the police:

a) surround the house, bring a team of negotiators, try to talk the perpetrator out and as a last resort try to starve him/her out? Or would they

b) bull-doze the house, killing or wounding indiscriminately then loot the place?

Well?

Case (b) seems to be preferred, by both the US and to a lesser but escalating degree, the US' illegal sprog Israel.

-=*=-

There is/was more than one reason connected to oil which could be behind B, B & H's illegal invasion of Iraq:

a) the brutal US-inspired UN sanctions were increasingly being considered unsustainable and were likely to come to an end; the US stood to lose out to competitors.

b) the US needs its (otherwise tending to worthless) fiat currency to be propped-up by sales of oil denominated only in $US; Saddam had switched to EUROs.

c) the US considers ME oil to be the ultimate strategic prize and has worked towards controlling it for ever.

There is plenty of proof that the US intends to enforce its conquest; the gross and grossly fortified 1000(s?)-person embassy, the huge permanent military bases, the total privatisation of the Iraqi economy & the mooted PSA rip-offs-to-come.

'Liberating' or 'democratising' (by killing, aka mass-murder?) is just part'a the 'lip-music' used by the sellers of "The big lie". Let's face it, they've gotta try to make their murderous theft 'look good'.

Long story short: the US Oh, so obviously intends to exploit Iraq to the last oily drop.

Sooo, one task (of many) for the war-defenders is to disprove 'murder for oil.' If that can't be done (my contention, and it can only confirm the armed and murderous theft intention), then there is no justifiable case for war, and no cogent pro-war argument can be made. Note that the US could at any time (convincingly!) renounce its intentions towards Iraq's oil. Q: Why don't they? (Possible A: Rumsfeld saying "Don't be silly" doesn't count.)

Further, that any soldier taking part in 'murder for oil' is just as guilty as any 'commander', and that goes all the way 'to the top'.

Finally, just why do you think there might be an 'insurgency' in Iraq? Apart from the US having actively encouraged some sort'a civil-war (by, say, deliberately booby-trapping innocent vehicles and sending/allowing same to park at police stations, markets or mosques before blowing up?) - what of legitimate defence against (brutal!) illegal occupation? Try this:
"According to international law, the people of a country, occupied by a foreign power, has the full right to fight for their liberation."
[globaljusticeonline]

I've no doubts that there are some decent Americans, the decent may even form the vast majority; but they don't vote as 'decent' (and neither do Aussies, for that matter. There is an admitted dearth of anti-war candidates; but that's an indictment of the so-called opposition parties, and a topic for another day.)

-=*=-

Well, Stuart; how else do you suggest that I could I help Iraqis except to agitate for justice in general and freedom from a brutal occupation in particular? If I don't use the words 'geopolitics', 'strategic' and/or show 'ignorance of all things military', does that make my arguments any less cogent, any less real? We know it was a war of choice, we know that not all peaceful options were exercised. But given that a certain 'leader' dismissed the anti-war demos as a 'mob', what other can I do but fulminate - and accuse B, B & H and any psychophantic apologist of exactly what I consider them all either accessories to or outright guilty of: 'murder for oil!'

Stop the killing! NO WAR!

Hello Mark Ross,

The topic at hand is the question of COW forces acquitting themselves dishonourably.

Thankyou for your post. I was halfway through writing a lengthy reply to Angela Ryan's incoherent rantings and getting completely lost in her bizarre, stream-of-consciousness-style digressions about World Cup soccer, music lyrics and suicides,  mis-quotes, mis-representations and straw-men, when your post popped up and got me back on track. I will respond to your much more concise and coherent rant instead.

Before addressing the 'topic at hand' directly, it is useful to first dispel the myth that you alluded to later:

You'll probably have to wait a couple of years before you can read all about it in the "intellectual" right wing press but, please, persevere. I predict that the "intellectual" right will be all over this topic in due course. In fact, it will probably form the basis of their excuses why things aren't going quite so well in Iraq and why they should probably extricate themselves from the situation.

The sad fact is that the only consistent, coherent intellectual opposition to the Iraq war, before, during and after the invasion, has come from conservative intellectuals, indeed mainly US conservative intellectuals. By contrast the so-called left wing opposition to the war has been all but totally devoid of honesty, integrity, consistency and intellectual rigour in all its various forms (I say this as a self-professed 'small-l' liberal whose criticism(s) of Howard government policies have appeared repeatedly in this and other forums). Pitifully few have moved beyond the usual first-year-arts-student-type ideological slogans such as "no war" and "blood for oil", wilfull ignorance of all things military based on their pacifist ideological standpoint, and the habit of conflating every individual act by any individual participant in the tragedy that is Iraq with some grand imperialist conspiracy, discarding both fact and reason in the process.

An exemplar of US conservative opposition to the Iraq war is William Lind, author of several standard texts on military theory and member of the Free Congress Foundation. In a recent piece A Left-Right Anti-war Alliance?, Lind writes:

One of the more amusing aspects of the debacle in Iraq has been the performance of the anti-war Left. Far from “mobilizing the masses for peace,” it has had about as much impact as a slingshot on a Kaiser-class dreadnought. Seldom does it amount to more than a few aging hippies trying to relive their youth by resurrecting the Vietnam-era anti-war movement. Their attempts recall Marx’s comment that history occurs as tragedy, then repeats itself as farce.

In response to this failure, a few voices from both the Left and the Right are suggesting an anti-war alliance. Given its impotence to date – nowhere more evident than in Congress, where few Democrats dare call for a withdrawal from Iraq – it is not clear exactly what the Left would bring to the table. The strongest and most thoughtful voices against the Iraq War have come from real (as opposed to neo-con) conservatives, starting well before the war began.

This piece is number 163 of a series of weekly articles written by Lind since the commencement of the invasion in 2003. If you want to mount a coherent argument against the conduct of the war and the occupation you should take the time to read these, and the wealth of other writing on the Defense and the National Interest Website. There are many other such websites maintained by conservatives, Washington insiders and informed ex-military officers if you care to look for them too.

Consistent, rigorous intellectual opposition to the Bush administration's conduct of the war has also quietly taken place within the US military. Articles appear almost daily in the US press that totally dispel the left wing 'grand conspiracy' myth, if you care to read them that is. One recent example is Elaine Grossman's Have questionable incidents gone unnoticed? in Inside the Pentagon. Grossman writes:

While commanders say all cases of American troops killing Iraqi civilians are routinely investigated – and most are the result of stray fire, accidents or individuals mistaken for insurgents – a number of officers and troops who have served in Iraq say the diligence exercised in the battlefield inquiries varies widely. For uniformed personnel this is an extremely sensitive issue, largely because of the great lengths to which many commanders go to ensure their troops respect Iraqi citizens and investigate any civilian deaths that do occur. U.S. commanders increasingly see disregard for Iraqi lives not only as inhumane but also capable of undermining the war effort. A key tenet of fighting a counterinsurgency campaign is cultivating public support by protecting the population from violence. In fact, most soldiers and Marines in Iraq “have shown incredible restraint” despite the tremendous stresses involved in fighting day after day, for extended periods, against a formidable insurgency, says one retired senior Marine.

... The second-ranking U.S. officer in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, has put new priority on reducing the number of Iraqi civilians killed at checkpoints. Using new tactics and equipment, the average has dropped to about one death a week compared to seven or so a week as of 11 months ago, The Wall Street Journal reported last week.

... But the possibility that not all Iraqi deaths have been fully examined or explained is apparently on Chiarelli’s mind. In April, he ordered his subordinate commanders to investigate all incidents in which U.S. troops might be responsible for seriously wounding or killing Iraqis or causing more than $10,000 in property damage, The Wall Street Journal reported June 6.

Which brings us to your point about the 'dishonour' of coalition forces. Despite what you might want to think, Mark, the fact remains that the vast majority of coalition forces in Iraq do behave honourably. Many, if not most of them, serve there with the philosophy that they are there to clean up the mess of someone else's making, to make a difference to the lives of average Iraqis, and to do their best to re-build the institutions of security and accountability that will serve Iraq into the future when the coalition departs. The only difference between you and they, when it comes down to it, is that they are actually making such a contribution and you are not. 

“….al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in an Internet audiotape attributed to him, warned of retaliation against Iraqi Shi'ites, who he said have been waging a campaign of "genocide" against Sunnis….”

It's plain to see, from this, why the Left supports the "resistance". They want to head off a genocide in Iraq.

Ooops? Did someone say the word 'Anfal'?

Angela Ryan: "Yes indeed CP we are allies in the world of international justice and intrigue(may the two never meet/mete) ,even if it takes knockingdown every single one of those damn lefties who dared to criticise Saddam all these years when he was Rummy's bastard..."

Really? Could you name two "lefties" who dared criticise Saddam?

To help you along, I'll name the first one and then we'll see if you can name another;

"The House calls on the Prime Minister Bob Hawke to act immediately to put pressure on Australia's allies to intervene in Iraq to stop the slaughter of the Kurds and establish their right to self-determination ... we're in the disgusting position of sitting on our hands while these people are absolutely slaughtered - the least we can do is get our Prime Minister to speak up and put the full weight of this country towards the protection of these innocents."

- Bob Brown

There you go. Now, you name the other....

CP: "...That the Coalition of the Willing are brutal lackeys of Global Zionism brutally raping and torturing their way to the oil wealth of Iraq. And having accepted that notion, it becomes patently clear"... STOP!... I accept no such notion.

Don't confuse what I think for what you would dearly wish me to think. If you feel you can use what I've written as a launching pad for your ill executed sophistry, then you had better think twice. I'll not put up with your bullshit.

The topic at hand is the question of COW forces acquitting themselves dishonourably. According to International conventions they have a legal obligation to do otherwise and considering their self aggrandisement as liberators and the harbingers of a new era for the 'proud Iraqi people', they also have a moral obligation to do otherwise. That is what we're talking about in this thread and not f***ing school enrollments.

Furthermore, if you care to take a look around, you'll find that it's been some time since anybody spoke of a "resistance" in Iraq. It's commonly accepted by those without their heads in the sand that we now have an internecine war. Without a doubt, the blame for this violence can be laid squarely at the feet of the incompetent occupying forces. You'll probably have to wait a couple of years before you can read all about it in the "intellectual" right wing press but, please, persevere. I predict that the "intellectual" right will be all over this topic in due course. In fact, it will probably form the basis of their excuses why things aren't going quite so well in Iraq and why they should probably extricate themselves from the situation. Of course, I'm not talking about cutting and running. That would never happen. At least, not until all the important work is done.

Nice try Greg. Your disappointment in Haifa Zangana's lack of dissident zeal is a matter completely divorced from the topic at hand. There are plenty of people around the world doing all sorts of things which are not reported on the web. Nevertheless, let us give credence to your argument and see where it takes us...

...Haifa Zangana is a spineless, terrorist sympathising feminist bitch who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth. Therefore, everything she has reported above is false and all her quoted sources are liars.

Having accepted that notion, it becomes patently clear that the U.S. forces are conducting themselves in a gentlemanly manner and everything is going dreamily in Iraq. Wow! That was great. I 'd love to live in your world Greg. It's all so wonderfully... simple.

Angela Ryan: "Sorry C Parsons, but , er  ,just how many rendition CIA torture flights have resulted in prosecution? Or do they just not happen? Better tell the EU as they are convinced they are and demanding them to stop."

That's a very good point, Angela. And I am pleased that you have such a principled stance on the issue of torture and arbitrary detention.

Obviously, if such a thing is to be prevented from rearing its ugly head, then it is important that in any society there be free and open political processes, a free press, and an independent judiciary.

By golly, just look at the rebuke the US Supreme Court just handed George Dubbya over Guantanamo Bay, for example.

Didn't that just make your day?

That won't be happening in Jordan or Syria or Iran any time soon, will it?

Now, in Iraq they're struggling to put together some kind of political consensus between dozens of competing political factions and all sorts of conflicting interests.

They're even talking about some kind of amnesty for the rank-and-file of the so called "resistance" militias in order to bring them into the political process.

They have popularly supported elections and a degree of media independence pretty well without parallel in the middle east.

And a date has even been scheduled by the judiciary for Saddam's trial for his part in the Anfal genocides.

I support all of that.

The "resistance" doesn't. And neither does Saddam Hussein.

They support the car bombings, the beheadings, the torture of captives, murders of Iraqi workers, and the like.

And it's a matter of public record, isn't Angela, that Richard Neville, George Galloway, Clare Short, Michael Moore, cartoonist Ted Rall, John Pilger, Naomi Klein, Arundhati Roy amongst others openly and un-apologetically support the "resistance" thugs?

George W Bush orchestrated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not those pinkos.

They support the throat-slitters, car-bombers, teacher rapers, school children machine gunning, Mosque-bombing heroes of the "resistance".

And they're proud of it.

So, when they start castigating the Coalition for its "use of torture" or "abuse of women detainees", just how sincere do you think they are?

Okay, by all means, investigate and expose that sort of thing.

But puh-lease. Don't pretend they give a stuff about what's going down in Iraq now, because they showed no interestest at all in what was happening there before - unless of course it could be somehow laid at the feet of, cough, cough, Global Zionism or the Great Satan.

Mark, you say to C Parsons:  "There is nobody here who is waving any kind of flag for what you, and only you, term the "resistance" in Iraq."

Surely you are mistaken. Go to the top of the page. Read the article. Slowly. From top to bottom. Haifa Zangana is not merely waving the flag for the "resistance" she has presented an argument which is as simple as it is dishonest: everything that is wrong in Iraq is because of the coalition occupation and if the coalition went away everything would be wonderful. Not a mention at all of the atrocities committed daily by the "resistance". Not once a word on bombing of markets, nor of schools, nor of mosques. Nothing on the campaign of terror against civilians that they are pursuing to achieve their aims.

I  find it more than passing strange that this person who, on her say-so, was imprisoned and tortured by Saddam Hussein, and fled to London in 1976, (after a sorjourn in Lebanon helping the PLO) has not a bad word to say about his creatures of the Baath party who are the core of the "resistance", but then, equally, I find it more than passing strange that I have been unable to find a any reference on the Web that indicates that at any time during her long exile she ever wrote a single word of criticism of Saddam's regime. However once it falls she gets all fired up about the injustices being visited on the Iraqi people.

Waving a flag for the "resistance"? I think that she's doing a good deal more than that.

I suppose the elements of spin-speak are what annoy me. No amount of gap filler will ever make knotty pine look like mahogany. It just isn't so. War is to be abhorred by almost everyone, D Cheney and his mouth piece G Bush being two exceptions. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is so hard to accept that Bush went to war for oil (again), and the removal of Saddam H was a by-product of that, used as a flag for spin doctors to wave in the faces of the terminally foolish.

No one here has ever said that the war was a bad idea in terms of changing the guard in Baghdad. The issue is the lies used to sell it, and the lives used to keep it going. I can't believe that yanks are so stupid as to do Bush to themselves again, however, that having been said, I never thought Australians would vote for a proven liar either, so what do I know about it?

In my opinion if regime change was the reason, why are there millions in camps in Darfur. Why are the Burmese allowed to continue to suffer? Why just Iraq. Hell, why not invade North Korea and Iran as well... oops.. forgot.. they're next aren't they C Parsons?

There is systemic abuse in Iraq, just as there is systemic abuse in Afghanistan and might I say some well documented abuses in our own enlightened detention centre's here in the land of fair go! Further more there is also farmed out incarceration, where the objectives are to distance us from the abuses. The good old US of A calls it Rendition. Some of this is most assuredly sanctioned by people at the top with Rumsfeld as complicit as anyone and sadly Howard and Downer are quite happy to share the podium with him. By implication, we are involved as we continue to maintain more than a token input, because the guys with their so called mandate rule us, are in full support of the US policy. The Liberal Governments  refusal to accept our international responsibilities to refugees and “those in peril on the seas”, is very, very close to the extremes seen in WW2 and other regimes since.

I just wonder how an independent history of this time will read in fifty years. Then it will be a case of the blatant hidden agenda of energy issues and stuff the people!

What really disturbs me about the abuses, is that in many cases there is a gravitation towards an opportunity to abuse as in paedophiles often working in child minding centre's and the like. In a Radio National programme I heard of the hangman that hanged Ryan in Melbourne described as a serial killer and actually loved his work...macabre isn't it.

There is also the affect, that exposure to an abusive environment, can engender abusive behaviour in ordinary decent people like you and me. Nazi Germany has many examples of this. Yesterday Radio National aired a programme called "A Short History of Torture", which I found hard to listen to and yet very compelling. I believe this should be compulsory listening in our education system and ideally for the tongue clicking "it could never happen here" set! Because it can and does, just take the proven abuses and inhumane behaviour levied against incarcerated people in our detention centres. Some of the treatment was approved of by the contractors (and a blind eye from our Government), firstly ACM and now GSL with some of the staff really decent people whilst others you wouldn't have at your dinner table. Sadly in some cases, the inhumanity rubs off and the environment encourages this. However amongst the guarding staff will be people who are opportunistic in their choice of work. Like the hangman they also are able to exercise their macabre pleasure. When a government out sources like this (it's an art form in the US), true oversight is difficult and particularly so if the Government Minister is over extended. None the less this Government remains responsible no matter who makes the excuses.

Without balanced democratic process, power will take precedence. Power begets power and so on… just watch this process as it’s well underway and mean-while, many will just have another chardonnay. I believe it’s a serious time to wake up and like the Australian Hip Hop group, The Herd’s number, 77%,says it very well, even if the language offends some.

I am grateful to Webdiary, as more people around Australia become vocal, the sooner we might see a return to democracy and the possibility that decent people will speak out against inhumanity! We have to hope and not be silent!

Stuart: "Only a fool would deny that Iraqi women have been abused in this way, but to claim that this is the result of a "deliberate policy by the occupiers" is ridiculous." 

As amply evidenced by the prosecutions against Coalition soldiers who have abused or killed innocent civilians.

It is essential for those who support the so-called "resistance" (reactionary fascist and Islamist militias) to argue that such abuses are the "deliberate policy by the occupiers" in order to mitigate the daily tortures, murders and other abuses directed against civilians and un-armed captives by the "resistance" itself.

This is the logical counterpart to the briefly fashionable claims that "resistance" attrocities such as car bombings, beheadings of trussed and bound captives, the videotaping and brodcasting of the torture of captives, mass murders of Iraqi workers, were "fakes" and "psyop tricks" by the elected Iraqi government and the Coalition forces.

There will be no "resistance" prosecutions against militia murderers, rapists and torturers, will there?

That is because such excesses are the ordinary mode of conduct of the so-called "resistance" - and given that Iraqi civilians are their main enemy, as evidenced by the sheer ferocity and frequency of "resistance" attacks on civilians.

Anything rather than face the moral and political consequences of openly and continually expressing support for and offering encouragement to the Ku Klux Resistance as it struggles to overthrow the popularly elected government of Iraq.

Hey, Angela?

Hi Angela,

Your post includes a lot more hyperbole (control of Iraqi resources, Iran, Sudan etc), but simply regurgitating snippets of Zangana's article does not substantiate your claim of a "deliberate policy by the occupiers". Disappointingly, you have also failed to address any of the genuine questions that I posed at the end of my post.

Has there been widespread abuse resulting from ill-discipline, lack of accountability, failure to restore institutions of justice etc? Clearly, yes. Has this resulted in part from a deliberate policy by unaccountable elements of Iraqi government agencies? Clearly, yes. Can/should the occupying powers do more to address the situation. Clearly, yes. Have you provided any evidence whatsoever of a "deliberate policy by the occupiers"? Absolutely not.

You cited this passage of Zangana's (your emphasis): "Numerous rights organisations have reported the presence, "for security reasons," of female detainees in many prisons throughout Iraq. Evidence indicates widespread maltreatment, degradation and physical and psychological torture, in addition to unhealthy and unhygienic conditions of detention."

Yes, there are many female detainees in Iraqi prisons. Yes, there has been widespread maltreatment etc. These facts, however, in and of themselves, do not prove your argument that maltreatment is a "deliberate policy by the occupiers". Again I ask you to make your case.

Another little bit of hyperbole in your post is your reference to "the average soldier caught up doing the dirty work". You seem to have ommitted the fact that there are a lot of "average soldiers" (many of them Australian) involved in the "dirty work" of training, advising, mentoring and generally supporting Iraqi security forces in order to prevent these sorts of abuses from occuring when the coalition has withdrawn from Iraq. Do you think that this should continue? Or do you think that they should simply pack up and come home, thereby leaving the Iraqi security forces to their own devices, so that we can simply "stop the war" or some such simplistic nonsense?

In short, Angela, there can be little doubt as to the nature and extent of the problems currently faced by Iraq, but too few have the integrity to move beyond so-called "pro-war" or "anti-war" ideological slogans and grapple with the solutions.

Ross Levinson: Man’s inhumanity to man is simply an historical fact. Abuses are endemic when the checks and balances of the judiciary and of voices of the thinking and caring elements of every society are controlled or even silenced.

Yes Ross. It is impossible to escape that. And anyone who thinks Australians are incapable of human rights abuses is living in Pollyanna land. As I said to Margo the only time I met her, there are some very very sick people in this society of ours.

I don't think I have ever read anything as nasty and vicious in my entire life as that which appeared on a certain website, and directed at her when she left WD. No wonder she quit. Who wouldn't. I would not want to put any of those types in charge of a detention centre. They would be quite capable I am sure of turning their hate into the worst from of physical abuse, given half the chance. Yes, Australia has its own ugly underbelly and you don't have to look far to find it.    

Nothing would surprise me in Iraq. Human rights abuses have been par for the course there for decades, not just since this war. And even when the COW pull out, it will still go on. Nothing is more certain. The hatreds run too deep and there will be those who will use those hatreds to further their own ends, by whatever means they see fit.

jane lahey, you specifically said:

"Iraq was still among the better educated nations in the world at the time of its invasion of Kuwait in 1991."

And I asked you for a source substantiating that claim. I note you have not done so.

Instead, you have said this in response;

" I do advise you that a range of articles and statistical data pointing to the excellent quality of Iraqi education – as well as health and welfare – in the 1970s and 1980s are available for anyone who knows how to Google."

Well, then. it shouldn't be hard for you to find a source supporting your claim ("Iraq was still among the better educated nations in the world"), should it?

Give it your best shot.

David R: I expect that (Enrollment in Iraqi schools has risen every year since the American invasion) will make their Mums feel better about having been raped and tortured, then ...

Unless the heroic "resistance" slits their throats or murders their teachers first, hey David.

But then, I don't support the "resistance", do I?

Meanwhile, in Kuwait;

"First came a letter carrying a stern warning: "Quit the race, or else". Next, unidentified attackers cut up and sprayed insults over campaign billboards.

But Aisha al-Rushaid - one of 32 women standing in Kuwait's elections tomorrow - has vowed to pursue a seat in parliament in the first general election since the country granted female suffrage last year."

When ever I hear friends, family, or anyone for that matter, confidently saying it could never happen here, I am shocked.

The voices of ghosts that echo in the streets of Argentina, South Africa, Peru, Germany, Russia and these are some of the obvious…. but includes our own country and of course the land of Apple Pie and all things good and say, “don’t you remember”?

I think it’s part of the human condition that we go into denial and simply pat ourselves on the back and say what good souls we are? Whilst we are simply human and simply the same. The same as the those who have been a party to the atrocities carried out both now and in the past for a better future and for the common good? After all don’t the ends justify the means?

What really worries me, forget the US for a moment, is that by distancing ourselves from the more blatant extremes of behaviour, we are able to maintain the myth that it could never happen here. When in effect we are active participants in illegal and inhumane behaviours, perpetrated on people, like ourselves, but removed from our earshot and sight, in a distant land.

Okay so you say, what’s this bloke talking about? Closer to home the Government carries out its policies in our name, because they say they have a mandate to do so. A mandate that could, if you push the envelope, land you in detention with hardly any right of reply, with a lot of the gentle folk clicking their respective tongues about how right the Government is, in protecting the Australian way of life. I’m talking about Australian’s that will speak out and continue to do so whilst our freedom is continually whittled away by Heir Howard. The most recent is the limitation on the function of our Senate. Also the IR legislation removes the right to have active protest and representation (collective bargaining and other issues) by ordinary people. There are many examples of this erosion of our democracy, with anti terror legislation the more obvious.

So how is it working out? We don’t mistreat people here in Australia, because we’re too nice and mostly Christian. What nonsense. Port Hedland, Perth Airport, Baxter, Womera, Villawood, Christmas Island and more.. detention centre’s scattered around our fair country and mostly beyond our scrutiny, bare testimony to many unanswered questions. Every now and then we see the tip of the iceberg and quickly the spin doctors manage to put a momentary grass fire out.

A cute twist is the new brain child of the autocracy (the inner sanctum of the parliamentary liberal party – the big four or five). Expulsing our borders completely, or as is expedient, and simply shipping unwanted’s or illegal’s, off shore, so as not to ruffle the feathers of nice people like you and me?

Unfortunately, the story is never that simple and the way in which the contactors carry out the necessary work given them by Heir Howard, reflects too often, the human condition. Not the “it could never happen here” attitude, because it does. Man’s inhumanity to man is simply an historical fact. Abuses are endemic when the checks and balances of the judiciary and of voices of the thinking and caring elements of every society are controlled or even silenced. Power vested in a few becomes dangerous all too quickly and if you look, you will see this happening at an accelerated rate. Power of it’s own nature, corrupts those who handle it! The more power, the more those who possess it can not bare to relinquish it and will adjust the society to guarantee their position.

By inference we are already involved in serious offences against humanity, by our complicit silence and involvement in the detention of men, women and children in Iraq and I suspect Afghanistan is no different, under the most inhumane conditions and abuse. In effect we have become a nation of abusers, though because it’s our Government’s doing and because it’s elsewhere, we can enjoy another glass of chardonnay and prime steak on the BBQ. If you want to tut tut this, we are also quietly agreeing to the cute off shore mistreatment of human beings in the US’s Rendition program. None of this is lawful and it all goes on when people (like you and me) don’t want to know, head in the sand attitudes, change channels and have another glass of wine.

It’s time to look at our fair country and acknowledge there’s something rotten in the State of Australia. Time for you and me to say enough, time to say no more to abuse and stand up for decency.

C Parsons. Don’t come the Jack Russell on me. Your well worn technique of maneuvering moderately left-wing WD posters into appearing like extremist apologists for the Ba’athist regime or Hamas is a bone I’m not going to chew.

As for your barking orders at me to supply you with links, I do advise you that a range of articles and statistical data pointing to the excellent quality of Iraqi education – as well as health and welfare – in the 1970s and 1980s are available for anyone who knows how to Google. Here is one of many:

”Between 1984 and 1989 Iraqis were on average eating about 3,372 calories a day (minimum requirement 2,100). Adult literacy had risen to 95 per cent (Iraq won the UNESCO prize for literacy three years in a row); 92 per cent of the population had access to safe water and 93 per cent access to a clinic or hospital. Both education and health were free and Iraq’s welfare system was ‘one of the most comprehensive and generous in the Arab world’.“’ (Reported on 60 Minutes, 1996 – quoted at http://www.newint.org/issue316/keynote.htm)

There are also many online articles that analyse the UN Security Council dynamics behind the sanctions against Iraq, showing them to be US-led. Again, these are available to anyone who knows how to Google.

Your original post, that tried to justify the torture and rape of women in Iraqi detention centres by pointing to an increase in school enrolments and literacy since 2003, remains as silly as it was insensitive. Regardless of whatever strident, nitpicky rebuttal you choose to come back with, I am NOT pursuing this demeaning line of argument any further. Conversation over.

Angela Ryan wrote:

Here we have a deliberate policy by the occupiers of systematic attack upon women.

I'm curious as to the basis for this claim, because I couldn't find it in Haifa Zangana's detailed and thoughful article. Only a fool would deny that Iraqi women have been abused in this way, but to claim that this is the result of a "deliberate policy by the occupiers" is ridiculous.

The real question here is why it is being allowed to occur and what is being done to stop it. As is so often the case in this forum, however, ignorance and hyperbole prevent a substantive debate on the subject.

Zangana implies that coalition forces should be made subject to Iraqi civil and criminal law. This is a moot point. Exemption from local laws is always a pre-requisite for military interventions, whether these interventions be popular or unpopular ("protested against" in Daemon Singer's words). Those who have paid attention to Australia's recent interventions in East Timor, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands would understand this. Equally, however, military forces always remain subject to the military and criminal laws of their own countries, as well as international law.

This being the case, I suggest that contributors might want to ask why it is that Iraqi police and security forces are not being prosecuted for these crimes under Iraqi law, why coalition forces are not being prosecuted under the military and criminal laws of their own countries, and the effectiveness (indeed the relevance) of the various institutions charged with enforcing the respective international laws.

Further questions might be: What can be done to restore the capacity of Iraqi Government institutions to uphold justice? How can the institutions of civil society, including those mentioned in the article, be strengthened? Can/should the coalition play an effective role in this, and how can this be achieved if they withdraw immediately from Iraq in accordance with the desires of so-called 'anti-war' activists?

Is it possible to have a genuine debate on this subject in which contributors are honest enough to acknowledge the contradictions of their own arguments?

C Parsons as has been said before, just because the Americans give John Howard a whole lotta loving and promises, does not actually make them good for us as a country.

On principle I think it is wrong to suck up to a man because he is a president of a country that is powerful. I wouldn't for example advocate sucking up to the Premier of China either (though Lord knows that at least would make a modicum of sense). It just seems a bit disgusting really, that we, a sovereign Nation are always seen, thanks to your friend John Howard's sycophancy, as being an agent of america, and that he is seen as lapping at the nether regions of their president.

Iraq was protested against by large numbers of the population and yet still, off we went to appease america. Give me one single reason why we should do that. It is well established Iraq had nothing to with the 9/11 response to american adventurism and it is also well established that at the time, the nature of the Iraq regime would have had them on the out with Al Quaeda. so why was it done? Weapons of Mass Destruction perhaps, Cyril? I don't think so. Neither does anyone else.

Have a think about what would have happened if they had invaded New Zealand because as a non participatory member (either with us or against us) they could reasonably have justified that too. Would your friend come along on that one Cyril? No. He wouldn't. Why? White folks C Parsonsl. Bush only attacks "rag heads", so that public opinion isn't against him because all us good ol' white boys detest rag heads so he can get away with it.

C Parsons you can apologise all you like. Iraq may well be better off without Saddam Hussein, but if recent history is anything to go by, your beloved america will be in there again soon enough, to replace whatever they put in there to ensure their oil supplies.

By the way, can you please ask for directions on using the "quote" feature, or perhaps the editors could put something in there for us all since it is quite a useful thing if used correctly.

Richard:  The eighth button from the left does the trick.   By the way, Daemon I've taken the liberty of modifying your nomenclature of C Parsons to match his nom de plume.

jane lahey: "First, any increase in school enrolments in Iraq since 2002 are partly a rectification of a massive drop in enrolments and literacy over the period covering the Iran-Iraq war and subsequent 13-year long, US-led embargo that brought the country to its knees."

Partly a rectification? Really? Perhaps you could tell us which part?

Also, you may not have noticed, Jane, but the US-led coalition actually overthrew the Ba'ath Socialist regime of Saddam Hussein - and the sanctions were imposed by the United Nations.

The sanctions ended with the Ba'ath Socialist regime, and it was Saddam Hussein who launched the Iran-Iraq war.

But then, I supported the overthrow of the Ba'ath Socialist regime.

Had you your way, however, the Ba'ath Socialist regime of Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

And education would be still at the same levels, or worse, than in 2002.

jane lahey: "In fact, even with the drop in enrolments during the 1980s, Iraq was still among the better educated nations in the world at the time of its invasion of Kuwait in 1991."

Jane, could you please supply a link or source supporting that claim? That Iraq was still among the better educated nations in the world?

I'd like to see that.

And please make allowances to exclude the per capita education spending in the autonomous Kurdish Iraqi regions protected under No Fly Zone.

Thanks.

Here we have a deliberate policy by the occupiers of systematic attack upon women. It is time the US people awoke to what is being done in their name. Isn't it nice that Amanda Vanstone didn't allow that residence visa to that US Naval intelligence Stefanovic or whatever his name was, implicated in some of the worst Abughriab abuses and torture with "home " in South Australia? She is the closest thing to a minister with integrity in this goverment in keeping that type away.

Although......now the Political Party donation limit to declare is over 10grand we won't hear about any more bought visas will we Mr Ruddock? Unless the price has gone up.

Can we now put the idea of violent  military regime change with consequent violent occupation and resistance as a plus for women's Liberation down as a distasteful clumpsy attempt at spinmeister, that it is?We see the same in Afghanistan now too.

C Parsons. There are two points I’d make in response to your supremely insensitive post.

First, any increase in school enrolments in Iraq since 2002 are partly a rectification of a massive drop in enrolments and literacy over the period covering the Iran-Iraq war and subsequent 13-year long, US-led embargo that brought the country to its knees. In fact, even with the drop in enrolments during the 1980s, Iraq was still among the better educated nations in the world at the time of its invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Also, in the link you provided, the school enrolment increase since 2002 is given as 7.4 per cent, whereas the population increase over that time is given as 8 per cent.

Second, your response really makes me wonder about your basic humanity. Even correcting for any lies, exaggeration or anti-US bias on the part of the people relating the incidents described, these tales should fill us with shame and anger, not denial as you are displaying. Remember, the atrocities described here are being done by ‘our side’, not the former Republican Guard.

I would suggest to you, Mr Parsons, that if the women in the essay were Jewish (or Australian) instead of Iraqi, what would you then have to say? Come to think of it, if the women depicted here were Jewish, this essay would actually be describing some aspects of the Holocaust. 

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 25 — Enrollment in Iraqi schools has risen every year since the American invasion, according to Iraqi government figures, reversing more than a decade of declines and offering evidence of increased prosperity for some Iraqis.

David R: I expect that'll make their Mums feel better about having been raped and tortured, then ...