Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

The Guardian has published an extraordinary account of the last few years in Palestine and Israel by retiring UN envoy Alvaro de Soto: Guardian summary here; full text (52 page scanned pdf) here.

 "Wolfensohn's mission began to run aground after his attempts to broker an agreement on access and movement were intercepted - some would say hijacked - at the last minute by US envoys and ultimately Rice herself."

"Since, as I recall, the test of  occupation in international law is effective control of the population, few international lawyers contest the view that Gaza remains occupied ..."

Just to be clear, because there is much room for misunderstanding.
The quality of your humanity and character are essential.
How many people sell out and take advantage of the situation.
These people know how to use Reason and Knowledge don’t they!
So my point is many people were not fooled by the propaganda they asked questions and looked for answers, in other words they put their humanity before group think.
They realized that if something is right it is universally human, and not limited to their immediate environment.

This needs to be understood, because I wrote in haste yesterday, and I realized how easy it could be misconstrued
The Hedges piece bring the dimension that must accompany Reason, with this dimension Propaganda is not possible, because we become rooted in our humanity, which transcend our social group and social environment. We are connected to human truth and realtiy

Bob Wall presented a quote from Al Gore:

In describing the empty chamber the way he did, Byrd invited a specific version of the same general question millions of us have been asking: “Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?” The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of massive and well-understood evidence to the contrary, seems to many Americans to have reached levels that were previously unimaginable.

A large and growing number of Americans are asking out loud: “What has happened to our country?” People are trying to figure out what has gone wrong in our democracy, and how we can fix it.

Bob, this is not just an issue of Knowledge versus Ignorance, this is also an issue of what human beings are capable of becoming.

In my opinion what is missing from this line of reasoning is that human beings are capable of externalizing their negative characteristics that can exist in all human beings.

It is not as simple as dissecting propaganda techniques. There is much more to this than using human reason.

If it was simply an issue of using Reason and Knowledge, then why is it that many people were not fooled by all the lies and rhetoric in the first place? Scott Ritter, Noam Chomsky, etc, were there all the time, shouting out the truth.

In my honest opinion the closest to understanding this issue for me came from reading Chris Hedges.  I am sure you will totally disagree with me.

Hamas declared open war on Israel yesterday, pledging to renew suicide bombings after Israeli leaders vowed to kill senior politicians from the militant movement, including Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian Prime Minister.

See here. I see today, its business as usual in the Middle East. What ever happened to the peace makers? As the hardliners take over on all sides, peace seems so far away.

Jordan's King Abdullah II Tuesday urged Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to endorse an Arab peace plan as the two leaders held rare talks aimed at kick-starting Middle East peace efforts.

It was the first meeting between Olmert and an Arab leader since Arab states revived a blueprint that offers Israel normal ties if it withdraws from all land conquered in the 1967 Middle East war.

See here. Unless the Middle East is to be in a constant state of war, it is time for the Arabs and Israelis to make peace. If Israel was to move back to the pre-1967 border there would be a chance for peace.

The old colonialist trick of divide and rule seems to be working doubly for the Israelis at the moment. Not only has the deprivation of the Gazans ability to work freely in a community that has facilities and utilities that actually work brought frustration between factions to a boiling point that has led to shooting and killing among themselves as well as death from the Israelis as the Palestinians resist Israeli oppression, but the Israelis have also succeeded in polarising the Lebanese peoples and the Palestinian refugees that live there.

Frustration among Palestinians is now so deep-seated that some elements within Hamas are on the verge of calling for all out war against Israel. This will be disastrous for both sides, and, if such a war were to escalate, the consequences for the entire Middle East could be catastrophic.

It’s quite clear that the intentions of the Israelis is to yet again deliberately provoke Palestinians both in the Gaza and the West Bank in to attacking the Israelis to the point where the Israelis will retaliate massively in the hope of again drawing in Hizbollah then Syria then Iran and, of course, the US.

Olmert warned just a couple of weeks ago that this was on the cards when he said as thousands of Israelis demonstrated demanding his resignation in the light of the Winograd Report: ‘“It doesn't matter how many people came to the square, because decisions are made in the Knesset and not in demonstrations, because we are not a banana republic. And anyway, public opinion will soon flip in our favour.” (My emphasis.)

Gabi Ashkenazi, the new Israeli Chief of Staff, has now settled into his new job and has had his huge military exercises so the big question now is; is he ready to do what Daniel Halutz, his predecessor, failed to do?

Time will tell.

G'day Craig, David, F Kendall et al., solutions in re fundamentalism, Craig? Brain implants? Seriously, it is a difficult question but there might be other matters that need addressing that could impact. More on that shortly.

First, Uri Avnery on Winograd.     

THE WINOGRAD committee of inquiry is not a part of the solution. It is a part of the problem.

Now, after the first excitement caused by the publication of the partial report has died down, it is possible to evaluate it. The conclusion is that it has done much more harm than good.

The positive side is well known. The committee has accused the three directors of the war - the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense and the Chief-of-Staff - of many faults. The committee's favorite word is "failure".

It is worthwhile to ponder this word. What does it say? A person "fails" when he does not fulfill his task. The nature of the task itself is not considered, but only the fact that it has not been accomplished.

The use of the word "failure" all over the report is by itself a failure of the committee. The new Hebrew word invented by the protest groups - something like "ineptocrats" - fits all of the five committee members.

 He does not seem impressed.

Iraq.

Why Rummy got it wrong.

Not learning from mistakes.

He was a lone voice in the Senate before the war, what does Robert Byrd think now?

Byrd is mentioned in the opening paragraph of this extract from Al Gore's The Assault on Reason.

Not long before our nation launched the invasion of Iraq, our longest-serving Senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor and said: “This chamber is, for the most part, silent—ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate.”

Why was the Senate silent?

In describing the empty chamber the way he did, Byrd invited a specific version of the same general question millions of us have been asking: “Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?” The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of massive and well-understood evidence to the contrary, seems to many Americans to have reached levels that were previously unimaginable.

A large and growing number of Americans are asking out loud: “What has happened to our country?” People are trying to figure out what has gone wrong in our democracy, and how we can fix it.

Whatever happened to the informed electorate?

Manufacturing Indifference: Searching for a New Propaganda Model.

Some might not connect the dots, others might.

G'day David and FK., Stephen Zunes looks at aspects Winograd did not, ie., US involvement in the Lebanon war.

Nor did the commission directly address the reason as to why Israel, in the words of the report, decided to “launch a military campaign and deviate from the policy of containment.” The answer in large part lies in pressure exerted on Olmert by the Bush administration, which had long been pushing the Israelis to launch a war on Lebanon to cripple Hezbollah, the anti-American Shiite Islamist movement allied with Iran.

Seven weeks before the start of the war, in his May 23 summit with Olmert, Bush strongly encouraged the Israeli prime minister to launch an attack on Lebanon soon, offering full U.S. support for the massive military operation. Just three days later, Israeli agents assassinated two Islamic militants in Sidon, leading to a series of tit- for-tat assassinations and abductions which eventually led to Hezbollah's July 12 seizure of two Israeli soldiers, which was then used as the excuse for a war that had been planned for many months.

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh quoted a consultant with the U.S. Department of Defense soon after the outbreak of the fighting as describing how the Bush administration “has been agitating for some time to find a reason for a preëmptive blow against Hezbollah.” He added, “It was our intent to have Hezbollah diminished, and now we have someone else doing it.”

Shooting the messenger. 

But what was this document whose very existence posed such a dire threat to the life of the nation that its contents could not even be hinted at in public? It was a four-page record of a White House meeting between George W. Bush and Tony Blair on April 16, 2004. It is known in the trade as the "al-Jazeera Bombing Memo" because in those early news reports – after Keogh had leaked the document in May 2004 to O'Connor, in the hopes that it would be brought before the people's representatives in Parliament – at least one part of its contents became widely known; to wit, that Bush had proposed to Blair that they bomb the headquarters of the independent Arabic news agency al-Jazeera in Qatar, as well as agency offices elsewhere.

F Kendall, good point (among others) you raised with Delhi 1857, and there were warnings about what would happen in Iraq, which were ignored. See here. I just noticed I forgot to put the hyperlink in when I referred to this article on What if ... on May 17, 7.19 pm. So they were warned but went ahead and what they were warned would happen did happen. Then they talk of freedom and democracy. Really? And "Mission Accomplished". Perhaps it has been.

"Delhi 1857:  a bloody warning to today's imperial occupiers."

"No one likes people of a different faith conquering them or force feeding them improving ideas at the point of a bayonet ... nothing so easily radicalises a people against them, or so undermines the moderate aspects of Islam, as an aggressive Western intrusion."

I.Mc:  "Saddam...his praetorian guard, his psychopathic sons to continue his regime".

Ian, to me this is the stuff of fairytales. The dragon terrrorises the kingdom, and when we chop his head off, we'll all live happily ever after.

Saddam Hussein and his sons were a point, one hopes towards the extreme end,  of a continuum of attitude.    But not necessarily the most extreme, which is why referring to them as "monsters" or "psycopathic", as if they are aberrant, or non-human,  is dangerous and misleading stuff.  (It's what J Howard used to ramp up support for the aggression).    What they had was extreme power to practise their violence.   What they demonstrated and taught their supporters was the power of violence.  Have we done any different?

There was no paradox in non-intervention.  When there's a domestic next door, and I don't intervene, it doesn't sit on my conscience. 

Ian McDougall:  "The immense grief caused to Iraqi families has been caused in its bulk by the suicide bombers and snipers of the Iraqi 'resistance', the jihadists, and those Iraqis...etc etc.   One looks in vain for some recognition in the post quoted above that the Iraqi 'resistance' might just bear a tiny bit of the blame...etc etc"

Hello Ian.  I'm concerned about  personal responsibility, not about apportioning blame.  

I'm not sure whether you're saying that we are exonerated because the other side is worse...(well, we would say that, wouldn't we).

"Please miss, but he....". 

"I don't care what he did, Jaden.  I care what you did."  

Or whether, in fact, you are saying that because we put the blood in the water, we are responsible for the sharks gathering.    I certainly agree with that.

Ian, I'm getting lost in the contortions of your blame-game logic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying:

• Those who opposed the 2003 invasion, had their wishes prevailed, would bear responsibility for the fate of those Iraqis subsequently killed by Saddam's regime.
• The invading belligerents bear no responsibility for the 200-650 thousand Iraqis killed since the invasion, because someone else would have toppled Saddam, or he would have died of natural causes, resulting in more or less the same 200-650 thousand killed.
• 9/11 "changed everything" including empirical facts, such as that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and was not a threat to the world, let alone the region.
• We therefore have no choice but to support the actions of Bush, et al, even when such actions are predicated on lies.

This lot might once have been considered "remarkable stuff", but it's been a long time since I've been surprised about anything I've read on this topic. I'm prepared to make the prediction that, before too long, those who opposed this war will be spat upon in the street and denounced as baby-killers.

But, before that comes to pass, please allow me just a few rudimentary observations:

• Responsibility for the commission of a crime rests with those committing the crime.
• It is too often the case that there's nothing that can be immediately done about a given problem without making it worse — particularly complex problems, such as that of Saddam's Iraq.
• Attacking such complex problems with massive lethal force likely makes matters far worse.
• Hubris, in large part, consists in a lack of appreciation of the limits of one's responsibility, ambitions and powers.

By the way, Ian, I'm impressed by how you've accepted implicitly the results of that Iraqi opinion poll, yet reject the Lancet/Johns Hopkins survey of Iraqi mortality. Aren't you concerned about biases in the poll results, such as 'mainstreet bias' and other anomalies?

As we all know, CP, quite likely a majority of Iraqis wouldn't want Slasher Saddam back, while some significant minority of them do. Tragically, the guy who led the crowd that toppled Saddam's statue in Baghdad's Firdous Square reportedly wants him back.

Presumably, too, the families of the 200-650 thousand Iraqis who've been slaughtered in the last four years would also want their loved ones returned to them.

But that's tough titties for both the Baathists and the bereaved, because Washington and London decided to act in the best interests of the Iraqi people. Or something.

Next, we should do a survey of Zimbabweans, to ask them if they would be happy to see Mugabe go, with all the associated costs of a shock-and-awe invasion, consequent power vacuum, etc. If a majority of them answer in the affirmative, then we roll.

Please somebody call Messrs Bush and Blair with all haste. It will be a mutual ceding of sovereignty, in which we cede our foreign policy to the wishes of the oppressed in foreign lands, while they cede their sovereignty to our armed forces. A win-win situation: they get liberation and we get to be called the good guys.

No, wait... Mr Blair said that he would love to "get rid of" other rogue regimes, such as Mugabe and the Burmese generals, but he doesn't because he can't.

Sadly, it seems that in our best of all possible worlds, would-be liberatees must wait for a felicitous confluence of circumstances to obtain, before the liberators get around to the liberating. As in the real estate industry, there's a premium on location, location, location. Proximity to strategic resources preferred.

Here in Australia, Mr Howard candidly admitted — after all the putative reasons for invading Iraq were discredited one by one — that, in the final analysis, it was in Australia's national interest to fall in line with the invasion. (This rings true in hindsight, given that 40 US trade negotiators filed into Australia on the eve of the invasion, to hammer out an FTA that was dead in the water the year before.)

The folks in Darfur, meanwhile, are still waiting for the liberating classes merely to impose sanctions on their oppressors. And how long has the situation there been let slide?

Our own Australian Government rejects out of hand participation in sanctions against the Burmese generals — thus paradoxically letting down our American friends, who've been wanting for some time to get more international support for their sanctions initiative. Suddenly it's not in Australia's national interest to line up with the Americans. And incredibly the Australian Government has grown the spine to say 'No'. Strange world.

If Thomas 'Give War A Chance' Friedman is correct in saying (see second link above) that "people in democracies don't like to fight wars of choice", then the Iraqis can thank their lucky stars that the Great Men, Bush and Blair, cooked up a "war of necessity" — with the Iraqis' liberation as a fortuitous byproduct. And those Great Men wear their liberation chic with such aplomb, don't they?

Naturally, we should all be grateful for the rare fruit that occasionally drops randomly from the liberation tree — even if said fruit is worm-eaten. The pity in the Third millenium is that it's all such a lottery.

Neither you nor I know the answer to that, C Parsons.

F Kendall: "Was the fall of Saddam Hussein a good thing?"

Would have the Iraqis taken him and his regime back?

Was the fall of Saddam Hussein a good thing?

Obviously, from the increase of pollution and toxicity, it was a bad thing for the world.

Obviously, from the danger, the slaughter of innocents, the destruction of their society, the littering of their country with depleted uranium etc, it was a bad thing for Iraqis.

Obviously, from the marshalling of of Islamic fundamentalism, it was a bad thing for western civilisation.

Obviously, it was very good for the Carlyle group, Haliburton, the Bushes, Cheneys, and such profiteers. And, the only thing that seems to make these robber barons pause is the knowledge that their opponents have nukes.  Of course Al Qaeda wants nukes. 

Oh, and Saddam Hassein wasn't a monster, Ian, he was a man. Yes, he acted "monstrously":  just like some of the above....or maybe even us.  Look at the media attention about the (admittedly tragic) abduction of one small English girl, and compare it with media and popular indifference to the immense grief we have caused to thousands of Iraqi families.

I wasn't expecting a sort of Spanish Inquisition... If shown the instruments of torture, I'd almost certainly do a Galileo and recant.

Just for reference, if anyone's interested, Colin Powell in July 2003 explained his 2001 remarks thus:

I didn't change my assessment. What I said was, at that time, three weeks into the Administration when I was trying to get sanctions retained, and we did succeed in getting sanctions retained, I made that observation. But you've said — you will note that I did not say he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. And I think in that interview I also went on to say that it was important for us to keep the pressure on and for inspectors to be able to get back in and for sanctions to be kept in place. He was a threat then. The extent of his holdings were yet to be determined. It was early in the Administration. And, in fact, the matter was long before 9/11, so a lot changed between February 2001, but I don't find anything inconsistent between what I said then and what I said all along.

I take it, Ian, that you'll be nodding in affirmation at this 'authoritative' refutation by Powell. However, this and the tract you copied'n'pasted from Powell's 2001 remarks adds nothing to alter the fact that the US government's assessment in early- to mid-2001 of the limited threat posed by Iraq was pretty well spot-on, as has been 'verified' since the invasion (kind of a Schrödinger's verification, if you follow).

All it really says is that, in the assessment of the US Administration, Iraq remained a limited threat — not to the US, please note, but to Iraq's neighbours. There are, of course, a number of countries all over the world that regard their neighbours as threats. That's in the nature of things, but states by and large learn to live with and manage risk, as much as we ourselves do as individuals in our everyday lives.

As you point out, the Sept 11 attacks "changed everything". Mostly, that event changed perceptions, which allowed the US Administration to trade on a cache of worldwide sympathy (now all but squandered) and general hysteria in stitching up a 'case' for war against what was after all a very limited and manageable threat.

Your contention, Ian, that 'my' supposed answers to Hitcho's questions "would have probably led to war in the Middle East" is impossible to verify, so perhaps any uncertainty is rather on your side. The fact is that war in the Middle East is potentially imminent on a number of fronts. 'Our' setting loose the dogs of war in March 2003 has done nothing to limit that potential, and has arguably exacerbated it.

By the way, Powell's ominous little p.s. at the end of his 2001 remarks, re "Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq", recalls to mind that Argentina is still claiming sovereignty over the Islas Maldivas. I wonder if a preventive invasion by the UK is 'on the table', given that Argentina does have a history of aggression in the region.

Then again, there's s.O.meth.I.ng L.acking in that scenario...

Subtitle: Suspicion - torments my heart.

-=*=-

1. G'day Jenny Hume: you may have a relax. I'm toadally® democratic - IMHO anyone who sticks their head above the WD parapets may 'attract fire.' Or, being country, you may be familiar with the spring-gun construct?

-=*=-

2. G'day Ernest William Graham. Yes Ern, I remember the 'good old' HYS days, and the epic battles we waged against all evil-doers, and their evil-sayer handmaidens.

-=*=-

3. G'day Craig Rowley: "that's all from me ... on this thread." Yes, sir! Quitting the thread, sir!

Ian, thanks for the reminder about Christopher Hitchens's autoserve in Slate — a set piece in which he cherrypicks glib, non-exhaustive and easy answers to cherrypicked questions.

Just briefly, I'd suggest that to Hitchens's questions 1) and 5) could be added:

1(a). Was Secretary of State Colin Powell right or wrong to announce in February 2001 that Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

1(b). Was National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice right or wrong to announce in July 2001 that Saddam's Iraq "is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

1(c). Was UK Prime Minister Tony Blair right or wrong in September 2002 and February 2003 to cook up those dubiously sourced 'dossiers'?

1(d). Was Secretary of State Powell right or wrong to go to the United Nations in February 2003 with cooked intelligence and a set of audacious fabrications?

5(a). Was not the performance of the US Administration from at least September 2002 onwards a bit of a disgrace?

Oh, and how about some supplementary questions for Hitcho:

9. Was not the fall of Saddam — entailing, as it has, the violent deaths of some 200-600 thousand innocent Iraqi civilians, the re-energising of international militant Islamism, the fragmentation of the post-WW2 international system, the polarisation of Western populations, the crisis of faith in Western 'authority', etc. etc. etc. — a good thing?

10. What practical steps would you have taken if you were, say, the US President confronted in hand-to-hand combat with Slasher Saddam?

11. Are you not appalled with yourself for being a self-appointed, privately-funded arm of official government propaganda, while there's already billions of taxpayers' dollars devoted to the propagation of discredited claptrap?

12. Did you not seem rather tired, haggard and desperately in want of a cuddle in your most recent Lateline appearance?

Perhaps both pro- and anti-war readers may have some supplementary questions of their own.

 Subtitle: sadly perhaps, some things may have to be spelt out.

-=*=-

1. G'day Jenny Hume (ladies first): "That excludes of course Jay White, Geoff Pahoff and C Parsons who seem to have deserted anyway of late." A little (yellow? Nah..) bird tells me that Jay White, Geoff Pahoff and mike lyvers won't be back. These three all exited pretty-well immediately after I said to one of 'em (lyvers) "PLEASE DO NOT FRAME ME WITH THE 'H' WORD." I 'believe' (used advisedly) that if any coincidence (that we see 'in here,' say) really is a coincidence, then that'd itself be a coincidence to the power of incredulity(?!!) While we're discussing Jay White, Geoff Pahoff and mike lyvers, there's another 'stop-out' who presumably won't be back either, and for exactly the same reasons, namely Will Howard. As for why C Parsons is still here (birds of a feather - haw!), beats me.

-=*=-

2. G'day Ian MacDougall.

Me: "Ian MacDougall, will you disprove 'murder for oil,' yes or no?"

You: "No."

Me (repeat): Ian, if you won't/can't prove it ain't oil, my contention must stand: that the US is mass-murdering for oil.

Me (repeat): If you can't or won't disprove murder for oil, Ian, then I'd say there's not too much else [for you'n I] to talk about.

Bah! Double bah! The time for arguing this is over; see the PS.

But there is one thing left for you personally Ian, namely your stance/attitude. I've used all the 'right' words; pro-war, noblesse oblige, arrogance. You have taken the side of the so-called 'rulers,' and have said (no quotes; I couldn't be buggered at this point diggin' 'em up) that us mere mortals (aka we, the sheople®) can't appreciate what a 'bind' the rulers are in, and specifically that killing (aka the Blitzkrieg invasion of Iraq, murder for oil) could be approved. My comment: BS! Not copping out myself, but repeating the words of Jack Robertson:

Still, let's simply agree to hope your invasion, liberation, occupation and democratisation project does not result in the killing and maiming of too many more people than would otherwise have been the case. As for the hypothetical future deaths that might have occured under Saddam..if it comforts your conscience to imagine them accruing at an always greater rate that in Saddam-free reality today, come what may...by all means do so. It makes no difference to the real dead.

[WD/Looking for John Wojdylo]

I'll never be as eloquent as that, but I can ask: "The price? Was it really worth it?"

I just can't resist a final comment here: we have seen (amongst others) fantastic posts from Bob Wall (g'day), and here I have in mind the Kissinger and The Prize (now multiply cited), showing us that what might'a been exactly planned for Iraq is the toadal chaos we see (WYSIWYG, aka death, death, death and destruction); as well, of course, the setting up of the utterly criminal oil-theft. Just how much evidence - real, hard evidence, do you need (for you to come to your senses, say), eh Ian? (BTW, I have a bi-i-ig supply. Here, y'c'n have a few: ''''''''''''''''''''''''' - haahahhaha!)

-=*=-

3. G'day C Parsons.

You are to be congratulated - in a perverse sort'a way, of course, on the 'service' that you are performing for us 'in here.' Take as an example your 'Chevron is minor ...' on May 8, 2007 - 4:29pm. Well done! You think (err, sorry: my presumption) - in general, you try to put 'the left' or the 'Pinkoslamic straw-man' or whoever strays, however momentarily, into your sights - you try to put them all into the s**t (see below; deeep in the s**t.)

But in this case at least - and I'm thinking more generally - you are showing us just how stinkingly rotten our whole system is. The rats ripping-off the UN/OfF are essentially the same rats ripping us off in the so-called 'free' markets everywhere. What a swindle! AND that the UN is toadally® corrupt. AND that sure, things are rotten in the State of Islam. (Not noticing that the West has been meddling in the ME forever. Perhaps you not noticing, 'C' - but not us, we the anti-wars. We can see clearly now - err, getting back on track...) Suffice it to say, there's lots to fix - like lying, non-representing politicians, venal MSM, massive rip-offs, not to mention MfO. In my little summary in 'tricky questions' I again listed some'a what's going wrong; I'm not gunna do a rehash of any more'a that now, rather I'll hand over to my PS. But before I do that, I'd like to let you know, 'C' (is it Chris? Yes or no? - Oh, doesn't matter) - to let you know that I'm glad (well not so disappointed) that you haven't run off with the rest of the ra... Ooops! - departed gentlemen.

-=*=-

Whilst sitting here in reiterative review mode, an 'extra' occurred to me. Both Ian and 'C' are making the same-order error (Oh! 'Only' IMHO, of course!) - It's to do with propaganda. Ian 'swallowed' (or so it seems) the bits of how bad Saddam was (not much argument, but not no argument), and how good democracy is(!!??) 'C' is doing his best (one assumes) to augment B, B & H's vilifications. What they both see is other's (aka enemies, however pseudo) failures, not noticing (or relegating from 1st place) that our boat is going down. Yeah. Like 'Titanic' down. Reminds me of what one'a my heros (Rutan) says has the absolute highest priority:

"Fly the airplane!"

-=*end*=-

PS I respect free speech. I do not intend, nor do I want to see, any contributor leave. The above mentioned (unlamented) departed did so off their own bats, but presumably because of what was being said. By leaving they show (IMHO) that their positions had become untenable. Why that? Perhaps because they were (probably still are) supporters of the mess we're in. A mess which is itself untenable - and worse, getting rapidly worse. I 'believe' (same advisedly) that we, the sheople - not 'just' in our dear old wide-brown Aus, but in the whole wide world - we are deeep in the s**t.

On balance since the mini-mass-departure, things 'in here' have improved. Their greatest contributions were not positive, but distractions. Why that? Because they were mostly arguing for rotten bits'a the current 'pushed paradigm,' exactly the system that's sucking us all down the greedastrophe tor-let®.

We have to (IMHO it's a 'must!') move away from distraction, towards solving. Starting yesterday; with a first priority of ditching all of yesterday's (bad!) ideas - and all of yesterday's (crooked!) 'men.'

G'day world!

(Students of programming languages may recognise the signifigance of my greeting. For any who do not, this: apparent simplicity may mask great complexity.)

Stur wie ein Esel!

(Students of a certain foreign language may recognise the signifigance of my comment. For any who do not, this: think of an unmovable object; obstinate[1]. Literally, stubborn as a mule.)

"A journey of [1609 km] begins with a single step." -- Confucius[2]

As an assembler programmer, I delight in constructing complicated solutions in a compact way. To do so is to produce a programming work of art (at least IMHO, and who else is looking?) But any solution must also be practical: it must fulfil its requirements; otherwise it is just junk, no matter how artistic.

As a person, I imagine myself to be a man of the sheople®. If I meet a mate I say "G'day!" - but never "Hi," unless I'm in Denmark in which case it's "Hej-hej!" - or whilst leaping like a fear-stricken gazelle from the blue Pacific sea: "Hai! Hai!" (Esel-type joke.)

As I walk around our great wide-brown, I shudder if I hear "bathroom" when tor-let® is meant, and I like to remind any mates that we ort'a not lose our lingo. You bedda not!

As a programmer, I employ Boolean logic[3]. As an assembler programmer, I often operate this Boolean logic on binary digits, aka 'bits.'

A single bit can be considered as an ultimate piece of art, it has a unique place in the universe; it is the smallest - and therefore simultaneously the simplest - piece of complexity possible: it may only have the (ultimately precise!) values of zero or one.

As a programmer, I can assign alternates to bits, like - Oh, say: honest or charlatan, true or false, yes or no etc.

Sooo, as a piece of utterly elegant simplicity - extracted from the most fearsome, daunting even horrendous complexity, Ian MacDougall, will you disprove 'murder for oil,' yes or no?

-=*end*=-

PS to Jenny Hume: You asked "Get out and leave them to it?" - to which the immediate (simplistic!) answer is "No," but then the complex (nuanced!) answer is: a) the US (UK, Aus) must promise the world (and 'make it stick') that they will not touch a drop of Iraq's oil or its revenues, b) the US (UK, Aus) must restore all damage caused, then c) get (the hell!) out, every last man-Jack of 'em - and finally d) say "Sorry!" - and mean that, too. (Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey.")

PPS

You asked me “are the United States of America after Iraq’s oil, or not?” No beating around the jungle from me on this one, Phil. Sorry for the delay, but I have been through every likely book in the local Council library, and also all over the internet. The answer is yes. Without a doubt, yes. As are the Brits, the French, the Germans and just about everyone else on the outside of OPEC. I have been saying that for years, actually.

[Ian MacDougall on May 8, 2007 - 7:16pm]

You know what, Ian? Quite apart from your dreadful tone vis-à-vis me (in 'sorrow' mate, you don't rate 'pain'); Bush&Co are quite literally getting away with murder, partly due to people of your ilk.

Ref(s):

[1] obstinate adj. 1 stubborn, intractable. 2 firmly continuing in one's action or opinion despite advice.  obstinacy n. obstinately adv. [Latin obstino persist] [POD]

It's one'a life's curiosities; the 'neighbours' one often finds in the dictionary. Thus the next entry:

obstreperous adj. 1 turbulent, unruly. 2 noisy.  obstreperously adv. obstreperousness n. [Latin obstrepo shout at] [ibid]

[2] More quotes?

Top 5 quotes from Confucius

"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest."
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
"I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand."
"Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it."
"I do not want a friend who smiles when I smile, who weeps when I weep, for my shadow in the pool can do better than that."

Top 5 quotes from Motivation & Goals

"There's a way to do it better - find it."
"Ambition is pitiless. Any merit that it cannot use it finds despicable."
"All successful people men and women are big dreamers. They imagine what their future could be, ideal in every respect, and then they work every day toward their distant vision, that goal or purpose."
"To be pleased with one's limits is a wretched state."
"Every time you meet a situation, though you think at the time it is an impossibility and you go through the tortures of the damned, once you have met it and lived through it, you find that forever after you are freer than you were before."

[Quote DB]

[3] Boolean logic n. use of ‘and’, ‘or’, and ‘not’ in retrieving information from a database. [POD]

Ian MacDougall, you wrote:

"A friend picked up a copy of his book at Heathrow Airport, and read it on the plane to Australia. She recommended it to me, as happens from time to time. I always have 3 or 4 books on the go at once, some of which I even finish. I read Friedman’s book over 2 days, and found it most interesting. I understand that he was formerly a professional intelligence analyst, and has since set up a successful private intelligence operation called Stratfor. This I got from the internet and the book’s cover. After reading the book, I read a few reviews. See here, and here, and here. The book has a most interesting perspective, unlike some, and a solid feel to it. I recommended it to Webdiarists on more or less the same basis as our friend did to me. That’s all. No dramas."

To clarify - did your friend merely recommend the book as interesting or would you say she strongly recommended the book?

If the latter, did you not consider it wise to do deeper research on Friedman before recommending it to Webdiarists?

 .. like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

«Blinkers on in the killing fields
 I upset a few colleagues and associates on the ABC TV Insiders program last Sunday week when I said that no members of the left in Australia had publicly opposed the murders of Iraqi civilians by al-Qaeda in Iraq or by the Iraqi insurgency, writes Gerard Henderson.»

[SMH/Opinion]

-=*=-

The latest 'conspiracy theory' actually appearing 'in here' alleges that the lies used to justify the (illegal?) invasion of Iraq, resulting in the (brutal?) permanent occupation of Iraq by the forces of doom (US/UK/Aus murder for oil?) - that those lies were putative "noble lies" in that the US is (justifiably?) pursuing a 'secret war' against ‘al-Qaeda’ and more specifically, to prevent al-Qaeda from getting 'the bomb.'

(What I've not seen is any (required!) 'missing-link' evidence, as to what the exact connection of Afghanistan or Iraq might'a been to any alleged A-bomb. In this respect (A-bombs), both Afghanistan or Iraq were the wrong address, eh? Also, why secret? Isn't that undemocratic? What sort'a (crooked!) noblesse oblige is that? Surely democracy demands that we, the (sovereign!) sheople® should decide?)

A certain practitioner of 'the tricky question' has challenged (in this case perhaps better: 'counter-challenged') with the 'beating your wife' type question: "BTW: Was the fall of Saddam Hussein a good thing?"

Well, silly (if tricky) question!

The same practitioner of 'the tricky question' has aligned himself (no surprise) with Christopher Hitchens, who ends his own 'defence' of defending the B, B & H Blitzkrieg followed by Einmarsch then permanent occupation with this:

So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

[slate/Hard questions, four years later.]

(How's that? Iraq has been turned into a country-wide terrorist-school (if that's really what they are; see 'insurgent' below); there are now vastly more of 'em, and vastly greater both stimulus and likelyhood of 'blowback.' Hmmm.)

The Henderson question is most revealing, because it arrogantly displays the intention to upset, the target the left and the method the left has not publicly opposed, [framing: therefore must support?] 'the murders of Iraqi civilians by al-Qaeda in Iraq or by the Iraqi insurgency.'

See? Tricky, as in Tricky Dick. (That's not to exclude the limp vice-one) - and interesting in its own way, since we can see that by far the worst post-war US presidents are all 'peas in a pod' Repugs: Nixon ("I am not a crook"), Reagan ("Nicaragua death squads" (methodology now transferred to Iraq)), 'the elder' ("Highway of death"), and the 'idiot son' Bushes. 'Nuff said?

The point? Ahhh, finally: 'tricky questions' are only deployed to trick someone, eh?

I challenged Ian MacDougall to disprove 'murder for oil' in a general way on May 3, 2007 - 10:07am then specifically on May 4, 2007 - 11:32am. Since then nothing on the oil question from Ian at all (except in a citation: Terrorist groups in Iraq, which have learned to raise millions through kidnapping and oil theft, ... What a nerve.) If you can't or won't disprove murder for oil, Ian, then I'd say there's not too much else to talk about. Note that I'm not asking you to 'support' the mass-slaughter of innocent Iraqis, I'm just asking a simple question: are the United States of America after Iraq's oil, or not? - and if not, then with proof, please. After all, you do claim to have "Easy answers?" Kindly address oil theft - or perhaps explain why you won't?

-=*=-

There are, of course, more tricky questions. Jenny Hume:

That is the problems the Americans and Iraqi government now face in Iraq, an enemy hidden in the civilian population, which is essentially an enemy of the Iraqis themselves, not the COW. So I have problems with everyone laying the blame for all the civilian deaths in Iraq at the feet of the COW. If you are going to go after criminals with force, and it usually comes to force with those who live by force themselves, then those standing by are going to get hurt. So what do you do? Get out and leave them to it?

Y'know what, Jenny, I have a problem (cognitive dissonance) with the word 'enemy?' I thought the idea was to liberate our Iraqi friends, then to get out? No? I have a similar problem with the word 'insurgent' —adj. in active revolt. —n. rebel. [POD] Hmmm, revolting, eh? Against a brutal occupier's puppet government? You probably recall Reagan's “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter?” (This is worth a fuller quote[1]. Haw!)

I don't really think, that "Get out and leave them to it?" is an option that I, as a representative 'lefty' could ever suggest - let alone support. (Haw! And you might also recall that we the anti-wars said "NO WAR!" in the first place.) Sooo, is yours a silly question, or just another tricky one? But going on the theory that the US actually created the entire al-Qaeda problem in the first place, do you think it would be a good idea now, to ask the Yanks to stop meddling? For the wannabe world hegemon to stop their murdering to enable oil-theft, even get out'a the Middle East entirely - and not just BTW, stop their illegitimate sprog murdering for land and water at the same time? Hmmm?

-=*=-

While 'the iron is hot,' Jenny, would you care to attempt to refute my 'domestic siege scenario?' IMHO, one doesn't solve any such by killing all (mostly innocent) occupants, looting then bulldozing the house, then finally annexing the land (not so coincidentally the exact strategy often employed by Israel.) How would you improve on, say, the Lancet's 2006 estimated 650,000 dead Iraqis? I understand that under 'the rules of war' (what an idiotic concept), that an invader/occupier actually is toadally® responsible for everything ... including those 650,000 (now plus) dead Iraqis.

Oh, one more thing for you, Jenny; are you seriously proposing a religion-compatibility or similar condition/test for any potential immigrants? Why? What happened to separation of church and state? Oh, silly me, we don't have that, do we? Then, what about current citizens? Specifically, if I don't start going to church, could I be threatened some way down the track with being excluded, ejected then exiled? (G'day Craig Rowley)

-=*=-

The last big item for now, thanks to Bob Wall; g'day. One word: Kissinger. Another: chaos. This is important, perhaps 'key.'

Do not hold your breath waiting for a long-overdue Congressional investigation into how and why America was railroaded into invading Iraq and who is responsible for destroying that country in the aftermath of the invasion, because there is not going to be one. Not now, not ever, no matter who is in charge of Congress.

Everybody is guilty, going back to 1990. Some individuals and groups are just far more guilty than others. Mission accomplished, indeed. But whose mission was it, what has been accomplished, and at what cost? It is clear that Uncle Sam has been taken for a ride, big time. The Iraqis, the American troops on the ground, and the American taxpayers are paying the price, in spades. There is no end in sight.

[Patrick Foy/The Kissinger Connection]

Isn't that interesting? I mean "Everybody is guilty, going back to 1990." (You'll have to read most/all of the article to see the details; I did, so why not you?) In fact, the meddling is much older than that, we've got the CIA's 1953 coup d'etat in Iran[2], and even further back, Churchill who as Secretary of State at the War Office in 1919, authorized the RAF to bomb Iraq’s rebellious Kurdish tribesmen with poison gas ... [Eric Margolis/SADDAM HUSSEIN] BTW, Eric didn't support Saddam either.

What the US is after now, is the same as the UK was after then. (Haw!) Here's another of Bob's great links, Tomgram: Michael Schwartz, The Prize of Iraqi Oil. I read it, so why not you?

-=*=-

Shall I help with a little summary, a sort of tidy-up?

1. It's a 'lay-down misere' that the US intends to steal Iraq's oil. That will stand - shame! - until hell freezes over (or more likely, the Polar ice melts.) Unless Ian, say, can come up with a disproof? Haw! - IMHO, can't be done.

1a. The immediate implication is that the so-called world-leader is a lying, murdering thief.

2. Oil (as a 'prime') wasn't the only reason, there's the Israel Lobby, etc.

2a. One immediate implication is the Iraq/chaos, see Kissinger above.

2b. The other immediate implication is the Iran "All options" threat. Poor us, but poorer them (Iranians).

3. If you like (and even if you don't), it gets worse; the world is dominated by lies and theft/murder violence, with the 'lesser' injustices of wide-spread cheating (resource-rent rip-offs, "Economic Hit Man" et al.) Then (in brief) the failure of democracy, the corrupt and venal MSM, and the (TV-doped and dozing) sheople, who just don't seem to give a s**t. Does it really have to be this way?

I could go on, but that's (more than) enough already, eh?

Last word: so much, then, for "Truth, justice and the American way." (Spit!)

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1]

Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Fisking the "War on Terror"

Once upon a time, a dangerous radical gained control of the US Republican Party.
Reagan increased the budget for support of the radical Muslim Mujahidin conducting terrorism against the Afghanistan government to half a billion dollars a year.

One fifth of the money, which the CIA mostly turned over to Pakistani military intelligence to distribute, went to Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a violent extremist who as a youth used to throw acid on the faces of unveiled girls in Afghanistan.

Not content with creating a vast terrorist network to harass the Soviets, Reagan then pressured the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to match US contributions. He had earlier imposed on Fahd to give money to the Contras in Nicaragua, some of which was used to create rightwing death squads. (Reagan liked to sidestep Congress in creating private terrorist organizations for his foreign policy purposes, which he branded "freedom fighters," giving terrorists the idea that it was all right to inflict vast damage on civilians in order to achieve their goals).

Juan Cole/Fisking the "War on Terror"]

[2] the CIA's coup d'etat in Iran

Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior CIA officer and grandson of the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the CIA and British intelligence funded and led a covert operation to depose Mossadeq with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah, known as Operation Ajax.[²] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans. Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup initially failed, causing the Shah to flee to Baghdad, later leaving for Rome. After a brief exile in Italy, the Shah returned to Iran, this time through a successful counter-coup. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and condemned to death.[citation needed] The Shah commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life.

[wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi] [²external, not included]

Ian, as so often happens in these 'debates' on Iraq, it seems we must be 'talking at cross-purposes'.

Because, as you say, I have "in [my] own way made the point that [you] have been making on Webdiary since 2003... [viz.] The moral issues of the Iraq war are not simple, and the answers are not easy."

Strange how that was the 'point' I thought I was making with my blah that apparently had you "on the edge of" your seat.

But my objections aren't simply, as you suggest, "because of all the carnage". The carnage should factor into the equation quite considerably, of course, in any sort of humane 'calculus' on this question; however, you've simply ignored the several other 'variables' that I attempted (obviously imperfectly) to sketch.

Thus, you apparently dismiss my portrayal of the moral complexities of the Iraq misadventure as 'simplistic'.

Touche! I guess I had it coming.

More later... if I can get to a keyboard at a decent hour!!

Ian MacDougall, in my post to you I asked about your promotion of Friedman:

I ask what appeals to you about his work? What prompts you to accept his views over others? What  research into his background have you done to establish his credibility?

The only reference to these questions in your response was this:

(Re Friedman’s background, follow my links or google ‘Stratfor’.)

Interesting given that you have been asking questions of other people, for example, commenting that the only person to answer a "simple" question was Sid Walker.

Thanks, Jenny, for your thoughts on all this.

You make some points that I'd like to respond to in more detail when I get a chance, but for now please allow me to clarify that my statement, re "a country that was considered by two-thirds of my population to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks", was actually with reference specifically to Iraq, not Afghanistan, or even the war on terror generally.

You'll recall that after the invasion there were a number of reports of surveys in which (from memory) something over 60 percent of US citizens believed Saddam Hussein to have had direct complicity in the 9/11 attacks. This seems to be a widespread misconception in the US. For instance, while listening to the radio a while back, the following statement by the mother of a US serviceman slain in Iraq kind of stopped me in my tracks:

"I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was something that we had to do after the 9/11 attacks. I just think we ought to go over there and end it as quickly as they ended us on 9/11..." [JAS: my emphasis]

I wondered if it would be impertinent to ask the poor lady to please get it straight in her mind as to the particulars regarding the Iraq war, given that tragically her unfortunate son was killed because of it.

More importantly, however, this kind of fuzzying of just who is 'the enemy' contributed, I believe, to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Haditha, etc., and many others that we'll probably never know about. (Hence why I linked to that article on a survey of US soldiers' mental health.)

 .. none of which is 'oil.'

Ian's quite welcome to parody a writing style:

Y’orta know ya gotta be jokin’, an’ I wouldn’ try t’r d’fend it too ‘ard ‘f I wuz in y’r boots, coz writin’ like this’s soooooooooo too ‘ard on th’ apostrophe (-‘-) key, an’ I’m drummin’ y’ f’r real, f’r sure.

[Ian MacDougall on May 6, 2007 - 9:49pm]

 - even though that may well be in breach of WD guidelines[1], but most importantly of course, Ian's making fun of my writing adds sooo much force to his attempted dis[2].

One of my (non-exclusive) linguistic innovations is the term 'sheople®,' the demonstrable fact that a great majority of the 'Aussie unwashed' has been lulled into a TV-assisted, cargo-cult oriented state of reality denial; this leads me to comment on Ian's above "Y’orta" quote: "Baaa!"

But on a slightly more serious note, I write as I do to demonstrate my revolt against the Americanisms now so widely being adopted, even by 'our' AusBC: "Hi! ... here is our wrap if last night's Broncos[3] blah, blah, blah ..."

Comment: like the hordes of Mexican 'wet-backs' crashing the US border in search of the 'US dream' - only to end up as lower-than-bottom-class exploited slaves, lots'a Aussies throw their own culture down the tor-let® in their disgusting haste to culturally Californicate themselves.

-=*=-

Hollywood is not called 'the dream factory' for nothing, nor did the expression 'boob-tube' evolve except as perceptive comment. Some of us have seen that 'the wool is being pulled' ("Baaa!") but some others believe the rubbish that the (corrupt, venal) MSM largely presents as 'news;' what I've termed 'the pushed paradigm.' Sooo, a common urban legend has it that as Saddam was a vicious tyrant so killing Iraqis in numbers now estimated to range into the millions is justified; and Oh, just by-the-way, we'll vacuum up the lion's share of Iraq's oil as we go. And it definitely is 'we,' since we the sheople re-elected Howard, putting the electoral seal of approval on his lying to enable murdering oil-theft. I know a few 'Liberal-voters' personally; but nevertheless I was really surprised by one of them telling me (pre "Shock and awe") that "Now we're going to give Saddam what he deserves." Speaking for myself as a representative anti-war, I never 'supported' Saddam and regard all such allegations as filthily scurrilous. But this illustrates the misleading 'framing' employed by many pro-wars, another such is 'support the troops.' Why that, please? If, as I believe - based on four years' research, also by the entire WD - that the troops are involved in mass-murder-for-spoil, then they (the troops) are to be condemned as the misused-tools that they actually are. I was under the impression that our troops were to defend us, not to enable theft. The condemnation is of the war-crime magnitude, and responsibility for their actions can never be deflected by any Nuremberg (non!) defence.

-=*=-

Nice of you Ian, to bracket the Stern Gang with ... and above all, Joseph Stalin. We have also seen in these pages, how the Zionists started exactly as they have for 60 years or so now continued, namely by murdering the original inhabitants of what is now Israel in order to dispossess those original inhabitants of their land and water. We have M&W to thank for their recent highlighting of the Israel Lobby, and how the foreign policy of the US and Israel run in close parallels (hence 'Usrael'), as do their criminal methods: i.e. mass-murder for spoil. Also using the example of Israel, we see how the UN has been corrupted; Usrael claiming the UN both as legitimising authority whilst simultaneously ignoring it. This is known as 'hypocrisy,' just as killing to steal is known as 'criminal.'

-=*=-

Ian said "One would have thought the US would prefer to operate on traditional imperialist lines, ..." but this is just as misleading as others saying that the US didn't have to invade to get at Iraq's oil. I agree that they didn't have to, but the fact remains that they bloody-well did. It has been shown in here (as other-wheres, Ian: "Most of your points have been addressed" as if that somehow invalidated my arguments), it has been shown that the US is primarily interested in forcing its way, and doesn't shy from murder. (See Blum, "Rogue State," "Killing Hope.") Ian has proposed via Friedman that the US is nonetheless correct, and that they (the US) have a (secret?) clever plan to liberate the oppressed, and bring democracy to the underprivileged, etc. , etc., etc. - Oh, yeah: with guns and bombs. (Prove it's not after oil, hmmm?) Ian proposes fighting fire with fire "the only thing that has defeated it [terrorism] has been superior force." But as Ian seems to avoid directly refuting 'murder for oil, ' so he also fails to refute my 'domestic siege scenario;' one doesn't solve any such by killing all (mostly innocent) occupants, looting then bulldozing the house, then finally annexing the land (not so coincidentally the exact strategy often employed by Israel.)

But wait a sec; what's this discussion of Al Quaeda and terrorism got to do with Iraq anyway? We now know what we suspected all along; that Saddam had no nuke intentions; no plan, no material and just no nothing (the US/UN sanctions were strangling not just any armament capability but also leading to the deaths of 500,000 kiddies as a super-cynical BTW - thanks Mme. 'right-price' Albright.) Powell had previously said Saddam was militarily impotent. It's all on the public record! Further, we also know that Saddam had no sympathy for, let alone contact with Al Quaeda, etc. - so Iraq was still the wrong bloody address.

Deposing Saddam ('regime-change') and setting up a democracy[4] in Iraq may have been reasonable objectives, but these objectives are clearly failing (yeah, Saddam is lynched'n gone); failing not from any 'mismanagement' (just another one of the long sequence of dreadful 'fake-excuses' (aka lies) deployed), but because they were not the real objectives. See, for example, here (thanks Bob Wall and g'day):

Oil was one very important reason, though not the only one.
…

The war on terror allowed Bush to encapsulate the challenges facing America in simplistic religious terms such as “good versus evil” that have resonance with the large Christian element in the US society. Bush’s cowboy persona, which seems at odds for a scion of an old, established New England family, also has a simplistic appeal to a people imbued with myths of the frontier and John Wayne films. The “goodie” fights the “baddie”, often alone, in the name of truth, justice and the American way and with God on his side. There is no room for contemplation of the possibility that US foreign policy has contributed to creating grievances that result in retaliation, it is an uncomprehending “Why do they hate us?”

[Kerryn Higgs/The irises and Patrick Fitzgerald]

A word on 'occupation.' We know that the US is building at least four permanent military bases designed to house of 10s of 1000s of horrid US forces, plus the (obscenely) largest 'embassy' in the world. The US is not leaving Iraq 'any time soon' (detested Ameri-speak; spit! Spit!) - not leaving that is, unless someone (perhaps we, the anti-wars) gets them thrown out.

A word on 'Islamo-fascism.' Ian "Al Quaeda does not just want a caliphate. It wants an Islamic empire... Oh, really? Could you perhaps consider Pape's "Dying to win" explanation for suicide terrorism, the most prevalent (and Oh, so usefully most frightening) form? Could it true, that the intention is to eject occupiers, as Pape's evidence - real, hard evidence - suggests, or just what else, please? Can you explain to us, how terrorism of Westerners actually works to establish this caliphate/Islamic empire?

Friedman’s book is called "America's Secret War," "His basic thesis is that the War on Terror and the war in Iraq have been primarily about stopping Al Quaeda, most importantly, before it gets its hands on WMD." Bravo, but neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had the faintest whiff of a WMD. Since the main, horribly visible effect has been mass-death of civilians and near-toadal® infrastructure destruction, one really has to wonder if the US hammer hasn't hit the wrong nail? It's one thing for the (in-hiding) klepto-despots running the (laughable) US 'democracy' (follow the money!) to clean-up the $s like KBR et al. - but it beats me how they (the despots) enlist so much ostensibly intelligent but also amateur (i.e. unpaid) help?

Ian, you are right; the Iraq war has been discussed up and down for four looong years (5%!) by plenty smarter than I. But most 'right-thinking' commentators (Oh, only IMHO, of course) are converging on what I see as the truth: that the US, along with Israel, the UK and Aus (aka the wannabe world hegemon plus its illegal sprog and the poodle with dag, with the emphasis on regimes, as opposed to the mal-informed voting sheople) - are the real villains.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] MK, Here are the guidelines I've carried over to our permanent home:

a. any criticism of a Webdiarist's actual or imagined physical appearance or characteristic (voice, inherent intellect), or non-physical qualities over which they have no immediate control (writing ability, education level, life or work experience);

b. posts which contain sneering or foul-language criticism of views and opinions, as opposed to witty and pithy critiques; ...

[WD/Editorial Policy]

[2] dis informal, chiefly USverb (also diss) (dissed, dissing) [with obj.] act or speak in a disrespectful way towards: he was expelled for dissing the gym teacher.

noun [mass noun] disrespectful talk: the airwaves bristle with the sexual dis of shock jocks.

ORIGIN 1980s: abbreviation of disrespect. [Oxford Pop-up]

[3] bronco noun (pl. -os) a wild or half-tamed horse of the western US.
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from Spanish, literally rough, rude. [ibid.]

[4] Democracy; shamocracy. To have a functioning democracy one needs a few pre-requisites, like a) a valid choice of sincere potential representatives, b) full, accurate and honest information on just what the candidates are promising, c) an aware and engaged electorate - and d) the IMHO quite reasonable expectation: that promises will be kept.

My comment: Haw! - Then the almost infinite sadness sets in ...

Ian MacDougall, as you are so keen on promoting the views of George Friedman, I ask what appeals to you about his work? What prompts you to accept his views over others? What  research into his background have you done to establish his credibility?

You have posed some questions about Iraq, perhaps you could check some of the links I have provided in recent days on Craig's (G'day)What if ... thread about the state Iraq is in and why it has come to that condition. I repost this and this as examples.

For a more expansive analysis see this.

There is, of course, much, much more.

Since you've dropped me in it, Ian, I do recall suggesting, perhaps more strongly than I should have, that your position on the invasion of Iraq is borderline-delusional. Okay, I might have strongly suggested that you, yourself, personally, are borderline-delusional, at least on this issue. Sorry.

Now, you say that "It is language that clouds the issue." I couldn't agree more.

Your own language clouds the issue when you couch the disaster of Iraq in terms such as: "... when someone with the credentials of Saddam Hussein gets into a fight with George Bush, one should support George Bush ..."

Fair dinkum, Ian, if that isn't the grossest over-simplification of the issue of the Iraq invasion...

If Saddam Hussein and George W Bush "got into a fight", my money would be on Slasher Saddam over Debonair Dubya in hand-to-hand combat, and we would now be discussing Dick Cheney's shortcomings as President.

But, of course, your very language obscures the reality of what has been done. Namely, that a population of 24 million — roughly (from memory) half under 15 — were unfortunately placed squarely between Slasher and Debonair in their monumental little game of fisticuffs.

You tirelessly reprise, "Was the fall of Saddam Hussein a good thing?"

Would that we all could live in the simple world you inhabit, Ian. In and of itself, of course, the answer can only be a resounding Yes!

The question, translated into real terms, should rather be formulated something like as follows:

"Was the fall of Saddam — entailing, as it has, the violent deaths of some 200-600 thousand innocent Iraqi civilians [bad PR, that, for 'militant liberationism'], the re-energising of international militant Islamism, the fragmentation of the post-WW2 international system, the polarisation of Western populations ["shoot the naysayers!"], the crisis of faith in Western 'authority', etc. etc. etc. — was the fall of Saddam, after all, a good thing?"

Well, jeez, maybe someone somewhere with a more exacting moral calculus than mine could answer with an emphatic and unambiguous "Yes!" to that question. But from my own poor perspective, there's more than a little ambivalence creeping in.

You ask, "What practical steps would you have taken if you were say, the US President confronted with 9/11?"

My classes in Responsible Statecraft are still subject to further refinement, Ian; however, at the outset, I might have suggested listening more closely to sceptical voices.

If that's too generalised, I'd point out that everyone, bar the most ardent Bushistas, knows that the problem of Saddam's Iraq was a different order of problem to that of international Islamic terrorism.

Yet — even if Saddam's Iraq could, by some bizarre contortion of logic, have been subsumed under the problem of Islamist terrorism — one thing I would not have done was mangle the perceptions of my countrymen so that an "awesome technological killing machine" was sent to invade a country that was considered by two-thirds of my population to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The consequences of that particular shadow play continue on and on.

Well, it's late  — too late — and I've ploughed on somewhat longer than I intended. Hey, perhaps it's really me who's borderline-delusional.

By the way thanks, Ian, for the recommendation of George Friedman's book, I'll add it to the list. (Naturally, if George is even remotely related to Thomas 'Give War A Chance In A Flat World' Friedman, it will move a little further down in priority.)

Ian MacDougall, what I meant by blunt force is the killing of innocent victims in the pursuit of terrorists. Thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed, maimed and their country has been destroyed. There has yet to be any proof that Iraqis where involved in the 9/11 attacks.

If I was Bush, first I would not have invaded Iraq.

I would have concentrated all military effort on Afghanistan, destroying the terrorist training camps.

I would use intelligence to track down suspected terrorists all over the world, bringing as many terrorists as possible to trial.

I would have used the resources wasted on Iraq to reduce the US thirst for Oil. This would slow the flow of petrodollars into the Middle East. I would then withdraw all American forces back to the US. And only go to war when threaten by a real war rather than a phony war. I would respect the innocent of the world and never step on them to get to a terrorist.

I would then have a serious look at US foreign policy.

John Pratt: “The use of blunt force to defeat terrorism will never work. We have to win over the hearts and minds of the people. Terrorism is a crime and terrorists should be treated as criminals.”

I see a contradiction here between your first and your last sentence. If terrorists are to be treated as criminals then blunt force will be used on them: whatever force is necessary to capture them, bring them to trial and keep them locked up afterwards.

So please enlighten me: what should George Bush have done in response to 9/11? I presume from the above that you rule out a military response of any kind. Note also that sanctions as applied to Iraq by the UN before Iraq War 2 led to al lot of death and suffering of the innocent in Iraq, and were opposed by John Pilger and others for that reason.

Inviting the terrorists to a conference to discuss and resolve their grievances perhaps?

What practical steps would you have taken if you were say, the US President confronted with 9/11?

Craig Rowley: "Whom amongst those involved in conversations on Webdiary are you trying to lump into that Chris Parson's style pinkoslamic conspiracy theory (just so that you can make the case against a straw man rather than their true position)?"

I fondly recall corresponding with one Sid Walker at length on this issue, in particular, trying to get him to answer the simple question “was the fall of Saddam a good thing?” After much correspondence and beating around the shrubbery, Sid finally put himself on record on the matter. He said that it was not a good thing; it was a very bad thing. As far as I can recall, I thanked him for that, but pointed out some problems with it. For a start about 80% of Iraqis thought he was wrong on that point. But unfortunately, Sid is no longer around on Webdiary, having been banned.

Jacob A. Stam was another with whom I recall some spirited discussions. I had the odd exchange on this and related topics with none other than Margo Kingston, and one or two words of disagreement with the illustrious Malcolm B Duncan. There have been numerous others, but I would have to search my archives to find them.

However, in my post I was not thinking so much of Webdiarists. Rather, of prominent commentators on the Left such as the aforementioned John Pilger, (with whom I have agreed on some matters) and luminaries from Robert Fisk to George Galloway. Interestingly, I recently had a conversation with a noted Sydney Left author and journalist, whom I have known for many years. I put to him the simple proposition that when someone with the credentials of Saddam Hussein gets into a fight with George Bush, one should support George Bush, whatever other issues one might have with the man. My journalist friend disagreed, saying “no, you support Saddam Hussein.” That for me sums up the dilemma the thinking section of the Left finds itself in on this issue. This has been gone into in greater detail in the European context by Nick Cohen.

I do not regard those positions as “Chris Parson's style pinkoslamic conspiracy theory “. In general, I do not favour conspiracy theories. If C Parsons was still writing on Webdiary and using phrases like that, I would take issue with him. It is language that clouds the issue. I simply think they are wrong.

I found in Friedman’s book a refreshingly original and informed position on the War on Terror, Afghanistan and Iraq, which I recommend to all interested in these issues to read. It relates to the current problems of Olmert in Israel over the recent war in Lebanon, and particularly to Iran. If war is to break out again in the Middle East, one issue will be Iran’s nuclear program, and Israel’s objections to it.

Phil Kendall: “We know that the US actually created Al Qaeda, which has now turned around and bitten their own creators on the bum. Ungrateful scum! How dare they? (Fight to eject the brutal US occupier from their (Al Qaeda's) mainly Muslim homelands?) The CIA has the correct term for this - and they ort'a know (because they stimulate so much):’Blowback.’”

Which homelands of Al Quaeda is the US ‘brutally occupying’ exactly? (a) Iraq? Then which of the two, the US or Al Quaeda, supported the creation of elected representative government in Iraq? Which opposed it? Is such government consistent with ‘brutally occupying’? One would have thought the US would prefer to operate on traditional imperialist lines, repressing democrats (eg as the British did with Gandhi in India). (b) Post-Taliban Afghanistan? See (a).

Y’orta know ya gotta be jokin’, an’ I wouldn’ try t’r d’fend it too ‘ard ‘f I wuz in y’r boots, coz writin’ like this’s soooooooooo too ‘ard on th’ apostrophe (-‘-) key, an’ I’m drummin’ y’ f’r real, f’r sure.

Most of your points have been addressed well by others on the web. See particularly here.

BTW: Was the fall of Saddam Hussein a good thing?

Terrorism has had a long and bloody history. In the 20^th Century, we have seen the rise terrorist groups such as the IRA, PLO, the Stern Gang and Al Quaeda. Also, the rise of state terror, as practiced by Hitler, Suharto, Saddam Hussein, Ngo Dinh Diem, Franco, Pinochet, and above all, Joseph Stalin.

Al Quaeda does not just want a caliphate. It wants an Islamic empire based on the rule of law – Shia law that is, as seen in modest form in modern Iran and more extreme form in Afghanistan under the Taliban. In short, a state in which rule is by terror. So far, the only thing that has defeated it has been superior force. Which can take many forms, of course.

Could it be that we have a bit'a the old yin/yang, Ian MacDougall? (Blush[2])

As in, when I bust a gut, spending hours lovingly crafting a work of WD art, you reply with the (cop-out) 'noted', then when I flash into anger and strike back with the briefest of Blitzen, I draw you out'a your Panzer-shell?

Haw!

Assuming everyone has by now read the refs [1], [2] & [3], I can now deconstruct (aka Fisk) some'a Ian's 'dePilgerisation' post.

I do not do 'promos.' As usual, I try to 'embed' multiple functions; in this case a) the text itself has the messages (1) that the United States actually operates anti-democratically, (2) behind a façade of [filthy! Lying!] propaganda designed to contort the (3) intellect and (4) morality of (5) Americans and (6) the rest of us, then b) I draw attention to Pilger's piece and c) also ICH. See? Not too shabby for such a short Blitz. Then recalling (1) to (6), people wonder why the US is hated for their "freedoms?"

Ian: "the anti-democratic forces of Islamism, specifically Al Qaeda ... that on 9/11, Al Qaeda presented the US with a crisis comparable to Pearl Harbour." (1) Which was exactly what the neoCon PNAC cabal was looking for; such a coincidence! (2) Ahhh, the Pinkoslamic straw-man! We know that the US actually created Al Qaeda, which has now turned around and bitten their own creators on the bum. Ungrateful scum! How dare they? (Fight to eject the brutal US occupier from their (Al Qaeda's) mainly Muslim homelands?) The CIA has the correct term for this - and they ort'a know (because they stimulate so much): "Blowback."

The other part of the Pinkoslamic straw-man is that they (whoever 'they' may be) wanna (re)create a Caliphate. If so, why shouldn't they? It's their country (countries) - one might'a thunk. But the 'fear-bomb' that the propagandists hurl is that 'they' plan to force their Caliphate on all of us if not the whole world, a concept that could only be termed risible - if it didn't actually work on scaring the sheople®. (You're more than welcome Roger Fedyk.)

Ian: "Al Qaeda wants nuclear weapons" - well, who doesn't? It's the only known way of forestalling a US (Nuremberg[4] style) attack.

Ian: "Friedman argues that 9/11 made it imperative for the US to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan," - why did you 'repeat' this, Ian? I have pointed out before, that after '9/11' the stung hyper-power was gunna lash out, and re-arranging some Afghani-sand® was an obvious way to go. But sadly, as Rumsfeld pointed out, there were no good targets in Afghanistan (USATODAY.com - Ex-aide: Bush ignored terror threat) - although there was a pending pipeline requirement: the Taliban representatives were reportedly told by Bush/Big Oil BEFORE WTC: Accept our offer of "a carpet of gold or you'll get a carpet of bombs."

Ian: "... a cogent argument that the war in Iraq was primarily about shutting down the funding of Al Quaeda, most of which was sourced from Saudi Arabia." What? How indolent (of Friedman). Not to mention that if the funding was coming from Saudi Arabia, wasn't Iraq actually the wrong address?

Ian, by this stage you've invoked Conned a Sleazer's mushroom cloud and posited some Al Quaeda - Saddam link, both of which are now known to have had no foundation, none at all. You feed into the 'failed-intel' propaganda, another 'leg' of which (propaganda) being that the Iraqi adventure is failing because of 'bad management.' Here, I'd have to admit to deep sadness, that you would invoke the 'pushed paradigm' lies. But in the spirit of multiple uses, your invocation gives me the opportunity to point out that all of the pre-war lies were known by those utterly filthy liars to be lies at the time they were being propagated. Powell, for example, has as well as admitted what his aide Wilkerson has blabbed. Then there's the Downing St. Memos; 101% damnable. For you, or since you're quoting him Friedman, to suggest that the lies were a clever subterfuge to mask an even more clever secret plan simply boggles. And not just BTW, invoking a conspiracy. This all makes me so sad. Then mad! - I mean angry.

Ian: "Pilger ... and his supporters don’t like being told that their reflexive anti-Americanism leads them to support Islamism ... the supposedly pro-democracy Left finishes up in alliance with Islamic fascism, and working to defend monsters like Saddam Hussein."

Me: Well. I go almost catatonic at this point. There're two aspects here; a) the failure of logic and b) worse, worser, worst: the accusation. I could suggest 'withdraw,' but it's done. And it only reflects on you, mate.

The failure of logic is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,' which particularly in the Saddam and Islam cases (yeah. Saddam and Islam are toadally® separate issues) fails. Again, Ian, deep sadness.

Before getting to oil, there's this 'terrorism' thing. Yep, we got it. And yep, '9/11' and Bali, Madrid, London etc were bad. We really don't know exactly how bad, and WD guidelines prevent us from exploring some aspects. But. In "Dying to Win," Pape gives us his explanation for suicide terrorism. In a nutshell, most is aimed at ejecting some foreign occupier from some homeland. Makes sense, too. (And works; see the subsequent US withdrawal from Saudi Arabia.) So far, the US (with the rest of the world poodling or dagging along "with or against 'em") has used bombs instead of thoughts. Typical, when the only tool one has is a hammer, all problems look like nails. Here, I invoke my 'domestic siege' analogy; one doesn't solve such by killing all (mostly innocent) occupants, looting then bulldozing the house then annexing the land (not so coincidentally the exact strategy often employed by Israel.) To end 'terrorism,' surely just a few grams of prevention could go a lot further than 1.6 million pounds of ordnance? (And that was just one 'swaggering' ship. Thanks for the link and g'day Bob Wall.)

Oil. What's to be said. Ian: "This helps explain why the Iraq war followed so closely on 9/11, which the oil hypothesis does not do so well at all." Surely, you're Joe King? I personally, as many other people all around the world, have been 'digging the dirt' on the US and oil for a lot'a these past four years (5% of so many lifetimes - and deadtimes for sooo many Iraqis). A challenge, Ian: prove it ain't oil. Just prove it, or what else? Words fail me. Means, motive, opportunity. Ian, if you won't/can't prove it ain't oil, my contention must stand: that the US is mass-murdering for oil; and in general, that USrael murders for spoil: oil, water and land. As Pape, it makes (a certain kind, here criminal) sense.

I suppose here we just have to shrug, and say people can believe what they like; it's a free country, ain't it? Friedrich Nietzsche, "Faith: not wanting to know what is true."

Nietzsche again, "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, political parties, nations, and eras it's the rule."

Four long years have gone into fighting for truth (justice, etc) and against the (lying, cheating, theft-by-murdering) US. Not 'just' the US, but also Israel (plus Lobby gives USrael), to our 'sad amusement' the UK ("I passionately believe!" and "Trust me!" Tony) and to our great shame, the Howard regime in Aus. Spit.

And all the while, the threatening climate greedastrophe® gets less and less avoidable.

-=*end*=-

PS I've just seen posts by John Pratt and Craig Rowley addressing this theme, thanks fellas.

Ref(s):

[1] This is an amazing bit of serendipity. I did this Google search: Web Results 1 - 20 of about 164,000 for by his deeds shall he be known wiki. (0.13 secs).

Hit#1:

Wandering Jew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Jew - 49k 

When, therefore, Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, Lord, and what shall he do? ... or eternal, Jew), while in Romance-speaking countries he is known as "Le ...

 - And this is serendipitous because?

A big part of my very own 'journey of discovery' (and associated 'radicalization') has been via WD, including having the title of one'a my pieces 'censored' from "The Wandering Jew" to just "Wandering." Then Ian's stimulus and my Google Hit#1:

A modern allegorical view claims instead that the "Wandering Jew" personifies any individual who has been made to see the error of his or her wickedness, if the mocking of the Passion epitomizes the callousness of mankind toward the suffering of individual human beings.

[wiki/Wandering Jew]

See what I mean by serendipity[3]?

[2] Yin and yang

Yin (Chinese: 陰 or 阴; pinyin: yīn; literally "shady place, north slope (hill), south bank (river); cloudy, overcast") is the dark element: it is passive, dark, feminine, downward-seeking, and corresponds to the night.

Yang (陽 or 阳; yáng; "sunny place, south slope (hill), north bank (river); sunshine") is the bright element: it is active, light, masculine, upward-seeking and corresponds to the day.

[wiki/Yin and yang]

[3] serendipity n. faculty of making happy discoveries by accident.  serendipitous adj. [coined by Horace Walpole] [POD]

[4] Like the invasion of Iraq, say.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

[Yale/Nuremberg]

Ian MacDougall: "The supposedly pro-democracy Left finishes up in alliance with Islamic fascism, and working to defend monsters like Saddam Hussein, cheering on the Iraqi ‘resistance’ and those who attack the pro-democracy forces and trade unionists in Iraq."

G'day Ian, a question for you: Whom amongst those involved in conversations on Webdiary are you trying to lump into that Chris Parson's style pinkoslamic conspiracy theory (just so that you can make the case against a straw man rather than their true position)?

Ian MacDougall, you “support any moves to stop Islamic fascism, which is why I support the Coalition side in the War on Terror.”

So you support the indiscriminate bombing of women and children in Afghanistan, and untold killing of thousands of women and children in Iraq, by Christian fascists.

When will you and people like you, who are willing to kill innocent people to achieve their political goals realise that you play right into the hands of the terrorists. For every innocent person who is killed or maimed you create ten terrorists.

The US and its allies used the same tactics in Vietnam. They lost that war and learnt nothing!

"More bombs were dropped by American planes in the Quang Tri province in Vietnam than in the whole of Europe in World War II," said Tony Edmonds, professor of history at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, and author of the book The War in Vietnam. "It's one of the most bombed places on the planet.

The Israelis use similar tactics in Lebanon and lost.

The use of blunt force to defeat terrorism will never work. We have to win over the hearts and minds of the people. Terrorism is a crime and terrorists should be treated as criminals. It is not ok to kill innocent people when capturing criminals. We would never allow this in our own countries and we should not allow it anywhere.

... a film that illuminated this disguised truth -- that the United States has long waged a war on democracy behind a facade of propaganda designed to contort the intellect and morality of Americans and the rest of us.

And they mass-murder for spoil without scruple.