The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Team Australia: from bad fashion to bad politics > Comments

Team Australia: from bad fashion to bad politics : Comments

By Binoy Kampmark, published 1/9/2014

Like any term drawn out of some faux nationalism (can there be any other?), it divides on the pretext of uniting.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. All
LEGO,

I don't condemn the US in every instance...I am condemning them in the instance of the Iraqi invasion of 2003 - so you can get off your "socialism" bandwagon now.

You claimed the US invaded Iraq in an act of altruism to rid them of a dictator and to gift them democracy.

In doing so, they massively destroyed infrastructure and created a power vacuum which has plagued that beleaguered nation ever since.

I'm saying that the US went in to assure themselves control and assured future access to resources.

The Bush Govt financed that exercise by funnelling money to the 1% by taking it from the taxpayer dollars of the 99%. The "massive" cost of that invasion was blown out because the funding bottom line was hidden from the public.

My point being that it wasn't "altruism".
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 8:37:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

I did not directly state that the USA invaded Iraq as an act of altruism, but I can see how your prejudices could make you think that I did so.

I said that the USA decided to invade Iraq because it wanted it's army to go home but it could not do so because it had a moral problem to consider. That moral problem was that Saddam had begun extermination the southern Shiites right in front of the US forces and many Shiites had fled to the US zone protected by US troops to escape being exterminated. The same was happening to the Kurds in the North who also wanted US protection.

Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was justified on altruistic humanitarian grounds and practical self interest. The humanitarian part was to stop Saddam's Baathist forces carrying out genocide by ridding the world of a mad dictator. You could also say it was humanitarian to stop Saddam from building an atom bomb which he had claimed he was doing. A crazy nutter with an atom bomb and a reputation for invading his neighbours is the last thing the world wanted in a critical area where the continued flow of oil is absolutely essential to the economies of all the nations of the world.

The practical side was the US could finally send it army home and hopefully set up a stable democratic government which would rule responsibly for he benefit of all Iraqis.

The USA had as much right to invade Iraq as it did Nazi Germany and Imperialist japan. In both of these nations the outcome was a good one, both of them are now democracies with strong economies. The only mistake the US made was thinking that Arabs were as smart as Germans and Japs. Whatever virtues the Islamic culture bestows upon its adherents, honesty, tolerance and social responsibility are not the most prominent.

It is hardly surprising that when the Shiite majority finally got into power it was more interested in conducting revenge on the Sunnis than acting like a united country that represented everyone.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 10:50:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

"I said that the USA decided to invade Iraq because it wanted it's army to go home but it could not do so because it had a moral problem to consider. That moral problem was that Saddam had begun extermination the southern Shiites right in front of the US forces and many Shiites had fled to the US zone protected by US troops to escape being exterminated. The same was happening to the Kurds in the North who also wanted US protection.

Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was justified on altruistic humanitarian grounds and practical self interest. The humanitarian part was to stop Saddam's Baathist forces carrying out genocide by ridding the world of a mad dictator."

Nup....apparently it was to stop Saddam's WMD program - that was the "official line" - and the reason the US public went with the program.

As I've pointed out, nasty dictators abound doing horrendous things, but if there ain't some oil access in the offing - well....

"The practical side was the US could finally send it army home and hopefully set up a stable democratic government which would rule responsibly for he benefit of all Iraqis.'

The problem is that the "dumb" and "myopic" Bush Administration didn't take into account the enmities existing in this region. Any dumbass could have told them they were opening Pandora's Box. How many commentators warned of the power vacuum.

Why are we now "not surprised" at what has unfolded - it was predicted.

"The USA had as much right to invade Iraq as it did Nazi Germany and Imperialist japan..."

Lol!
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 11:33:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nasty dictators abound doing horrendous things like Abbott resurrecting Dame & Sir, all by his little old self and no one else.
Poirot you are correct, that magic word "oil" is the problem, no oil no problem, whatever will the USA do when water takes over from oil, perhaps those countries that get too much rain will be in the firing line then.
Love your ongoing battle, but agree with what you say
Posted by Ojnab, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 2:05:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Poirot

I can't say if your claim that the "official line" that the USA invaded Iraq was to destroy Saddam's WMD's or not, but I will check it out. But I know that one reason why the USA invaded Iraq as because the US forces wanted to go home and they were presented with a moral problem if they did. I know that such a scenario does not sit well with your prejudices that the USA only goes to war for self interest, so you can never believe the truth when it stares you in the face. And since when did people like yourself ever believe the "official line" from Washington anyway?

The fact what what the USA did benefitted the entire world by keeping the Gulf region safe from a crazy dictator who had managed to start two wars of imperial conquest with his neighbours is lost on you also. That too is an act of altruism. One reason why the USA is leery of going back to Iraq to sort out those crazies is because it is sick and tired of always being criticised for doing the right thing. It would like to see it's allies do a lot more instead of the USA always doing the hard work and taking the casualties, while it's allies do as little as possible or renounce their responsibilities altogether.

Now we get to your little spiel about how the "dumbass" US could not understand the realities of "enmities" existing in the region. "Dumbasses" like yourself can not understand how fragmenting Australia by importing hostile cultures into Australia will eventually balkanise our own country, so I find your analysis breathtaking. Perhaps there were too many multicultural advisers in the Pentagon who think like you do and who think that countries divided by race, culture and religion should be islands of peace?

Finally we get to your "Lol!". What that means I have no idea, but it must be some sort of sneery response that does you no credit as it uis hardly a reasoned argument.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 11 September 2014 4:33:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

"..... But I know that one reason why the USA invaded Iraq as because the US forces wanted to go home and they were presented with a moral problem if they did..."

Go home?

Ground forces?

From where?

You don't know anything of the sort. The US went out of it's way to construct an international "threat" from Saddam's WMD's - in the face of little evidence that there was one. The years of sanctions had degraded any ability of his regime to continue on that tack - and those capabilities were significantly weaker in 2003 than they had been in 1991.

Later in the piece when the WMD pretext was abandoned, a new narrative was brought forth involving Georgie Bush's "vision" that the real motive for the war was bringing democracy to the Middle East.

It was gift wrapped for people like you, LEGO.

So two things happened in the immediate wake of the invasion. A despot was toppled - and it brought an end the crippling sanctions which, according to Chomsky "....killed hundreds of thousands of people, devastated Iraq's civilian society, strengthened the tyrant and compelled the population to rely on him for survival....."

Two top international diplomats who administered the sanctions program, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck resigned in protest at the way it was administered, dictated by the US and Britain. If sanctions had instead been directed solely at weapons programs, Saddam might have been ousted by his own people, as had other tyrants before him.

Instead the general population was weakened and more dependent on him - and then endured murderous invasion.

Altruism?
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 11 September 2014 7:41:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy