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 > Apportioning the blame > Comments

Apportioning the blame : Comments

By Brett Bowden, published 14/2/2007

For all the concerns over Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience, it seems he has the edge over John Howard when it comes to the realities of Iraq.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Agreed.
Why not indict the leaders who with the aid of compliant media lied us into Iraq? We signed the rome staute which is incorporated in our law. Showing there is no double standard may even quiet the scene a little.
The rise of terrorist ,that is them, we never are, was predicted as was the insuffienciency of tropo niumbers and post "winning" planning, now become a mire f coruption, ours.
Sure some law, which we deny in favour of 'might is right' is needed but not ours. We merely add to terror.
Why not a UN force funded by those who will not USA UK or Aust for obvious reasons? The veto ah yes problem. Sure where to find a leader perhaps of the caliber of Dag Hammerskeld whom we killed? But our efforts are negative!
Posted by untutored mind, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 9:39:48 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
From the latest current affairs programs from Iraq, the picture of what the common people have to live in, the destroyed infrastructure, lack of basic amenities, food shortage, and list goes on...and it seems to continues to remain without a general improvement...that takes planning...

When one compares this with the billions(trilliion by now) spent by coalition in Iraq, first question is how was this money spent? the answer would most probably be on the military occupation. So the common person of the coalition army, who probably gets their usual average wage, but is wearing and supported by very expensive military gear, equipment and weapons of destruction.

So the obvious assessment is that most of that money went to those who own those industries that produce those expensive military stuff and whom far away from the hot spot of death and mayhem that is now Iraq where the 'common person coalition officer' on the ground and the 'common Iraqi' face, and suffer and die in. Living in daily insecurity of life and health is a terrible stressful state...

Only issue then is the nature of connection between those in government, politics and military industry, and how these billions flowed out to them and whom...dont think this information will ever be known, if so the truth will be out there for all to see and this Iraqi war over shortly after...then criminal prosecution of those in power of authority will follow... I think if even oneninth of that money was spend in redeveloping Iraq, would lead to a happier people, and the mayhem will immediately diminish and the soldiers can start coming home...wish this is what John Howard have said...and the money ceased to the destruction industry and started flowing into the construction industry...

Sam
Ps~post war redevelopment is nothing new...eg post war germany marshall plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_World_War_II
Posted by Sam said, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 9:58:16 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
John Howard is yesterday's man, and it's time for him to go.

The US Alliance is critical to Australian security. George Bush's term as President is in its final stage and the American voters recently sent a clear message the they will, more likely than not, elect an anti-Iraq war candidate as next President.

So why did John Howard so bitterly slag off one of the leading Democrat candidates - and therefore a possible US President? If the US Alliance is critical, who wants a PM who can't turn his head towards the future of that Alliance?
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 10:03:27 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
FrankGol,
I'll tell you why mate, he's losing it, he has stumbled again and again this year, we all know his own party dislike him in the words of Queensland Liberal Senator, and "hard man" George Brandis "the lying rodent" he has at last got some opposition and is not hacking the pace.

Perhaps he expects the electorate to believe that if he is knowledgeable enough to give advice to the U.S.A. on what they should or shouldn't think, that we "great unwashed" will see him as a world statesman, well that backfired badly. The diversion of a RAAF aircraft for his own private convenience on the way back from ASEAN conference, and all the years of never ever G.S.T. the 1993 election killed that policy off.

Then the radical extremeist Islamic problem "we will decide who comes here, and the circumstances under which they come" he has been there deciding for 11 years deciding who can come, and he has obviously let these people in, "in the national interest" too many lies, too much baggage,
too many things that have been left undone, $2B on a second Vietnam, while our Heath and Education systems begin to crumble. Climate change should have been addresses, he only uttered those "c" words for the first time 24 hrs after Bush in the "State of the Union" speech. He will fight, like a small man with a giant sized inferiority complex, but this time I believe he will lose narrowly.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 10:27:41 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
Ratty has only one card left to play, "national security" his Govt. is getting creamed on all issues except this and economic management. He can't fight on the economy as this only strengthens Costello (who he privately hates. NSW-VIC factions of the Libs).

He did not even consult with his cabinet over his water policy (the Nats would ask too many questions).

So we will have more and more personal attacks on Rudd and Howard will slip into oblivion, even money he won't even stand at the next election.
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 10:43:13 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
Howard is challenging Rudd to say what will happen in Iraq if the troops leave. The truth is that noone really knows but at least the Iraqis will have to sort it out themselves. We do know that the war in Iraq has been lost, leaving the troops there just continues the deaths, the destruction and utter chaos until such time as the US accepts reality and pulls out - think Vietnam.
A majority of Iraqis want all foreign troops out of their country. A majority of Americans want their soldiers out of Iraq. So Bush's response, supported by poodle Howard is to put more troops in. Has the whole world gone crazy.
Posted by rossco, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 10:57:20 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
Enjoying the protection of the ALP redoubt, the ALP has spent the last 6 – 7 years firing shots at USA politics all the while receiving encouragement from certain sections. Terms like ‘the worst US president in history' were applauded. However, Johnboy has a shot at USA politics and we're somehow in dangerous territory.

Brett, ours is a democracy of sorts where freedom to say what you think is sacrosanct. The exception to this rule would appear to be the university campus; just ask professor Fraser.
Posted by Sage, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 11:17:10 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
I must confess... before this gaffe I didn't have much hope that Rudd could actually defeat Howard. Narrow the gap, yes, but defeat? no.

But now, I'm tempted to actually believe. It's been almost universally damned as a stupid move. Usually there's at least a few sensible voices who will back Howard.

Funny that Bush has kept away from the debacle. Not even a public word of appreciation.

Most interesting. I'm starting to actually believe Rudd's in with a shot.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 11:37:44 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
Also...

Howard has left the way open for Rudd to hammer him even further.

In the Australian today, Howard is challenging Rudd to outline the chaos that withdrawal in line with Obama's plan would create.

Problem is, Obama's plan was much more nuanced, and was contingent upon developments in Iraq. In other words, while it was advocating troop withdrawal, it was far from the 'no strings attached' troop withdrawal Howard is making it out to be. Obama is basically in line with the eminently sensible findings of the Baker report.

So Rudd is now wide open to further damn the PM by saying that the PM in his stupidity, misinterpreted Obama's plan, and created a dangerous rift (of course, it's only a passing thing, but Rudd doesn't have to say that).

I'll be interested to see whether Rudd runs with the misinterpretation line, because it's a strong angle and will go a long way to shattering Howard's supremacy on foreign policy. In responding to Howard's challenge, he can point out how calm and collected his ideas are. (What is more important, would be the unspoken part about how is ideas aren't likely to ruffle feathers on Republican or Democrat radars).
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 11:42:57 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
Sage

Latham's precise words were "the most incompetent and dangerous President in living memory". But what is important was that he made these comments when he was a backbencher in opposition.

Howard's attack on Senator Obama was said as The Right Honourable Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, a big difference in my mind. (Although I will admit I think Latham's words will prove to be correct).

Rudd calling for a TV debate was a stunt, but his effort to debate it in parliament this morning has shut off any criticism Howard has about him not wanting to debate the issue.

If Howard can't lift his game in Question Time today, the rumblings about his leadership will continue to grow
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 11:46:47 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
The polls tell the story.

Rudd is leading Mr Howard as preferred prime minister by 48 per cent to 43 per cent.

Its clear that King Rat rat has run out of rat juice and will soon be canabalised by his own in their mad panic.

Oppositions do not win government, incumbents lose it.

Rudd only needs to remain politically benign. King Rat will do the rest.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 12:29:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obama VS Osama..

Coming soon to a war near you.

Obama plans to cut and run in Iraq, which will place his country in future jeapordy. Its good to see they dont like a war of attrition if you are a smaller enemy.

Obama, good luck. It cant be so cut and dry as much as we wish it could be.
Posted by Realist, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 2:38:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The republicans made a similar claim about John Kerry & the democrats prior to the 2004 election. Apart from the absurdity of calling the democrats the terrorist's party of choice, it's worth examining whether terrorist groups actually have a preference.

So the CIA had a look. Their conclusion was that, if anything, George W Bush had unwittingly done more for their (terrorist's) cause than any other single person or group could hope for. Survey after survey shows Iraqis believe the presence of US troops is responsible for more violence than anything else.

Terrorist numbers have skyrocketed since. Still are.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 3:22:05 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
Senator Obama does certainly have the "edge over John Howard". The edge of defeat.

See--http://www.con.observationdeck.org
Posted by Themistocles, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 4:47:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good heavens, Thermistocles. This writer describes George W as a statesman, carrying the future of the planet on his "churchillian" shoulders. "The defeat of Hussein will lead to the defeat of global terrorism and to all rogue states." And so on.

Can't you find someone a little less, say, rabid?
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 5:03:31 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
Theremis,
Do all raving red neck warmongers think like you, or you an exception to the rule. The conservatives hypocritically call for peace, by blowing the heads of innocent women and children.

It gets the U.S. war machine going, killing people, no WMD'S no SADDAM, THE IRAQ'S, can now sort out something that had it been left alone, and the war concerntrated in Afganistan were the Taliban were/are wreaking havoc, and training terrorists we could have spendt the $2B from the senseless IRAQ war on health and education in our our country, where it is badly needed.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 7:19:36 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
Poor Johnnie must have been asleep not to realise that Obama would request Howard to put his army where his mouth is... Onya Johnnie - How does your foot taste?

Now Johnnie is announcing that a "strategic withdrawal" is a defeat! Congratulations again Johnnie.... Our troups must be thrilled with that comment! A strategic withdrawal is exactly that a strategic withdrawal - it's not a defeat!

Why don't you put on a uniform and go march up and down the streets of Baghdad... Johnnie... Your brilliant war mind is needed in places other than Australia. Can you please explain at which stage we will have "won hearts and minds"?

Whilst you are at it can you please explain your vision of a legal system that allows falsified intelligence misused by Governments to invade another country? Isn't this illegal - falsifying evidence? Is killing innocent people in an illegal war a war crime?

If we can say that a country has WMD's and are linked to terrorists when no evidence exists and then be a part of the invasion force does this mean that others could use that tactic on us? Precedence is very important in law... and haven't the Bush, Blair & Howard camp set the precedent?

Many people in this country take oaths of office - How many people are not doing what they are sworn to do under Australian and International law regarding the falsified evidence we were presented with?
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 9:09:26 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
The most important thing that has happened this last couple of days is that Labor has become a favourite with the bookies. Centrebet now has Labour odds on at $1.70 compared to the coalition on $1.80. Whilst odds can change between now and election day, the bookies are rarely wrong. This is the first time in many many years that the Government has been behind in the odds. This has been a watershed week for Rudd and Labor federally.
Posted by seaweed, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 9:10:14 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
Reasons to go to war,

#1.Weapons of mass destruction

#2.Saddam.

#3.Alliance with US important to our national security.

---

#1. Not yet located

#2. Eliminated

#3. Obsolete according to Howard. We were only an ally to Bush it seems.

So now why do we stay in the war.?

Because it is a failure and if we pull out now we may look like a failure.?

I do think Howard needs to explain to Australians why he wants to keep this war going. He has become arrogant believing we should stay committed because he says so. We took his word before and it was wrong. We are at war with who? not sure but even if we dont know the enemy we should at least know why.

Things will get worse if we withdraw? How can they get worse?

He should have engaged Áustralians with more detailed reasoning about Obama's bill, so we could see reasons instead of ego.
Posted by Verdant, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 10:41:51 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
'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. You only have to read reports in the New Scientist to understand that.' Or words to that effect.

Kevin Rudd to the Zionist Council of Australia sometime before the invasion and he hadn't access to any intelligence reports and at a later time the ALP did not vote for the war.

I'm somewhat confused... did he have a bob each way, change his mind, or forget? So what is Rudd's position on Iraq...now...does anybody know?
Posted by keith, Thursday, 15 February 2007 2:08:21 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
Rudd is trying to hide his position knowing fullwell there is widespread opposition to the war, certainly around 60percent. His predicament is to appeal to the majority saying something popular whilst his allegience goes to the minority - big money.
The democrats have a similar problem in the US trying to muster some credibility with massive opposition from the voters whilst the Democrats support war. They imply the problem is one of bad management and bad tactics etc., The democrats have supported all the funding for the military whilst making some mealy mouth protestations - in case the voters are listening.
Mr. Rudd belongs to the faction in the Labor Party known as the right wing, the open agents of the capitalists, the banks, oil cartels etc., but Rudd has to tread carefully so that he is not seen as on the side of big money.
Posted by johncee1945, Thursday, 15 February 2007 9:12:06 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
Could it be that New Scientist didn't have enough weapons inspectors to actually realise that there weren't WMD's. So Mr Rudd's source was as flawed as Johnnies. EXCEPT Johnnies (as PM) would have been military intelligence of a far more detailed nature and therefore should have been more accurate.

It doesn't say much for military intelligence when they get it totally wrong. BUT worse - USA, British & Australian military intelligence ALL got it wrong!

A person in opposition doesn't have anywhere near the access to the information that a Govt minister or Prime Minister has.

So Rudd's source was wrong... big deal... the greater worry is that our puppet leader and most of our intelligence community swallowed the garbage hook, line and sinker and committed our troups to a war based on flawed and corrupt evidence.

If we choose to go to war based on such unbelievably weak evidence what is to stop another country doing the same? Why couldn't a large nation that wanted our Uranium & Coal say Pine Gap has WMD's and invade Australia?

The Yanks couldn't save us... they couldn't even help their own in the Hurricane Katrina debacle.

Howard has put Australia & our kids at far greater risk than any other PM and he should be held accountable!
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 15 February 2007 1:08:49 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
" ... Howard has put Australia & our kids at far greater risk than any other PM and he should be held accountable! ... "

Indeed, but then what ought we expect from a despicable individual who "Knowingly & deliberately inflicts mental harm on innocent children Asylum Seekers."

Indonesian Islamic clerics have said to me, for reasons such as supporting the anglo/american alliance on issues such as economic piracy, illegal wars, illegal use of WMD's during same & the deliberate slaughter of civilians whilst fighting "opposition combatants," we Ozzies have been attacked & are highly likely to be attacked again.

I agree with *Minister MidNight Oil* - howard et al's alliance with g.w.bush Turkey et al puts us further @ risk & until such time as they are tried for their crimes & agree to abide by International Law, they should b shown the door & classified as a "Rogue State."

The american militants especially are nigh on universally despised by even moderate Muslims & their presence does little more than to perpetuate hatred & bloodshed in Iraq.

The war is already lost in my view and already a humanitarian disaster - one which will only be resolved by a complete withdrawal in all haste, to be replaced perhaps by a very temporary Islamic Peace Keeping force.

In todays "Whacky Races," whilst the *Sunni's & Shia* have their own squabbles, everyone gets extra points for killing *Dastardly* aka englund & *Muttley* aka america.

...Adam...
Posted by AJLeBreton, Thursday, 15 February 2007 4:11:51 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
John Howard has done so much for this country. We are now a leading World Power on the World Stage. Now that Gordon Brown has deserted George W Bush our John W Howard is now the second in command this is something to be proud of. Shoulder to shoulder on the world stage at the APEC meeting. I must say the New South Wales Lobor Party has gone over the top with Security after all who would want to assasinate George and Johnny they are adored and respected by all. Two top Statesmen the best since Eisenhower and Robert Menzies. I blame the Labor Party for giving Osama Bin Laden hope by threatening to pull out of Iraq. We now have an ally that has years of oil which will benefit our industry and travel. The invasion of Iraq was shrewd economics. We are fortunate that America voted for George W Bush and not Al Gore because if Al Gore was elected industry would have to be regulated cutting back on pollution. This is what our country cannot afford to happen.
Posted by Julie Vickers, Friday, 7 September 2007 1:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very droll Julie Vickers. You're a fine judge - I'll nominate you for the Chaser script-writers' group (when they get out of gaol).

What an accolade - to be second-in-command to George W Bush. It doesn't get any better than that in the annals of statesmanship. If only John Winston Howsthat could have spoken in Manadarin he would have surpassed Robert Menzies on the league table and be pushing up behind Eisenhower (no triple entendre intended).

What a coup Apex has been. New deals everywhere - oil and wheat in Iraq, coal and t-shirts to China, uranium and vodka to Russia and imports of Canadian flags for security training.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 7 September 2007 9:33:07 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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