One of the best and most important articles I have read here, and one that would, unfortunately, not appear anywhere else in the mainstream (point that Clive Hamilton needs to take on board). If you take a look at Major General Jim Molan's biography at the Department of Defence you will see that these battles, including Falluja, Tal Afar, Najaf and so on are described as "pre-election shaping battles". That's called "democracy." In the Australian press an orgy of moral posturing has appeared after the capture of Radovan Karadzic, but notice that the source that you cite here, Chomsky "Failed States", argues that Falluja and Srebernica were just about the same thing. Yet our so called experts inform us that international criminal courts are "revolutionary".

Thanks, Chris for a most interesting article.

Can I commend the chapters concerning Iraq in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" of 2007 as a very good start to placing this story in its broader context?

Naomi Klein rejects the claim that the ferocity of the resistance to the US was the consequence of either unreasoning nationalism on the part of the Iraqis or of bungling incompetence by the US occupation authorities, rather it was caused principally the impoverishment of the Iraqi population (as well as the ransacking of the US treasury) as part of deliberate occupation authority policy for the benefit of US corporations like Bechtel, Halliburton and Blackwater.

Had the US lived up to their own rhetoric about bringing democracy to Iraq, then some good might have resulted from the terrible toll of the invasion, but they did not. I have posted some comments about this at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974#108120

The fact that an extract from this book was featured in the Australian immediately makes it suspect.

Meanwhile just Google The Truth About Fallujah

Well...you don't often see such rubbish in print form but this article is up the top of the pile..

RUBBISH..

Evidence.

1/ He claims ", but any and all men aged 15 to 45 were PROHIBITED from leaving. Many family members understandably chose to stay with their fathers and brothers. Once the bombing began, all exits out of the city were sealed off."

YET article he cites in the link says:

"Loudspeaker announcements in Arabic declared that any male under 45 caught trying to leave the city would be arrested."

2/ Relatively few insurgents were found once the city was subdued; most had, predictably, fled the city long before the assault began

I suppose this lunatic leftoid has not seen any of the footage of the battles in Falluja.. obviously he... 'neglected' to do this.....

This abysmal leftist socialist diatribe is nothing more than a limping, chirping and muttering of the 'party line' designed only to weaken western and Australian faith in it's own principles and leadership..to soften us up for THE GREAT SOLUTION..which of course he doesn't mention but we don't have to be too brilliant to work it out..its the...

Wonderful Socialist Utopia - where 'mean' people are suddenly transformed into selfless, generous hardworking members of a collective who now see their meaning in life as being to spend and expend their total humanity in topping up the cups of those less able to make ends meet.

By why not actually SAY this instead of just whining about the brutality of war?

The worst brutality ever.. EVER was perpetrated by the ideologically driven USSR under "Comrade Stalin" and in China under "Comrade Mao"

You could multiply the Holocaust x 5 and still not approach the numbers decimated by these comrades.

So..rather than speak of the 'reality of Australia's collateral damage' why not speak of the INTELLECTUAL damage to young impressionable Aussie minds by this mindless drivel?

This article is typical of the absolute rubbish that the “peace activists” often produce for their militarily ignorant, ideologically rigid audiences.

First lets examine some of the specious claims the author makes.

He says >>”Citizens had been instructed to evacuate the city, population 250,000, before bombing began in October 2004, but any and all men aged 15 to 45 were prohibited from leaving”

Yet the only evidence for this that the author provides is an article dated 7 Nov 2004 mentioning the coalition policy of arresting men under the age of 45 leaving the city. This is NOT a prohibition against leaving the city at all. By 7 NOV 2004 the vast majority of civilians had left the city. Futhermore, those who left after that time were screened for belonging to an insurgent group and were released if they did not.

Having been under complete insurgent control since April the city was a thoroughly prepared defensive fortification. Thousands of buildings were fortified, houses booby trapped to take out whole platoons, streets were dug up to retard the progress of armoured vehicles.

He says >> “There is little evidence to suggest that the resistance emanating from Fallujah was anything other than Fallujans fighting an occupation they believed to be illegal and unjust”

This is absolute bollocks. There is a wealth of evidence that Abu Musab alZaqri and his Al Qaeda forces were the organizers of the insurgency in Fallujah. Fallujah was, for a long time, a home base for the car bombs being directed to Baghdad and elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury#Insurgent_forces

House to House by David Belavia is a searing account of the Second Battle for Fallujah. The author would do well to listen to some of the people actually involved in the battle which was one of the most ferocious of the war.

Finally, it was exceedingly uncommon for an insurgent to surrender in the battle for Fallujah. They were there to die in Jihad and take as many people with them as they could.

This is a puff piece with a total lack of any objectivity

I expect nothing less from people who rationalise crimes to themselves to make it all seem better and who champion censorship of media in war zones. This is predictable. You will have to turn to more honourable and powerful people in the USA military who sometimes shake themselves clear of all this propaganda.

It's not hard to look at the evidence (even with all the censorship in place):

http://www.google.com/search?q=fallujah+war+crimes

Google has all the information you need to conclude that the Fallujah operation lead to many war crimes.

Wars are not fought by holding the sword in one hand and the Ten Commandments in the other. An ineradicable law of war is that its prolongation increases its brutality in 'geometrical' proportions and hence its casualties in civilians and the military. The action in Fallujah had the strategic goal to shorten the war. Fallujah was the hornet's nest of foreign and local jihadists who were not only manufacturing the lethal car bombs but also sending their suicidal fanatic warriors in other cities of Iraq. The collateral civilian casualties, not in the huge fictional figures presented by the writer of the article, were inevitable in a war that the enemy uses civilians, and, indeed, members of his own family and relatives,. as a shield. And the question arises who is the real moral culprit and war criminal in such a case. It's obvious, however, that the writer of the piece has no propensity to even deal with this question, least of all answer it.

http://kotzabasis1australiaagainst.blogspot.com

What is not factored here is, some 700,000 Iraqi corpses were unearthered by the coalition, all of which occured within the last 15 years of Sadaam's 25 year reign of terror.

When there is a clear suspicion such a regime was contemplating nukes [after already possessing WMD used upon the Kurds] - backed by 17 UN Resolutions and virtually the entire world community [including all states in Europe] - it would have been criminally liable not to invade and cleanse the region of a potential mass murderer. Australia & USA should be honoured here - and all those who did not support the war against Sadaam should be shamed. Freedom fighters start at home - which means there were no such things in this region.

I fail to see the relevance of IamJoseph's claimed figures of Hussein's past atrocities. Is he trying to suggest that past atrocities by Saddam Hussein give the US occupation forces a blank cheque to do as they please?

In any case, I would be interested to know the source of IamJoseph's figures. My impression is that whatever we agree the figure to be, the majority of the deaths occurred largely in the context of armed conflicts up to the 1991 Gulf War and the number of deaths since 1991 have been far fewer.

Hence, the number of lives that would have been lost through any continued violation of human rights by Hussein's regime would have been vastly less than the numbers who have been killed as a result of the US invasion, that is, at least several hundred thousand.

Furthermore, many human rights violations that did occur up to 1991 occurred with the collusion of the US government.

The evidence that the invasion was nothing more than a grab for Iraq's oil wealth which is now being privatised against the wishes of the Iraqi people, is overwhelming. It had little to do with concern for the human rights of Iraqis. Indeed, today the occupation authorities have refused to repeal Hussein's anti-union laws lest the oil workers stand in the way of the planned theft by Western oil companies of Iraq's oil.

In any case, Hussein's human rights violations was not even the official pretext for the invasion, as IamJoseph should well know.

The pretext was the claimed existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

As UN inspectors were, at the time, scouring Iraq with the effective cooperation of the Iraqi Government - that is, unless we accept the ludicrous claims of the Murdoch Press at the time that the failure of the weapons inspectors to find the non-existent WMD's was 'proof' of the non-cooperation of the Hussein regime as well as its extreme deviousness - there was no justification whatsoever for the invasion.

Yup, brutal street to street and house to house fighting... Any civilian (or anybody else) who voluntarily stays to experience that is somewhat dim or dedicated to a cause. If they claim to have done so in order to avoid being arrested and questioned by the other side, one has to ask serious questions about what, exactly, they were/are involved in.

Unfortunately this is the reality of what happens when irregular forces shelter behind women and children in built up areas, when the other side decides enough is enough. The solution (or the one which would save so many civilian lives), irregular forces should not hide amongst civilians (UN actually prohibits them doing so).

The civilians were advised what was coming and advised (strongly) to leave. They chose to stay and were deemed to be supporting the irregular forces they were protecting, so be it.

As to WP being a chemical weapon, it is an incendiary/marker/smoke round that has been widely used by all armies during/since WWII. It is particularly useful against prepared positions and snipers (they either move or they burn). It is not subject to the restrictions/bans upon the use of Chemical Weapons and is not defined as such. As to the horror of its use, it is an artillery round, the alternative is to be dismembered/disembowelled with large, razor sharp shards of steel which have been propelled in a wide arc by explosives. Frankly, I'd hate to choose between the two, neither is going to make your day.

As to 'Command Responsibility', a commander is not responsible for the criminal act(s) of individuals under their command, unless it is proven that they were at least intending that the same should happen or had ordered the same. The author cites no evidence even suggesting that to be the case.

Steel,

It’s funny how you never seem able to quote a reputable source, like a major newspaper, to back up your fantasies. I followed your link to the ream of articles by the “Global Research” centre, which is actually a socialist organization, and they were RUBBISH.

White phosphorus is NOT a chemical weapon. The US were stupid and lied about the fact that they used it, but they rapidly rescinded this claim. Haganah bet is right, there really is very little to chose between being eviscerated by 105mm artillery shrapnel, or burned by white phosphorus.

There may well have been isolated incidents of war crimes in Fallujah, but they are certainly not the responsibility of General Molan. And to seek to tarnish the whole operation with the actions of a few is contemptible. There never has been a policy to shoot surrendering insurgents. Those insurgents who don’t surrender are definitely shot on sight, however. That’s war.

People who have no idea what war is like will always come up with these sorts of stupid and irrelevant comments.

Daggett,

How on earth can you suggest with a straight face that the Iraqis were effective[ly] cooperat[ing] with the Inspectors. Haven’t you read any of the inspectors accounts? Saddam was as obstructive as possible. It was one of the reasons people thought he had something to hide.

How do you know that the oil privatization is against the wishes of the Iraqi people? Or are you just assuming everyone is naturally a socialist? The Iraqi gov’t is the elected gov’t of the people. They have the right to make those types of decisions.

The vast majority of deaths is Iraq have been caused by Sunni-Shia-Kurd violence, not by the Coalition. To insinuate that this is somehow the fault of the coalition is to exceed the boundaries of reality. Saddam was the one who put the three groups at one another’s throats. But the people themselves must take their measure of responsibility for their actions as well.

Paul.L,

It seems that you have not properly read my post.

I pointed out that the non-discovery of the non-existent WMD's was illogically held up by the Murdoch newsmedia as 'proof' that the Hussein regime was not cooperating with the weapons inspectors. They could not lose either way, could they? Had weapons been uncovered, the US would no doubt have been used as a pretext for immediate invasion, and as they weren't, this was held up as proof that the Iraqis were not cooperating.

As for the UN weapons inspectors' alleged complaints about the failure of Iraqi government to help them uncover non-existent WMD's, you are surely not ignorant of the fact that the inspectors asked for the inspections to continue and opposed the invasion? Hans Blix the head of the weapons inspectors opposed the invasion and has reaffirmed this stance repeatedly since.

Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector and a former US Marine sworn to die, if necessary, to defend his country, stated in the 1990's that no WMD's existed and for that clashed with Richard Butler the then head of the UN weapons inspectors. Scott Ritter's adamant stance has since has since been totaly vindicated.

Nearly all the intelligence agencies knew that the evidence of WMD's was non-existent. The evidence for the existence of WMD's presented by Colin Powell to the UN was fraudulent and this was seen at the time as such by informed commentators.

If we accept that the leaders of Australia, the US and the UK were not complete fools, they must known that their case for invasion was a lie.

---

No, I don't have at fingertips evidence that the Iraqi people are not falling over themselves to hand across ownership and control of their nation's oil to Exxon, Total, Shell, BP et al, but I would suggest to you that is as likely that they are in favouras it is likely that the people of NSW want to hand across their electricity assets to private corporations.

More information on the oil companies' efforts to steal Iraq's oil can be found at http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/

Apologies for the grammatical error in the third paragraph of my previous post.

The last sentence in that paragraph should have begun: "Had weapons been uncovered, the US would no doubt have used that as a pretext for immediate invasion, ..."

---

Another point Paul.L has attempted to dodge is that the overall death toll resulting from the invasion appears to much greater than what it would have been had Hussein simply been left in power (even if we assume that to be the only possible alternative to invasion). Whatever proportions of the toll to action by the US occupation forces, sectarian killings or by anti-US insurgents is largely beside the point.

I demonstrated with quotes from "The Shock Doctrine" that the conflict was brought about by the deliberate policy of the US occupation authorities of sacking Iraqi public servants as well as soldiers, privatising government services and giving all the work rebuilding the country to US corporations. Iraqis were excluded from performing the rebuilding work, and the work done by the US corporations was shoddy to put it kindly.

This is why the resistance to the occupation became so fierce and this is what helped ignite sectarian conflict. To repeat my quote from the "Shock Doctrine" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974#108120

... in February 2004, eleven months after the invasion of Iraq,
an Oxford Research international poll found that a majority of
Iraqis wanted a secular government: only 21% said their favoured
political system was an 'Islamic state'. ... Six months later ...
another poll found that 70% wanted Islamic law as the basis for
the state (p350).

There was no excuse for the invasion in the first place, and there was certainly no excuse, once the invasion had occurred, for the US occupation authorities to have trampled upon the democratic rights of Iraqis, in order to allow Bechtel, Blackwater, Halliburton et al to plunder both Iraq's economy and the US Treasury.

Pt. 1:

An excellent piece Chris.

But please, watch the latent guilt.

If you choose to empathise with an enemy Chris, then why not go all the way. See how much they wish to annihilate us and then justify that in our cosy little Western fashion. Since it's inception the norm has been successful Jihadist conquest. Our concept of nationhood - forbidden by Islam - is a mere speck in history. Ignorance born of hubris still leads to fear and vulnerability. Check a global map of wars, genocide and humanitarian disaster/displacement today. Cross out conflicts not involving Islam. Guess what you see.

Democracy has always had a self destruct mechanism Chris. Freedom, equality and tolerance are singular achievements for our species. Our approach of education and law reform over war, is significant in that it blinds us to our true nature. This steady move away from religio-superstitious justification of morality is simply our only "way out".

The "War on Terror" is the resumption of Islams Jihad that began to decline after the siege of Vienna, Sept. 11th 1683. We are responding in defence, just as have all human beings who are not Muslim, since the prophet founded his Military, Economic, Social and Political power base that required one simple thing: Submission - the meaning of Islam. By believers - the meaning of Muslim, to conquer the world. No bargains, no straying no rest. Kill and conquer or burn for all eternity. The same "faith" we value here, drives our very doom.

Part. 2:

Camp David, Oslo, Golan Heights. All huge mistakes, leading to a surge in radical Islamic violence. We give democratic freedom, they elect oppressive extremists. Misunderstanding, pure and simple. Our citizens fear nuclear destruction unaware Allah forbids any damage to this world. Of all seven worlds in Islamic jurisprudence, only this one is where Allah "resides". We in the West simply have no idea, that I can assure you.

Today, the trigger for our self destruction is Political Correctness. So blinded are we by our own standards that we have handed power to our enemies for generations. We simply have nothing to die for, and will be overrun by Islam within a century. We will unlikely be allowed even an approximation of Dhimmitude. We will die, our children will die and nationhood will be Dar al Islam. Why? When we offer "peace", "freedom" and "justice" we sign our demise.

Democracy is a gift that few understand. That gift includes the choice to justify your existence. Yet almost all Westerners see only our "quality of life". If you wish to jump aboard this ship of fools Chris, then please don't seize the rudder and just rush full speed to the nearest light. You'll lose your way, and all on board. Navigate instead. Our most fundamental flaw, is misunderstanding of democracy as a side effect of religious dominance.

What we cannot escape, no matter how much we try to love each other, is that Islam forbids compromise. To be a devout Muslim is to strive for the demise of everything democratic. Somehow, with millions of Muslims amongst us we might wonder why the Koran says, "... kill them wherever you find them. Wait for them, lay siege to them. Kill them, wherever you find them".

Ex PLO Jihadist and now Christian author, Walid Shoebat is very open about immigration of Muslims with the aim of conquest. He says, referring to holy Koranic scripture and our insistence to see Islam as a Western 'religion': "What part of 'kill', doesn't the West understand?".

Thank-you.

Fitna:
http://dfaw.typepad.com/melbourne_atheists/2008/07/fitna.html

Killing Me, Killing You:

http://dfaw.typepad.com/melbourne_atheists/2008/08/killing-me-killing-you.html

Firesnake,

You haven't read my posts, have you?

And you definitely haven't read the chapters in "The Shock Doctrine" concerning Iraq.

To cross-post further from the post referred to above:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974#108120
The plans of the US centred upon the Iraqis being too disoriented to resist the plans to privatise their economy for the benefit of the likes of Bechtel and Halliburton and open it wide for foreign investment, however on page 361 Klein writes:

Instead, a great many Iraqis immediately demanded a say in the
transformation of the country. And it was the Bush administration's
response to this unexpected turn of events that generated the most
blowback of all.

There were spontaneous elections in many parts of the country and "In many cases, US forces believing their President when he said the army had been sent to Iraq to spread democracy, played a facilitating role, helping to organise the election, even building ballot boxes."(p362)

However, Paul Bremer, realising that these would pose an obstacle to the plans of the US occupying authority, did not allow those elected a role in the administration of Iraq and cancelled its stated plans to convene a large constituent assembly.
(end of cross-post)

Thus it was the US occupation authority which chose to suppress democracy at a time when at most only 21% favoured an 'Islamic state'. By August 2004, two months before the assault on Falluja, the figure had risen to 70%.

I guess the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Bremer, Rumsfeld et al must be secretly in the service of the Jihadists of which Firesnake writes.

Very telling responses.

It's easy to recall the stances taken by particular posters in previous threads related to the Iraq war or the war on terror - alternatively, skimming a poster's history tells you a little about where they stand.

What's interesting, is the same divide occurred almost instantly in relation to the discussion of this article. Those who support the invasion have quickly leaped in to attack this piece, while those opposed support it.

Theoretically, shouldn't the issues be separate? Yeah, I know, it's politically charged, however in theory shouldn't we really be arguing about the limits we're willing to go to in warfare, and whether or not we think those limits have been transgressed by General Molan?

Again, in theory, those two issues can be divorced from whether or not we think the Iraq invasion was warranted.

As I see it, there's two issues:

1) The veracity of the Author's claims against Molan. So far, these haven't really been disputed with clear evidence.

2) Whether these tactics are condoned. Regardless of whether we support the invasion, the argument is really over whether the phosphorous weapons should be used, whether we condone the prevention of aid and support, and whether siege tactics can be used when a civilian population still exists.

The size of that civilian population can be debated. I'd be interested to know at what percentage the number of insurgents present in the city as opposed to 'approved' civilians makes it okay to deny aid assistance being provided.

I'd like to know more on where it's okay to stop using the ideals that make us different from the aforementioned insurgents - or is everything permitted if we're fighting against them?

Instead of reacting to it defensively because you support the war, or just using it as another piece of ammunition to support your opposition to the war, how about we discuss the morality of what's been presented here?

Forget that it's in Iraq. What if it was a Viet Cong stronghold, a Nazi encampment or a Japanese outpost post-Pearl-Harbor?

Would we still condone these tactics?

TurnRightTurnLeft,

Of course you are correct in pointing out that little of the discussion concerns the claims made by Chris Doran against General Jim Molan.

However, as some have used this article as a chance to defend the indefensible invasion of Iraq, others are entitled to argue the overwhelming case against the invasion of Iraq as I have done.

For my part, whilst I do agree that it is important to arrive at a resolution of the claims and counter-claims about the tactics used by the insurgents and the US forces in the fighting in Falluja, I have intentionally avoided discussing this because I don't have time to get my head around the claims and counter-claims about the tactics used by the insurgents and the US forces in the fighting in Falluja.

However, I don't believe that the technical discussions of what tactics are or are not justified or legal in these situations should be considered in isolation from the broader context of the war, or, indeed, if they even can.

That is why I made my initial contribution concerning Naomi Klein's very eye-opening observations of the Iraq war published only about 11 months ago now.

From the article “Noam Chomsky (in Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy) has described these allegations. . . .”

“Noam Chomsky” the “conspirator theorists” mouthpiece of choice.

The person whose ideas are expressed as “personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones,”

And “. . . he has praised libertarian socialism.”

Which must qualify as an oxymoron

This article is just an example of “the anti-everything” brigade doing what it does best (including yearning for the day the meek will inherit the earth).

We feed Swill to pigs.

Now, it seems, we are to enjoy its nutritious benefits here.

Daggett,

I read your post properly. Perhaps you did not mean to say what you said, but that is another issue.

You said >>” UN inspectors were, at the time, scouring Iraq with the effective cooperation of the Iraqi Government “

That is clearly not the case and I have a little timeline for your edification

June 1993
• Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM weapons inspectors to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.

June 1994
• Ritter and Smidovitch learn that Qusay Hussein is the key player in hiding Iraq's illegal weapons.

September-October 1994
• Iraq threatens to stop cooperating with UNSCOM inspectors and begins once again deploying troops near the Kuwait border.

July 1995
• Iraq threatens to end all cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA, if sanctions are not lifted by August 31, 1995

March 1996
• Iraqi forces refuse UNSCOM inspection teams access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites only after delays of up to 17 hours

July 1996
• Ritter attempts to conduct surprise inspections on the Republican Guard facility at the airport, but is blocked by Iraqi officials. By the time UNSCOM inspectors are allowed into the facility a few days later, they find nothing.

June 1997
• Iraqi military escorts on board a UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its planned destination, threatening the safety of the aircraft and their crews.

January 1998
• Iraq wants Scott Ritter's team out and claims that Ritter is a spy.

Spring 1998
• An UNSCOM inspection team discovers a dump full of destroyed Iraqi missiles. Analysis of the missile parts proves that Iraq had made a weapon containing VX.

August 1998
• Scott Ritter resigns from UNSCOM, sharply criticized the US and the U.N. for NOT BEING VIGOROUS ENOUGH about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused Kofi Annan of ASSISTING IRAQI EFFORTS AT IMPEDING UNSCOM'S work. "Iraq is not disarming," Ritter said, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike."

TBC

CONT

December 1999
• In Resolution 1284, Iraq was once again ordered to allow inspections teams immediate and unconditional access to any weapons sites and facilities. Iraq rejects the resolution.

November 2000
• Iraq rejects new UN weapons inspections proposals.

July 5 2002
• Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

December 2002
• UNMOVIC Chairman Hans Blix tells UNSC members that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts.

Saddam repeatedly disrupted and attempted to subvert the weapons inspection process. The regimes possession of WMD was real and proven, the issue at hand was whether Iraq still possessed these weapons in 2003. The coalition has found no evidence that it did, although this still surprises many anlysts, given Saddams propensity to accumulate such weapons. It was clear that Iraq could re aquire the WMD capability rapidly, once sanctions and inspections were removed.

In any case I am happy to acknowledge that the war was handled badly. Things have since improved dramatically and coalition troops will start withdrawing soon, their mission complete.

Bringing democracy to Iraq has been costly, without doubt. But ask Iraqis whether they would have preferred to stay under Saddam and you will get an overwhelmingly negative response.

I know you socialist don’t believe in personal responsibility but nearly everyone else does. The civil war in Iraq which caused the overwhelming casualties during the conflict is the responsibility of the people of Iraq. To lay it at the door of the coalition is a nakedly partisan action which is entirely irrational.

daggett,

Very fair points.

It was quite lazy of me to try to justify a comment or two. They're from a full reply of over 1500 words, which is linked below.

I'm not trying to take a side. I happen to strongly agree with Chris, and would only add that "atheism" is prevented in coalition troops, and meetings of independent thinkers banned. God all the way. When you know this life is an astonishingly improbable privilege and a one off chance to better a species, it is insanity to fight, much less die.

My point succinctly, is the finger can equally be pointed at dynamics Chris points out, our disturbing ignorance of what our governments do, the role the Christian religion plays in controlling morality [BushGodWar], blocking secular values of education and law reform from replacing conformity/coerced aggression and the reality of Fundamentalism.

One point I'll expand on. When I speak of the burden of proof, I'm not asking "justify your Religion/beliefs". Nor, "prove you aren't dangerous because of the texts you value" [well, not solely]. I'm far more interested in involving moderate Christian and Muslims in discourse on how they hold two opposing ideals at the same time.

Minimising such dissonance requires serious intellectual action. Admitting this, is to deny ones faith in some way. Thus, we have a quandary. Democracy doesn't have the need for introspection that Islam and Judaism do. We must be panicked into action because we don't equally value our way of life, and those who do, fight with the pen. Hence, the burden of proof is a case of honestly revealing how one rationalises what they know is false, with the aim of 'wiping out' nothing but the concept of an ontological "other".

If we are going to play with this meme, then please understand there's no room for mistakes. Arms, Drugs, Oil. The tripod that holds the stand on which our globe spins. And, it's all been for God, morality and "progress". Religion, not military academies, create Molans. Until we silence the opportunists, we will continue on and indeed sleepwalk to oblivion.

http://dfaw.typepad.com/melbourne_atheists/2008/08/reply-to-chris-doran.html

Ho Hum,

I googled "The-Truth-about-Fallujah" and I got the worst rubbish imaginable. I fully understand why you guys won’t take anything the Americans say at face value, but your complete rejection of the reputable press is another thing altogether.

I can acknowledge that the Australian has a centre right bias in its opinion and opeds, just as the age has a centre left bias and the BBC has a left bias. But I really don’t believe any of them would deliberately print something knowing it wasn’t true. Especially not on an issue as sensitive as Fallujah.

The first article I came across was called How The U.S. Murdered a City http://www.witchhazel.it/fallujah.htm.

I read with much disdain these loony-left claims that the Coalition murdered a city. How can you murder a city, anyway?

The author goes on to suggest behaviour reminiscent of the Serbs in the safe haven of Srebrenica. Of course there were no references in this article, merely claims that coalition troops went house to house looking for innocent civilians to murder. Frankly this is preposterous. Keeping that quiet would have required the complete cooperation of the embedded media, plus the silencing of the independent and Arab news agencies like Aljazeera. Not gonna happen. NOTHING in politics stays secret any more.

Fallujah is a simple, clear cut, hard fought battle between sunni insurgents and the coalition. Civilians were given many days notice of coalition intentions. Virtually all took the opportunity to leave the city. Meanwhile the insurgents including alQaeda had fortressed the city, turning every intersection into a free fire lane and every house into a potential ambush location.

I suggest you read an account by a soldier who was there. For example David Belavia ("House to House") was a squad leader during the second battle for Fallujah and his account is at complete odds with the “SOCIALIST” version.

Neither the author, nor anyone else for that matter has shown evidence which implicates coalition command, including General Molan, in war crimes in Fallujah. In fact there has been very little REAL evidence tendered of any war crimes at all.

Steel,

You would do well to note that google has all the information needed to prove the existence of UFO's or fairies.

You can always find something on the internet to back up your prejudices. What you can't do is find any support for your claims in the real media by real journos.

Paul.L (#120633, 8Aug08),

You have selectively made use of facts which support your own predetermined position whilst ignoring facts which I have put to you which don't sit comfortably with that position.

If the invasion was supposedly because of the events which occurred up to December 2002, then what do you suppose was the point of having UN weapons inspectors go into Iraq after that date?

In the opinion of the UN General Assembly, the UN security council and the weapons inspectors themselves, the purpose of the inspections process was to prevent the necessity of an invasion. As I have shown, in the opinion of the inspectors themselves, the Iraqi Government was cooperating sufficiently as to allow them to complete the task.

However, George Bush, together with Tony Blair and John Howard took it upon themselves to ignore the opinions of the inspectors as well as the UN and world opinion. Clearly they intended to invade all along, regardless of the outcome of the inspections.

You have supplied a quote from Scott Ritter in 1999 in which he was critical of the Iraqi Government. So why have you disregarded what he subsequently said in 2002, PRIOR TO THE INVASION?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Commentary_on_Iraq.27s_lack_of_WMDs
There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)[7]

For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Commentary_on_Iraq.27s_lack_of_WMDs
Pitt, William R. War On Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know 2002, Context Books, New York. ISBN 1-893956-38-5
Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh: Iraq Confidential Edited transcript of an October 19 public conversation at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/ritter

Blah, Blah, Blah . . . .

Regardless of their lack of academic qualifications, every hayseed who just fell off a turnip truck, along with his second cousin, thinks of themselves as "experts" on history and political science . . . after reading a few books from authors whose rants simply reinforce the pre-existing biases of their readers.

Pathetic.

So, I guess I can declare myself an "expert" on rocket science because I read "Popular Mechanics" magazine?

How many of Noam Chomsky's unctuous sycophants ever bother to check the veracity of all of HIS alleged sources and "documentation"?

Anyone who believes that Chomsky is "balanced" and "objective" has been living in Disneyland too long.

It is always fascinating to me that the whiny, tofu-eating, nit-picking "idealists" and "peaceniks", who would mess their pants if they ever found themselves in a war zone, nevertheless demand that ONLY the troops of the western democratic allies must be absolutely meticulous about abiding by the "rules of war" . . . regardless of what barbarities our troops themselves are subjected to. However, NO such demands for stringent adherence to the dictates of "international law" are made of those who openly declare that democratic government is "evil" because it violates "God's Law", who cut off the heads of hostages with a dull knife while those hostages are still breathing, and who DELIBERATELY target unarmed women and children with hidden bombs in marketplaces.
Somehow I find it difficult to empathize with people who are more outraged by the sexual humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib than they are by the slow DECAPITATION . . . without trial . . . of Daniel Pearl.
Yeah, I know . . . maybe it's just me, being a "corrupt decadent infidel" and all, but, I can't get over the idea that witnessing my head being ripped off . . . without even being granted the courtesy of receiving a merciful bullet first . . . is a bit more gruesome than being forced to get naked and watch a dog growl at me in front of a strange woman.

Dagget,

You say >> “You have selectively made use of facts which support your own predetermined position whilst ignoring facts which I have put to you which don't sit comfortably with that position.”

No mate. You made the preposterous claim that Saddam’s Iraq was cooperating effectively with the inspectors. I merely provided the obvious rebuttal to that statement. Iraq under Saddam spent 12 years trying to hide their programs and impede inspections. Even Hans Blix concluded that Iraq was being obstructive.

As you note in your post, Scott Ritter, who has a different opinion depending on who he’s talking to, said in 2002 “There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction..”

I think this is all the information you need. It clearly shows that Saddam had not given up on his weapons programs. Do you REALLY believe that if the war hadn’t gone ahead Saddam would have peacefully ruled his kingdom without renewing his WMD programs? Considering the support of the Russians, French and Chinese who Saddam bought off with his oil, sanctions would have been scrapped and Saddam would have been free to start again, no punishment for his mass genocide of his own people.

And how much harder would it have been to contain Saddam after he had seen off the concerted attention of the world’s only superpower? He could rightly claim victory for the Arab world and it would have given the Iranians the idea that they too could thumb their noses at the world and get away with it.

Paul.L,

I note that you have dodged answering my question:

"If the invasion was supposedly (necessary) because of the events which occurred up to December 2002, then what do you suppose was the point of having UN weapons inspectors go into Iraq after that date?" (The word 'necessary' was mistakenly omitted, but the meaning of the question should still have been clear.)

(... and this is not the only one of many you have dodged. Because I don't have all week, I will have to leave it to other readers to go through the posts and see for themselves what other facts, inconvenient to your case, you have ignored.)

Also, Paul.L, how many countries has Iraq successfully conquered in the last few decades? By my count, zero, unless you include Kuwait which was briefly occupied in 1991 and 1992.

If elimination of any potential threat is a justification for invasion, then there wouldn't be too many countries left in the world that the US would not be entitled to invade, would there?

It seems that "thumb(ing) (one's) nose at world public opinion" can be very much in the eye of the beholder.

The US never had any intention of introducing democracy. As Naomi Klein has shown, they could easily have done so in the immediate aftermath of the invasion when Iraqi public opinion was still strongly in support of secular democracy. I can only conclude that ongoing conflict in Iraq was, to Rumsfeld, Bremmer et al, preferable to allowing the Iraqis a say in running their country in 2003. Had they allowed Iraqis to run their country in 2003, the US corporations would not have been able to plunder Iraq's economy whilst impoverishing its people.

Dagget,

I took issue with something you said. So I showed you where you were wrong.

On this point at least we should be in agreement. Saddam NEVER cooperated EFFECTIVELY with the Inspectors.

As for your myriad other points I’ll deal with them methodically and in the same manner as your previous mistakes.

So,

I don’t think there was ANY point in inspectors going back into Iraq in 2002. Saddam was always going to rearm with WMD if he had been able to get a clean bill of health from the watered down inspector teams. 12 years of evasion, subterfuge and deliberate interference should have been enough to convince anyone Saddam was not the type to learn his lesson. He was a danger to everyone.

I notice you dodged most of my questions.

So I’ll ask you again? Do you REALLY believe that if the war hadn’t gone ahead Saddam would have peacefully ruled his kingdom without renewing his WMD programs?

You say >> If elimination of any potential threat is a justification for invasion, then there wouldn't be too many countries left in the world that the US would not be entitled to invade”

This is unadulterated rubbish. The UN specifically granted a dozen or more resolutions concerning Iraq including the backing for a war (the first gulf war) in which many Arab countries participated. Remember Iran attacked Kuwait and was looking mighty hard at underdefended Saudi Arabia. Iraq also attacked Iran, provided funds and training for Palestinian suicide bombers and their militant organizations and I have ZERO trouble believing that Saddam would not have made his WMD available to other parties.

Naomi Klein hasn’t SHOWN anything. Naomi Klein pontificates, she opines and she polemicizes but she SHOWS NOTHING. The conclusion that Bremmer and Rumsfeld didn’t want democracy is specious. Iraqi democracy was always going to be a nebulous concept because the Shia had the numbers to choose their own leaders. This doesn’t mean they aren’t democratic. The situation isn’t perfect but the Iraqis now have the chance to determine their own future. Messy, complicated but hopefully democratic.

sonofeire... that was satire, right?

You're not actually that caricature of an actual person. Nobody could be that extremist. I mean, rolling peaceniks and tofu into a line of adjectives was all well and good, but nobody who can evidently spell could be so stupid as to think of the issue in such black and white terms.

It isn't about such extreme ends and no, I don't see where this article actually stated that the soldiers who participated in the attack on fallujah are as bad as the terrorists who killed Daniel Pearl.

Do you? If not, then honestly, cut the hysterical spray it's a distraction from what we condone of our soldiers in war. Instead of making such ridiculous comparisons, how about stating what you do think is 'okay' for our troops to do, and whether you're fine with cutting off aid.

While you're at it, define the reasons why we are indeed better than the terrorists, more to the point, define how we stay that way and what acts we should refuse to sink to.

Thank you, Polycarp, for your fine review of this piece's near perfect projection of the FasciSSocialist Psychopathology.

In your roundup of those of Human History's very worst acts of barbarity committed by the manifestation of evil its practitioners, promulgators, promoters, polemicists and projectors, proudly, with froth and foam flecked passion and often, call: communism, socialism, "progressivism," "liberalism," "environmentalism, "laborism," "greenism" and "climatechangism" (well, OK, I made that last couple up -- but they're the road to totalitarian tyranny by any other name) -- and unwillingly or never by its such other of its names as: fascism, militarism and Nazism -- you missed such of those other obscene examples of Marxist/Stalinist/Hitlerism let loose as: Hitler, Castro, Hirohito, Pol Pot, Mussolini and Mugabe. And Mankind's double gold medal winner for both all-time most prolific mass-murderer AND most prolific ever child rapist, wanabe mandarin K "Dudd" Rudd's mate: Mao Tze Tung!

Not a one of them conservative, not one Australian -- nor yet American!

Nor yet even a traitor in sight to say so.

(Where's there a Burchett, an Arnett or a Mick Ware when one needs one?)

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles - California

Paul.L Wrote: "... So I showed you where you were wrong."

Yeah, right, Paul.L. Why not let others be the judge of that?

Paul.L wrote: "On this point at least we should be in agreement. Saddam NEVER cooperated EFFECTIVELY with the Inspectors."

I consider this to be nit-picking. Whether or not the Iraqi government was 'EFFECTIVELY' cooperating, the UN inspectors had all the necessary powers to deal with whatever conceivable threat existed and were using them. That is why former inspector Scott Ritter and the head of the UN weapons inspectors Hans Blix opposed the invasion.

Do I know for certain that if Iraq/North Korea/Pakistan/Iran/Syria/Libya/Venezuela had not been invaded, "Saddam would have peacefully ruled his kingdom without renewing his WMD programs?"

No, of course I can't say for certain, but given that Iraq had not succeeded in conquering any countries since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1972, which, by my count is at least three less than that which the US directly conquered, excluding Iraq in the same period, I would be inclined to agree with Scott Ritter that whatever threat could have conceivably have arisen would have easily been contained.

---

Let's have a closer look at how the US did such a great job of introducing democracy in Iraq, shall we?

"When Paul Bremmer first arrived, the US plan was to convene a large constituent assembly, representing all sectors of Iraqi society, where the delegates would vote for the members of an interim executive council. After spending two weeks in Baghdad, Bremer scrapped the idea. Instead, he decided to handpick the members of a governing Iraqi council. ..." (Klein, p 362)

"Bremer's next problem was the elections breaking out in towns and cities across the country. At the end of June (2003), only his second month in Iraq, Bremer sent word that all local elections must stop immediately. The new plan was for Iraq's local leaders top be appointed by the occupation, just as the Governing Council had been."(Klein, p 363)

Here are some links relevant to the Iraq war:

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq 1,252,595 http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) in America's War On Iraq 4,138 http://icasualties.org/oif/

The War And Occupation Of Iraq Costs
$544,507,752,171 See the cost in your community
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Iraq: At least 7 killed in another bloody day of US occupation:

A U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter were killed when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle in northwestern Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSANW22158020080813

'Where Are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?' By Scott Ritter

At what point in time will it become clear that a crime against America has been committed, not by any foreign terrorist group, but rather the highest officials in the land, those entrusted with safeguarding the Constitution? If the rule of law is to have any meaning today, Congress has no choice but to institute proceedings mandated by the Constitution against those high officials who have committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20501.htm

... All links supplied by Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info)

Another discussion "Winning the war in Iraq" concerning the Iraq war as a whole and less to do specifically with the Falluja operation has been started at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0

I note Graham Young started the discussion by dismissing Naomi Klein's case against the war, which I have referred to above.

daggett: " .... That is why former inspector Scott Ritter and the head of the UN weapons inspectors Hans Blix opposed the (liberation) .... "

Convicted wannabe child rapist, Ritter -- as was effectively the whole of that most comprehensively (in all of Human history) systemically corrupt coming together of gangs of organized criminals, dictators, megalomaniacs and mass murderers: the "united nations" -- were directly in the pay of the Baghdad butcher's Baathists.

Before his Burger King ballsup, Hussayn paid wannabe pedophile, Ritter, USD$400,000.00. Ostensibly to "write a book." And the bumbling blustering own trumpet blowing Blix, also well-oiled by Baghdad's butcher, always was and remains but a two-bit bureaucratic cog in the permanently parasitical and pathologically hesperophobic anti-American Coffee Annan gang, whose ineptitude and cowardice gave the world Rwanda and oversees Darfor -- and whose overt criminality oversaw "oil for food."

And "cacofonix:" An interesting trotting out of the Soviet-inspired Socialist Internationale's usual Goebbelsesque and rhetorically hyperbolic talking points. Too bad though that almost every one of them is to veracity and/or to hisorical fact (or even to rationality and/or to sanity) what Michael Jackson is to normal sexuality.

And as to kid-rooter Ritter's "Where Are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?" I guess neither you nor he noted that the Coalition of around thirty nations' rationale for the removal of the Baghdad' butcher's mass murderous dictatorship and consequential liberation of Iraq was not the hugely inflated "weapons of mass destruction" canard but was Hussayn's countless breaches of the innumerable (albeit serially mindless and ever-more meaningless) UN Resolutions that arose from the liberation of Kuwait - at the termination of which liberation the Baghdad butcher traded Iraq's sovereignty for UN compliance?

And I guess you haven't noticed also (and despite that it's in any case moot) the constant stream of information regarding the almost daily location of evidence of countless weapons of mass destruction programs -- including the shipping a month or so ago, from Baghdad to Canada, of 500-odd tons of Hussayn's Yellowcake?

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles - Californicated 90028