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 > The reality of Australia’s collateral damage in Iraq > Comments

The reality of Australia’s collateral damage in Iraq : Comments

By Chris Doran, published 4/8/2008

Australian General Jim Molan's new book whitewashes his command responsibility for one of the most notorious of the Coalition's alleged war crimes in Iraq, the destruction of Fallujah.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 8 August 2008 10:48:42 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
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
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 8 August 2008 1:49:32 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
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.
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 8 August 2008 1:51:12 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
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
Posted by Firesnake, Friday, 8 August 2008 6:29:38 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
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.
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 10 August 2008 10:49:38 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
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.
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 10 August 2008 10:54:05 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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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