This guy is seems to be spending too much time reading far leftie blogs without the benefit of factual understanding or balanced reporting.

Go for it, Rueben. Take no notice of our right-wing neo-colonialists, mate.

As one going on 88, and having qualified as a socio-politico historian in my retirement from the farm, can't understand why people like George Bush, which includes many of our study group, can't wake up that that the free-market policy they are following right now, is hardly any different than that of the 19 century.

And here's Georgie Boy now in the last gasp of his rightist reign, having the cheek to call on what's left of Iraq, somewhat similar to an occupied people, so fed up and misled by the West, they'll do anything for a quiet time.

Same is going on in Afghanistan with Blair's inheritor trying the same thing that was done in the colonial days.

Could reckon, however, though not in love with them, that
certainly the people of the present Taliban did not come down in the last shower. No one has ever conquered Afghanistan since Alexander the Great.

I only wish our OLO people would study more history, where they would also find that same sorts of right-wing free-market smart-arses, not only stuffed up the economic system during the Roaring Twenties, but again since they took over from Keynesism in the late 1970's.

You forgot to blame the zionists. Dont forget, everything wrong that happens in the world, happens because of a jewish plot.

(note - sarcasm)

Obviously, most of the above commentators are so uninformed about American politics and society that they actually think that only left-wing people oppose the policies of the Bush administration, or use words such as "empire", "imperial", "authoritarian" or "fascist" to describe actions of the US government. Hopefully, these people will take the time to educate themselves:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-10-30_058_americas_slow_motion_fascist_coup.mp3

Reuben Brand has been reading way too much chomsky and pilger.

the thing that always annoys me about lefty articles that mention the iraq war is that they go on and on about oil and give no evidence to support their claims. well where were the seizures of oil reserves during the invasion? or if america wanted iraq's oil why not lift the sanctions on iraq that had been there for a decade?

america has been talking for years about this war. president in clinton in 1998:
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

reuben brand also seems disappointed that the taliban regime, that banned women from an education and stoned them for speaking to men other than their husbands and subjugated them in public life and imposed their dark age islamic law on a people. reuben brand probably just shut his eyes and covered his ears when news reports showed footage of afghanis celebrating the overthrow of their brutal islamic tyrants.

reuben brand doesn't realise that freedom isn't free. that democracy requires a struggle and this peacenik is too undetermined and focused on his wacky conspiracy theories to care.

Aw tell us another one liberal< Not that one could ever like Saddam, but didn't you know, Liberal, that most of America's attacks on Saddam have been started off through spin, the last one pretty well destroying Iraq's valuable culture, through straight out lies.

Back to spin, did you know, Liberal, that it was Donald Rumsfeld as US advisor who kidded Saddam to attack Iran back in !982, which finished as you should know with both America and iraq pretty well begging Iran to call it quits

Furthermore if you studied history a bit more my friend you would know that America has been out to get Iran ever since the Ayotollah booted out the fake US dressed up Shah

well yeah, actually i am well read on american history. i DO know about rumsfelds intervention, but a small lefty mind like yours can't seem to understand simple international politics.
well when the iranians held american citizens captive for over 400 days, of course the americans were going to back saddam who hadn't done anything wrong to them, yet. why not build up a strong ally in the region?? this isn't ur little kindergarden imaginary world, this is the real world where the lesser of two evils must be chosen, at that time saddamin the iran-iraq war!
hmm perhaps u dont realise how hard it is to forget the kidnapping of an american citizen for over 400 days? or u are too . .. interlectually challenged . . . to understand the importance of a realistic foreign policy in such an unstable region.
but of course no matter what i say, u will ignore the deeply rooted american ideology of the "empire of liberty" and the american exceptionalist view that america is the beacon of light to unfree people and still believe ur nonsensical theories of "neo-colonialism".

Funny how even our own PM had to make up a lie in order to make himself look good against Mr Bush. I am not Mr Bush's greatest fan but the constant lies by the likes of Pilger make it clear that he could not be to bad. The demonisers of Mr Howard here in Aussie are now having to eat humble pie as we see Mr Rudd adopting and carrying on Howards policies almost to the tee. His symbolic gestures are about the only difference. Today's back flip on 'climate change' was absolutely comical. Of course anyone with any common sense could see it coming a mile a way. The left do live in a dream world.

The article reads like a zealous, overwrought, hysterical attack on the Bush administration. But the worst part is that it's all true and the fervour is entirely justified.

At this point in history the only people left defending Bush are the ones who wouldn't criticise him even if he ate an Israeli baby on live television. He is the worst US president in history and it will take decades to undo the damage he's caused America, if it's possible at all.

<<The left do live in a dream world>>

This is from someone who believes, quite literally, in virgin births, bodily resurrection, parting of oceans, the god-given infallibility of the Pope, and that humans were created from clay 6000 years ago (except women, who are spare ribs). Most of my dreams are far more plausible than that.

Mr. Brand wrote his expose just in time, since Bush's term is almost over. I was impressed by his originality of thought, and I'm happy he took the time to write-up his thoughts. For a while, I thought no one would ever make the effort.

At some point, someone is going to ask "if Bush was so bad, how come he got elected?"

When a company employs a new CEO, the Board conducts due diligence prior to the appointment. If that individual turns out to be a flake, the Board is responsible.

The US population elected Bush. They should be asking themselves some serious questions, instead of spraying round the blame on everyone else.

Perhaps their electoral system needs an overhaul.

The Bush histories, when written in 10 years time will highlight the moral bankruptcy of the far Right in this era.
Scoff if you like at the tone, but then check the facts:
Bush wasn't elected, he used dodgy legal means. (democracy? Fail)
WMDs didn't exist, except for US stockpiles (Lying bastard. Pass!)
Large companies close to the Bush family recieved $Millions in uncontested work. (corruption, nepotism. Pass!)
Tens of thousands of innocent modern city dwellers were bombed back the stone age. (killer. Pass)
Iraq was a logistical disaster. the only ones to win were the mercenaries (sorry *contractors*)
As for his economic policies, the ones that keep US kids happy, healthy and educated...Big fail!
The really sad thing is that the Right is soooo tribal that they would associate themselves with such a crimminal simply because he is on their side and not of the Left.
Tyrants through history rely on this sort of stupidity.
Rudd is indeed a "me too" center right and not please the Left, but at least he insn't an accessory to international crime. (...yet?)

what sancho said.

Beautifully written Reuben. I am a little envious.

The facts man - just the skeletal facts - and with a touch of sherbet to make the irony more palatable.

More please.......

This article is flawed by its acceptance of the Big Lie of 11 September 2001.

The evidence that the atrocities of 9/11 were masterminded by elements within the Bush administration and not by fanatical Muslims hiding in the caves of Afghanistan is overwhelming. This has been discussed extensively on the discussion thread "9/11 Truth".

As I wrote on the forum "Terrorists attacking Mumbai have global agenda" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8293#129787

If anyone dismisses any suggestion that the September 11 terrorist attack was a 'false flag' operation, then please view these YouTube presentations:

"WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng) ... or read this post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#51675) and subsequent discussion from an Online Opinion forum on “9/11 Truth” and then try to convince yourself that the ‘collapse’ of World Trade Center Tower 7 on 11 September 2001 was not a controlled demolition.

See also http://911oz.com http://911truth.org http://911blogger.com http://patriotsquestion911.com etc

---

Pericles wrote "The US population elected Bush."

The 2000 elections were stolen by George Bush. Al Gore legitimately won those elections.

The 2004 elections almost certainly were rigged as well. The evidence is to be found in these broadcasts listed below which show how any of the Diebold electronic voting machines in widespread use could be hacked in 1 minute and the results changed. The also show testimony of a programmer who was approached in 2000 and asked to write a program that would 'flip' recorded votes so that the results could be reversed by touching a sequence of locations on the touch screen. As there was no paper record of votes cast, any tampering with the votes would have been undetected.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/145.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/465.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/466.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/467.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/271.html

On top of that we must not forget the efforts of US corporate media, in particular, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News which acted throughout all these years as the privatised propaganda arm of the Bush administration.

OLO has become a haven for conspiracy theorist. Oh well let them live in their dream world. One day they will realize that they and the terrorist are actually on the same side. The hate for the US and the West is evident. No doubt they hate the fact that many in Iraq now have some chance of a decent life. Don't let that get in the way of their hateful spiteful half truths. When Obama continues on with Bush's policies just like Rudd has pursued Howard policies you will not hear boo from them.

<<The hate for the US and the West is evident. No doubt they hate the fact that many in Iraq now have some chance of a decent life>>

So true. The Leftists who continuously call for peace and diplomacy instead of never-ending war are obviously on the side of the terrorists.

Good thing the West is defended by so many religious fundamentalists who will use any means, no matter how immoral, to wipe out those Arab heretics in the name of the one true god, even if thousands of innocents die along the way. They've got nothing in common with the bad guys.

The world should be grateful that the Bush administration went into Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan and every other repressive regime to fight dictators on their own turf, when it could have simply exploited the deaths of 3000 Americans to carry out its long-planned invasion of an oil-rich nation so that the President could prove to his dad that he's all grown up.

The sad part is that there are certainly criticisms that can be made of the Bush administration and President Bush himself. This being the case, there is no need to resort to vitriol, hyperbole and hysteria. It undermines the message and makes this particular opinion piece more of a rant than a thoughtful discussion.

*The US population elected Bush. They should be asking themselves some serious questions, instead of spraying round the blame on everyone else.*

So very true. They say that people elect the politicians which
they deserve, there is some truth in that.

I think with hindsight today, both left and right agree that
the population landed up electing a dummie team, which showed
incredibly bad judgement, with George and Dick.

Some of us pointed this out 8 years ago, but of course nobody
took any notice :)

George had the advantage of having Karl Rove on his side, who
knew how to push the emotional buttons of the American true
believers, religious fundamentalists and the millions of
grandmommies worrying about Osama under the bed, in the second
election.

If we compare America as Clinton left it, compared with today,
the rest is history. The American people and sadly the rest
of the world who had no vote, have paid a heavy price.

But then democracy as a process is not perfect, its just the
best process that we have. Nobody has suggested anything better.

Let's hope that Americans have at least learnt a little bit
out of all this, as it seems we humans need pain to learn,
often the hard way.

j s mill, i'm sorry but i think "rant" is the only reasonable response to 8 years of bush's dishonesty, stupidity, murderousness, lawlessness and outright psychopathy. what is there to discuss? what can you possibly praise? if bush is not the worst president of all time, he's a damn fine runner up.

Goodness me,

You've missed the AIDS relief to Africa ... obviously in-sufficient. You've missed the largest number of people ever to exit poverty in the history of the world ... obviously in-sufficient.
You've missed the world has become wealthier with the greatest distribution in the history of the world ... obviously in-sufficient.
You've missed the fact Bush appointed the highest number of African Americans and Hispanics to the highest positions in US politics ... obviously in-sufficient.
You've missed the fact Bush is the only President since Roosvelt/Truman to put the US in a position to win a hot war ... oops don't talk about the war!
You've missed the fact the US hasn't suffered a violent cowardly attack since Bush declared war on terrorists ... obviously too ineffective. Bearing in mind the prime duty of an American President is to keep the American people safe and secure.

Jeez and you've missed Bush won two elections and that history will show he'll be regarded as the least popular but one of the most successful US presidents ever ... just like Nixon was one of the most corrupt but his achievements are now being seen as quite remarkable. History tends to look at achievements or failures instead of the issues of the base politics of the all too close commentators. It knows they usually are pushing some sort of barrow.

And isn't the above article a prime example of that sort of rubbish.

Keith,

Nice piece. Far too many of the unthinking left resort to the insensible rant, rather than make a reasoned analysis.

The reason they hate Bush so much isn't because he started the war in Iraq. Its that he failed to lose it. For that transgression he will never be forgiven. The modern peace movement is fully invested in ensuring that America loses any conflict in which it becomes involved, regardless of the cost in American lives. Sad.

The US will have left Iraq within 5 years, a functioning democracy capable of protecting itself. The dictator Hussein, who caused far more pain to the Iraqi people than the US ever did, has paid for his crimes. Besides all else, the invasion has been an object lesson to all the jumped up dictators and theocrats, that the US and its allies will do what is required when necessary.

Bush certainly made a major miscalculation in siding with Rumsfeld against the Pentagon on the planning in the lead up to the 2003 invasion, but history will show that "the surge" was an inspired and courageous decision under difficult circumstances.

sorry sancho, for overthrowing the murderous dictatorship of saddam hussein. if the shoe-throwing iraqi had targeted saddam while he was in power, he would have been tortured, killed and thrown in a mass grave.
i ask you as i ask all the left wing loons who use weak arguments based on oil against the iraq war; where were the seizures of oil field? if bush just wanted more oil on the market, why not lift the sanctions? but you will ignore the facts and continue on your blind crusade against the american "empire".
you know, you should take a course in international politics sancho, though not the same crackpot one that our friend "bushbred" took, and then you will understand the importance of iraq in a post 9/11 world anyone with a shred of common sense does. but maybe a thread of common sense is too much to ask from one of you america bashers.

*You've missed the AIDS relief to Africa ... obviously in-sufficient.*

Goodness me, you've missed that George thinks that abstinence is
the solution in Africa, so clearly Africans should cross their
legs for birth control, unlike Americans. You've missed the many
women in Africa who had a chance of family planning under Clinton,
all cut by George.

So George got rid of Saddam and his two boys. Kill 100'000 Iraqis,
4000 Americans, maim another 30'000 or so, to kill 3 people.
Sounds like intelligent to you?

Think again Keith. The man is a dummy.

Paul has done a masterful job of excusing the bloody and destructive Iraq war, costing at least 100,000 Iraqi lives, and, by some credible estimates over 1 million and which may eventually cost US$3 trillion (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2199248.htm).

Of course part of the trick is to massively inflate the scale of the abuses of human rights under Hussein (how come he was sentenced to death for the deaths of at most several hundred, when he is supposed to have murdered umpteen squillion?), ignore the deaths caused by the sanctions prior to the 2003 invasion or the war against Iran and understate the harm caused by the invasion and occupation.

Much of the nonsense argued by Paul above has been dealt with on the forum "Winning the War In Iraq" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#43156 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#43150

Dear Yabby,

I stated an opinion. I did not expect other odd ball arguments to surface.

While George believes in abstinence, like billions of others around the world, he as president has never tried to impose his personal belief on his fellows. Sure he's argued his case, as he's entitled. Something you should try rather than leaping about pointing fingers and screeching carping criticisms.

Your crazed remark about his trying to impose abstinence on Africans totally ignores and contrasts hugely with his sane efforts at ensuring drugs for the treatment of those with aids.

Now what was my origibnal opinion?

Could you please when you respond to my opinions try a little harder to comprehend them and portray them accurately. Don't try and paint them differently and then launch critisims on your newly rewritten and dishonest basis.

If George is a dummy, he sure is a pretty successful dummy. You'd agree with that ... now wouldn't you?

keith:

1) aids relief to africa is the one point upon which i will agree, bush's one great act. BUT, as yabby points out, even there bush had to soil his own deed. "he as president has never tried to impose his personal belief on his fellows." in the case of tying money to abstinence programs, your claim is demonstrable nonsense.

2) "the world has become wealthier". huh? bush as economic hero? and why give bush the credit even if true?

3) "african americans and hispanics". yes, many unqualified flunkies, or complete psychopaths like alberto gonzalez. by any measure other than race, bush's appointments have been disastrous.

4) "position to win a hot war". define "win". you expect praise for a needless, bloody war that he had to lie through his teeth to begin? yabby's 100 000 iraqis dead is a very sad underestimate.

5) "american people safe and secure". i guess, give or take some anthrax. but, he has done it at the cost of trashing the constitution, torturing people, holding people in secret prisons, extrajudicial execution, show trials, illegal spying on his own people, detaining people they know to be innocent, and generally nurturing a reasoned fear into a full-blown psychopathic paranoia. not coincidentally, he has done this whilst being the greatest possible recruiter for islamist terrorism.

6) "won two elections". so what? and he didn't "win" in 2000: he was awarded it by the supreme court, in a decision which will go down in history as one of its most partisan, most ludicrous ever.

paul L: your whining about the "left" is tedious and meaningless.

* he as president has never tried to impose his personal belief on his fellows. *

Is that so Keith? I remind you that some of that money to fight
aids, was actually used to promote the abstinence programme. Uganda
was doing pretty well fighting aids with its ABC programme, until
George started trying to impose his belief on Africans.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/03/29/uganda-abstinence-only-programs-hijack-aids-success-story

*If George is a dummy, he sure is a pretty successful dummy.*

Successful Keith? With the benefit of hindsight, Americans are
licking their wounds, as their country is nearly bankrupt. Only
keeping the $ printing presses going, is keeping their heads above
water. George is so despised by his own people, that he was hidden
away at the last elections. Even republicans went out of their way
to distance themselves from the George and Dick team.

You call that successfull?

All it shows is that even in a democracy, with a bit of slick
marketing, the people can get it very wrong. Americans are paying
a huge price for their mistake and very few would not concede that.

History wil record the Democrats in Congress started the economic implosion and it was not the doing of the US president of the time.

Have you read my original post or is your memory comletely impaired? I've already told you why George will be seen as successful. You haven't addressed nor debunked those points. So I guess you agree he is successful and will be seen to be so by history, in those areas. Those are the issues that determine how history views administrations as they are far more consequential than mere political and economic issues.

How old are you? Your comprehension skills are those of an under-educated child.
And once again you've resorted to your usual 'strawman' argument. Do you even know what constitutes a 'strawman argument.'

*History wil record the Democrats in Congress started the economic implosion and it was not the doing of the US president of the time.*

If history gets it right, then history will record what we know,
ie that for most of the last 8 years, Congress was contolled by
the Republicans, ultimately responsible were DicknGeorge, free to
change whatever they liked. Watch a bit of Bloomberg. The SEC
takes its instructions from the Senate and they were told to lay
off enforcing too many regulations, let the market solve it.

You now have the result. A guy defrauds investors by 50 billion$,
he had less auditing of his books then my private little self run
super fund in Australia. Crazy stuff, for which Bush bears
ultimate responsibility. He had 8 years to change whatever he liked.

Bin Laden was right about one thing. He said that Al Queda could
defeat the US by bankrupting the country. George has played right
into his hands and helped him nearly do it. Only the printing
presses are saving America right now.

Wow, what an achievement! George will go down in history as the
biggest dummy president in the last 50 years.

Do you find yourself thinking people set out to deliberately upset you and then find yourself throwing up your arms and abandoning projects where you need other peoples assistance?

I think you might.

*I think you might.*

Ah Keith, but you think wrong.

But then as we have seen from your previous postings on OLO, your
judgement is clearly impaired! :)

And you yabby are clearly afraid to face he truth of yourself.

Hehe Keith, if that is what you believe, then that is what you
believe. I can't help you, sorry.

It's odd to see Yabby who normally attempts to depict me as a left wing extremist, not to mention "conspiracy nut", cast in a somewhat similar light on this forum.

Is this the same Yabby who opposes any legislative protection of workers rights, worships landlordism and property speculation and favours massive immigration in order that Australia be able to dig up as a quickly as possible, every tonne of iron ore and coal to export to China in order to fuel runaway global warming?

---

To the extent that the Democrats failed to stand up to the renegade President Bush with the outright majority they had gained in Congress in 2006, they are responsible for the economic fiasco of 2008.

They should have used the majority attained in 2006 to rein in the renegade President Bush, but failed to do so.

There was a grass roots movement against the US$700billion bailout of Wall Street In September. Initially the Democrat dominated congress bowed to the will of the people against the orders of the Republican and Democrat party leaders and blocked the bill, but they later caved in under threats made by Henry Paulson and others to effectively declare marshal law if the bill was blocked.

If the bill had been blocked the $700billion would have been available to rebuild the real US economy instead of the paper economy of Wall Street.

---

Below are some links concernig Muntadar al-Zaidi that courageous iraqi Journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush as a token of his outrage at what he had done to his country. Sadly he has been beaten up by Iraqi security forces and hospitalised and may face 8 years jail while George Bush, who ordered the illegal invasion of his his country, may walk free.

"Muntadar al-Zaidi did what we journalists should have done long ago" at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/243 "Peace Activists Take Shoes to White House in Solidarity with Shoe-Throwing Iraqi Journalist" at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/38242 "UPDATE: Shoe-throwing Iraqi journalist in hospital" http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20081215021844446 "Send Bush Your Shoes!" at http://www.legitgov.org/price_send_bush_shoes_161208.html "Bush shoe-thrower in hospital after beating: brother" at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iks-dGSaJhN4cELNz4--uCwIaNFA

‘... there was a whole army of bureaucrats, claiming
to want to help, most of them basically useless, even though
some had good intentions.

...In the end it was simply the volume of these people that one had to deal with, that made me wonder what on earth I was doing, bothering
to be innovative, exporting and employing people.

So I sold the business ...’

Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 14 December 2008 12:34:22 PM’

Sounds remarkably like

'... thinking people set out to deliberately upset you and then find yourself throwing up your arms and abandoning projects where you need other peoples assistance?'

Seems your memory really is defective Yab.

Yeh dagget, if that journalist had done that to saddam, who was personally responsible for genocide and the deaths of almost 2 million iraqis and iranians, he would have been tortured, killed and thrown in a mass grave!
But the left wing media would STILL focus on the taliban member Muhammed Dawood, or should I say David Hicks.
Bush is only responsible for overthrowing two of the most barbaric regimes in the world. one guilty of hiding Osama who WAS responsible for 9/11 whatever you troofers may think and the other the arch nemesis of america in the middle east and the biggest threat to america and australia in the post 9/11 world.

*thinking people set out to deliberately upset you and then find yourself throwing up your arms and abandoning projects where you need other peoples assistance?'*

ROFL Keith :) You must be at the point of desperation here, to
go trawling through threads, to come up with something, given the
overwhelming evidence that GeorgenDick are dummies!

So we'll try an ad hominem hey..

So you take two snippets of some of my postings, which are totally
out of context, for they refer to different groups of people
and try to draw some kind of conclusion, which of course is flawed.

I have never thought that any of those people deliberately set out
to upset me, what I will admit to is sometimes having a low
threshold of tolerance for stupidity. Nearly perfect is good
enough :)

I have never sought Govt assistance for any venture that I have
undertaken. I paddle my own canoe. What I do expect is that
if Govt wants to enforce compliance, then those bureaucrats be
halfway intelligent and do it in an efficient manner.

Why should I abandon a project? Selling it profitably makes
far more sense. I don't need to create exports for Australia.
I do it if its fun and I enjoy it. If I stop enjoying it, I do
something else.

But this is all way beyond you, perhaps you should stick to the
topic rather then divert from it.

Did you read the link I provided? Did you read how you were wrong
about your claims, when it came to George and Africans crossing
their legs? Will you admit that you were wrong?

yeah, i'm kinda curious to see keith's reply to the abstinence thing as well. but i won't hold my breath.

Liberal,

I am sure that Muntadar al-Zaidi would have been perfectly well aware that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator when he threw his shoes at President Bush. However, the figure of almost 2 million Iraqis and Iranians dead as a result of Hussein personally is massive and crude exaggeration, the purpose of which appears to be to completely pre-empt any criticism of the huge death toll and the abuses of human rights and impoverishment of Iraqis, which resulted from the invasion.

As I wrote above, if Hussein was personally responsible for umpteen squillion deaths, then why was he charged only with "the murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Trial)?

I would suggest that the prosecutors understood that charges for the genocide of millions would not have stuck and, furthermore, to the extent that they did stick, would have implicated US government figures, particularly Donald Rumsfeld, who is seen in these broadcasts shaking hands and meeting with the dictator in 1983:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPb-3zkh0c
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iw38Yf2HE-s. (longer version)

If well over 100,000 or over 1 million Iraqis have died, according to other credible estimates, as a result of the invasion, 5 million Iraqis have become internally displaced, the state owned enterprises and services (except, so far, for oil) have all been sold at bargain basement prices to Bush crony capitalists in the wave of privatisations that followed the invasion, most public servants sacked, local Iraqis sidelined as reconstruction contracts were awarded to US contractors with imported workers and most Iraqis needlessly impoverished, then many Iraqis should be entitled to conclude that the price of the formal democratic rights they enjoy was far too high.

Indeed, it is in spite of, rather than because of the administration of George Bush that the Iraqis enjoy any meaningful democratic freedoms today.

As I wrote in another forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974#108120
"(Naomi) Klein (in "The Shock Doctrine" (2007)) disputes the prevailing view that the 'fiasco' of Iraq was the result of incompetence, ...

(continuedfromabove)

"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.'

The civil war and sectarian violence, to the extent that they were not 'false flag' terrorist acts carried out by the occupation forces ("British SAS Terror Operation in Basra: Photographic Evidence" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050923&articleId=989 "Iraq probe into soldier incident" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm "Basra Bizarre: SAS Commandos Arrested and Sprung" at http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3331&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) or sponsored by them would have been the result of the suppression of democracy by Bremer and the needless economic ruin brought about for the benefit of the likes of Bechtell, Halliburton and Blackwater.

---

Liberal, if you are so sure that Osama bin Laden, and not figures within the US administration, was the principle perpetrator of the 9/11 terrorist attack, then why not explain why you think so on the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#53049 ?

Paul.L appears to be faltering in his marathon efforts to convince the rest of us that the Emperor is indeed wearing clothes, so I am sure that he would appreciate your help.

Yabby you made statements in relation to AIDS.
'Uganda was doing pretty well fighting aids with its ABC programme until George started trying to impose his belief on Africans.'

Firstly, the following letter shows Uganda wasn’t doing pretty well. It shows the Ugandan Government is deliberately undermining the actions successfully employed in prevention and treatment of AIDS in the past.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/10/28/letter-president-bush-human-rights-uganda

'However, the frank, open and honest dialogue about HIV/AIDS prevention—key to past success in Uganda—is increasingly being replaced by an environment in which those living with HIV, or perceived to be infected, are stigmatized, discriminated against, and blamed for their infections.

On September 24, 2007, President Museveni told representatives of 12 Ugandan universities that contracting HIV was akin to treason; such remarks invariably increase the stigma against those with HIV and harm public health efforts. In the past year, Ugandan lawmakers debated a bill that would penalize persons who knowingly transmit HIV. Laws criminalizing HIV transmission are inappropriate and ineffective, particularly in countries where those infected with HIV—especially women—are not always free to determine their own sexual behavior. UNAIDS and other public health agencies discourage such laws, but President Museveni has campaigned in favor of them, saying: “People who infect others [with HIV] deliberately are killers.”'

You said 'George started trying to impose his belief on Africans'

Not quite right. Again the above letter is quite clear.

'LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) individuals are excluded from HIV/AIDS initiatives, including programs sponsored by agencies underwritten by the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). In Uganda, the message of some of the abstinence-only programs supported by PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) promotes homophobia and suppresses potentially lifesaving information about HIV prevention.'

While the letter claims Bush's Plan does promote homophobia and suppresses information it doesn't support your assertion that Bush's abstinence programs are destroying Uganda’s ABC programmes. It also shows George's Abstinence only programs are only part of PEPFAR.

Try and couple the two ideas above and you would see how far wide of the mark was your original claim.

Cont ...

Oh dear oh dear, comprehension again Yabby has got you into another fix.

That ABC program you refer to as a successful Ugandan strategy actually is 'a popular acronym standing for “Abstinence, Be Faithful, use Condoms.”' and is the US or George's Strategy. Nothing to do with the Ugandans at all, Yabby.

Secondly , after reading the whole article it appears only that some Ugandan teachers are critical of the abstinence only program because references to 'condoms, safer sex and the risks of HIV in marriage' have been deleted in primary schools and there is are unsupported claims about misinformation in draft materials re condoms and pre-marital sex in secondary programs.

But even your reference clearly states that the impetus for the abstinence only program is coming from the Ugandan Government sources and George is merely providing cash in support of that move.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/03/29/uganda-abstinence-only-programs-hijack-aids-success-story

And that Yabby is a far cry from your claims.

Thanks for providing that reference. I think if you'd read more than the first part you'd have seen the following:

'The U.S. government has already budgeted approximately U.S. $8 million this year on abstinence-only programs in Uganda as part of President George W. Bush’s global AIDS plan. The National Youth Forum, headed by Ugandan First Lady Janet Museveni, a vocal proponent of abstinence-only, has received U.S. funding under the plan. The First Lady has lashed out against groups that teach young people about condoms and called for a national “virgin census” to support her abstinence agenda.'

Thirdly the total spending proposed for PERFAR during the period 2003-2008 ... US$39 Billion. Of which US$8mill is supporting abstinence programs in Uganda. Hardly a serious attempt at destruction.

Sigh! Why do I bother?

Ducking, weaving, twisting and turning suit you Yabby. Light comic relief indeed.

Hi Bushbred. Comprehensive enough? I really didn't have to try very hard.

keith, here is wikipedia on abstinence-only and pepfar:

"... the plan committed the U.S. to provide $15 billion over five years towards AIDS relief in 15 countries in Africa and the Caribbean, and in Vietnam. About 20 percent of the funding, or $3 billion over five years, was allocated for prevention. The program required that, starting in fiscal year 2006, one-third of prevention funding be earmarked specifically for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs."

are you really unaware of these earmarks?
do you really consider them insubstantial?
are you unaware of the wide and heavy criticism of these earmarks?
AND, do you really consider that such earmarks are consistent with your claim that "he as president has never tried to impose his personal belief on his fellows".

now, when you wish to address points (2)-(6) of my response to your ludicrous defense of bush's presidency, just let me know.

*But even your reference clearly states that the impetus for the abstinence only program is coming from the Ugandan Government sources and George is merely providing cash in support of that move.*

Keith, amazing that during the 90s, Uganda had great results reducing
hiv with its ABC programme.

It was only once all this money was offered for abstinence only
programmes, that condoms vanished or were made unaffordable in
Uganda and their Govt started singing from the George Bush songsheet.
Sounds familiar to you, when African Govts want money?

Not only that, George spent huge amounts on promoting abstinence only
in US schools too, rather then good sex education. That was another
dismal failure, when it was shown that those schools who followed
his dogma, also had some of the highest teen pregnancy rates.

Perhaps he could have learnt a bit from Holland, which has shown
that with good sex education and freely available contraception,
their teen pregnancy rate is something like 8 times lower.

Not only was his "abstinence only" programme a dismal failure,
under George, any family planning clinic which even discussed
abortion with clients, had their funding cut off. The net result
was that various clinics in Ethiopia and elsewhere had to close, a very sad
story indeed.

American women of course don't put up with that sort of rubbish,
but with his money, George could bully third world women with
his neanderthal beliefs and they had no recourse, unlike in America.

This is a man that you think is a fantastic prez. Think again Keith

dagget

the iraq body count, a left wing NGO, estimates 80 000 deaths as at 30th of September '08.nwhere near your 1 million figure (which u pulled out of nowhere).

saddam's victims (from killer file):
Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

if the war really was for oil, or was motivated by corporate interest, why not just lift the sanctions on iraq, or cut and run and set up a friendly dictator, and not leave US soldiers there to die? the only reason why US soldiers are there is to help rebuild iraq. there is no sane argument that the iraq war was for corporate interest.

Yabby,
There you go again.

Firstly didn’t you read all of my post?

You’ve made this silly statement ... again ...sigh.

‘Keith, amazing that during the 90s, Uganda had great results reducing
hiv with its ABC programme.’

Even though I’d pointed out

“That ABC program you refer to as a successful Ugandan strategy actually is 'a popular acronym standing for “Abstinence, Be Faithful, use Condoms.”' and is the US or George's Strategy. Nothing to do with the Ugandans at all, Yabby.”

Secondly, you’ve changed your story, instead of responding to my material, you’ve gone off on another tangent ... your usual tactic when you find your original claims indefensible, I’d add.

‘George spent huge amounts on promoting abstinence only
in US schools too, rather then good sex education. That was another
dismal failure, when it was shown that those schools who followed
his dogma, also had some of the highest teen pregnancy rates.’

This indicates you now seem to want to change the discussion to one of promotion of sexual promiscuity.

All I can say is where are the statistics that show schools that promote promiscuity, with all the biased information that promotes such, actually have lower AIDS/HIV rates?

I’d lay a wager that such stats probably exist, are more likely favourable to the abstinence school of thought and are well hidden from widespread publication.

What do you think Yabby?

I know, I know you’ll now try to move onto some other discussion totally irrelevant to the fact George Bush has been successful in promoting the fight against AIDS/HIV in Africa. (Which was my original point.)

Now Yabby I am not going to bother to do research just to show the stupidity of you position on third world abortions ... too.

It is a simple fact Bush’s policy was that US taxpayers would not fund abortions ... anywhere in the world. Obama has said he will spend Christians taxes to fund abortions in the third world

Cont
And not all US women agree with your position. While George opposes abortion and argues his case he hasn’t tried to change the US court created law on the issue. No woman in the US has her abortion funded by taxpayers. Given those facts your propositions verge on stupidity.

And yabby I’ve never said I thought George fantastic ... all I’ve ever opined is that history will show George as one of the most successful presidents and I stated why.

You’ve reduced yourself to a position of saying he isn’t terrific because if teenage girls have sex without condoms they’ll be more likely to get pregnant.

Light comic relief indeed ... eh?

Bushbasher,

I am familiar with wikipedia however I took my figures from Congressional reports. I may have misinterpreted the figures ... a genuine mistake. I was also aware of the $15 billion first proposed in 2002 or 03.

I agree money is earmarked for abstinence programs and fairly so. It is only part of an overall strategy, and complements other strategies. Now that is not promoting one view ahead of another. Logistics of funding in Africa also suggests the views of recipient organisations may be an influence.

In relation to this if one asks ‘Does abstinence prevent the spread of Aids?’ Well there really is only one answer. But if one asks ‘Does funding Abstinence programs ahead of or alongside of other programs prove effective?’ Well the answer is ...who knows? I wouldn’t be prepared to expend the energy to discover the truth or otherwise of such a proposition. It would be too time-consuming and totally irrelevant to disproving my original claim ... which was...

George Bush was successful in implementing a strategy to fight AIDS in Africa.

Regardless of whether his strategy was a success or otherwise or indeed is claimed to be undermined in some way by any controversy, that one fact is irrefutable.

And that’s my final word on what has been a totally irrelevant discussion, in context of my assertion that George will been seen by history as a very successful president.

keith:

a) also supplying drugs and condoms does not preclude that bush is pushing his morally inspired nonsense. it's not either-or as you wish to pretend. the fact of the matter is that your claim that "he as president has never tried to impose his personal belief on his fellows" was simply wrong.

b) i, at least, never disagreed with your claim that bush should (nonetheless) be praised for his support of aids prevention in africa.

c) your broader claim, that bush will be seen as a "very successful president", is simply laughable. you're clearly not dumb, and it is such a monumentally dumb claim. this leads me to believe that even you don't believe it. i suspect you're merely supporting your team.

*and is the US or George's Strategy. Nothing to do with the Ugandans at all, Yabby.” *

Keith, the first of many of your mistakes. Perhaps you should do
some research after all. The ABC programme in Uganda was going
a long time before Bush came to office. It showed a decline in
hiv rates, until George changed the programme to A only, which then
saw rising HIV rates in Uganda.

But perhaps he forgot to look in his own backyard, which shows that
abstinence only programmes are a waste of time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6554743.stm

*This indicates you now seem to want to change the discussion to one of promotion of sexual promiscuity.*

No, I want to show you want a dummie your hero really is. This is
just one of many many issues, where he has shown appalling judgement.
Seeing that he claims to ask his God for advice, perhaps he was
just given bad advice by those voices.

Yes, George gave some money to fight HIV in Africa, as he should have. We know from the stats that the US has always been lagging
in terms of $% of GDP given for development aid. The point is,
it sounds like a third of it was wasted and actually caused an
increase in the HIV rate in Uganda.

George did far more then stop money being spent on the abortions
in the third world. He applied the gag rule, result being
no family planning for many Africans. Abortions are one thing,
not even being allowed to mention them, is another. FYI here
are some of the results :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3028820.stm

But I think that bushbasher is correct on this one. Even you
don't believe what a great prez that George has been, you
just enjoy an argument for the sake of it, as we have seen
before.

Just mindgames really.

Bushbasher-Yabby

You have put in much astute effort in trying to persuade Keith, maybe Keith is a quantum leap from our own universe in one of his own where Bush Jnr is wise and just ... well it is one explanation as his blind support for Bush defies reason in this universe.

Yabby, Bush has also tried to enforce his ideology on American women as well, not just Third World. I guess he likes to be consistent.

>>> But now women's choices are severely under threat. While women soldiers are paraded on Iraqi television, captured while serving their countries, their rights back home are in danger of being stripped away.
The irony is not lost on pro-choice advocates. Says Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America: 'The women who have been deployed to Iraq to fight our war for us are not trusted by our government to make their own childbearing choices. Specifically, they are not allowed to obtain abortions in military hospitals while overseas.'

That choice could soon be taken away back home as well. Kate Michelman, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, one of the leading advocacy organ-isations for abortion choice, sees what is happening as a full-scale assault, legally and legislatively' to reduce access to abortion. NARAL has identified 34 pieces of legislation introduced across America in 2002 which restrict women's right to abortion. Michelman says that if Bush stays in office, and the Republicans keep control of Congress, 'American women will lose the right to choose by 2008.'>>>

http://www.womens-health.org.nz/index.php?page=bush-s-war-on-women

OR Bush's ideology:

Bush: "I came to Washington with a set of values, and I'm leaving with the same set of values. And I darn sure wasn't going to sacrifice those values; that I was a president that had to make tough choices and was willing to make them,"

No, it wasn't a tough choice to invade Iraq or ignore Katrina or allow the financial system to run completely amuck.

It was a unique combination of stupidity and malevolence...

Cont'd

Cont'd

....which will be studied for centuries by historians struggling to imagine how such a person was ever given such power by a supposedly democratic people.

[Bush] did go to Washington with a certain set of values -- after all he'd signed over 150 death warrants without even reading the paperwork. That's exactly the kind of person who would legalize torture and suspend the constitution. And naturally a man who would steal an election and then govern like he'd won in a partisan landslide would politicize the Justice Department.... anyone who would hire a thug like Karl Rove could be expected to spy on Americans and use the presidency for political purposes.

Yes, his values are intact, no doubt about it, and his legacy is intact<<<

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109187/bush%27s_delusional_take_on_his_legacy/

On redefining reality:

>>> Words in a Time of War: Taking on the President's Rhetoric

By Mark Danner

Never has an administration reached for its dictionaries more regularly to redefine reality to its own benefit.......

I give you my favorite-quotation from the Bush-administration, put forward by the proverbial "unnamed-Administratio-official" and published in the NewYork-Times Magazine by the fine journalist Ron Suskind in October 2004. Here, in Suskind's recounting, is what that "unnamed Administration official" told him:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors.... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'" <<<

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/52794/words_in_a_time_of_war%3A_taking_on_the_president%27s_rhetoric/?page=entire

Liberal, my figures were not plucked out of the air.

The estimate over 1 million Iraqi deaths (1,297,997 now) as a result of the invasion comes from the page http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/counterexplanation.html which in turn cites a study in the medical journal the Lancet (pdf not available freely any more as far as I can tell but can be obtained through http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673604174412) which put the toll as of July 2006 at 650,000

To quote from the above page: "Due to an escalating mortality rate, the researchers estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis had died who would not have died had the death rate remained at pre-invasion levels. Roughly 601,000 of those excess deaths were due to violence."

Other studies cited by "Just Foreign Policy" put the toll even higher:

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
"Opinion Research Business (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78) estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US-led invasion."

---

As for the figures of deaths under Saddam Hussein's rule:

Firstly, you haven't provided the source (which is exaclty what you have accused me of doing) and secondly you have failed to note that the figures confirm my point that Saddam Hussein cannot be personally held responsible for all the deaths.

Clearly he started the war of aggression against Iran (but the US were quite happy that he did at the time), but after the tide turned against Iraq, the Iranian mullahs, probably for cynical domestic reasons, needlessly prolonged the conflict and ignored Hussein's overtures for peace, thereby needlessly adding hundreds of thousands to the death toll.

And why should Hussein himself, and not the UN be personally held responsible for the approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War?

Also, it is questionable that Hussein should be personally held responsible for the deaths that resulted form his occupation of Kuwait as it appears that he may have been set up in 1990 by Kuwait's slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields and deliberately tricked into believing that the US would not intervene if Iraq invaded Kuwait by US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie#Meetings_with_Saddam_Hussein)

(tobcontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Also, given that the US led the Iraqis and Shiites believe that they would aid any uprising against Hussein in 1991 after the defeat of his armies in Kuwait, but did not, why should the US not also be held culpable for the resultant bloodshed?

---

What was needed in 2003 is a calm discussion about the human rights situation in Iraq and acknowledgement that the deaths attributed to Hussein in the past were in the context of conflicts which other parties had also helped to inflame.

At the time, there seemed to be no human rights emergency of which I am aware, which could only have been remedied with an invasion.

Given the ensuing death toll and human misery, the invasion and the overall meddling by the US in the Gulf over the last 20 odd years has clearly made the situation almost immeasurably worse.

To Paul’l
Paul’l I thought you might have given up, not that you don’t put up a good argument at times.
Yet the one about the Surge, as I’ve mentioned more than once before, when I also told you to get onto the Washington Post and learn the real truth about the Surge.
Like every good picture tells the story, could reckon a journalistic camera cameo tells the truth much better.
No need to prolong the later hidden news story about a group of Iraqi government Shias about to arrest a group of Sunnis outside Baghdad who appeared to be acting suspiciously –
when lo and behold in swoops a US gunship and rather than arresting the Sunnis, the marines poked their guns at the Shias.
Of course this startling piece of news was soon successfully blackened out by the Murdoch Media et al, similar to foot and mouth infected Brazilian beef being landed in New South Wales a year before, the Murdoch Media soon able to force George Negus to shut up about it, as such cancerous spin is the way of our Western official mouthpiece today.
Certainly it is no surprise about Saddam’s Sunni Shaiks hobnobbing with the US top brass, very likely also including Georgie Dubya.
Makes one wonder why America ever moved into attack Iraq in the first place, when a takeover could have even been arranged with the Saudi Sunni top brass, with Saddam simply very wealthily paid off.

Missed reading your note, Fractelle, too much after my old adversary, Paul'L - come back to worry us.

Yep, got Ron Suskind's book, Way of the World, in fact.

Also as you'll see in my thread to Paul'L, I've had a fair bit to do with the Washington Post which was recommended years ago by our Murdoch School of Humanities, which Paul'L reckon's is run by the Loonie Left.

Going by many of our OLO's, it seems our major study areas contain mostly spin merchants.

Well now, as we might ask, where is truth most likely to come from.

That is why I am sticking to the Washington Post, in fact.

As I said, recommended by our Murdoch School of Humanities.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

'You have put in much astute effort in trying to persuade Keith, maybe Keith is a quantum leap from our own universe in one of his own where Bush Jnr is wise and just ... well it is one explanation as his blind support for Bush defies reason in this universe.'

Well if you'd read what I'd originally asserted, and it certainly wasn't that George was wise and just, you'd understand neither Yabby nor Bushbasher have actually challenged my original asertion. Which if one applies logic may mean they cannot debunk the points I raised in support my assertion.

The have cherry picked a few minor related issues and tried to debunk the overall assertion by attempting amateurishly to debunk those. They have failed miserably and Yabby is reduced to now saying, 'I think that bushbasher is correct on this one' or in other words: what bushbred said ... He's gone from light comic relief to a laughing stock.

If you think that astute ... well what can I say.

Your simple unsupported assertion is that George wasn't wise nor just and is something neither I nor history is likely to bother judging... it's way to subjective when such generalisations are made. But show me how he is unlikely to be viewed as successful and I might spend some time in responding to you.

"Well if you'd read what I'd originally asserted, and it certainly wasn't that George was wise and just, you'd understand neither Yabby nor Bushbasher have actually challenged my original asertion."

say what? i responded to your nonsense point by point. have i "cherry picked a few minor related issues"? yes, i guess, if fibbing us into a needless war resulting in more or less a million iraqis dead can be considered "minor". of, if you consider making the u.s. a full-blown torture nation is "minor". or ... oh what's the point?

enough. you're not arguing, you're simply playing rhetorical games. others can continue, but i think life's too short to respond to content-free crap.

fractelle, excellent quotes: it perfectly summarises the surreal, psychopathic nature of bush and his fellow criminals.

*The have cherry picked a few minor related issues and tried to debunk the overall assertion by attempting amateurishly to debunk those. *

Ah of course Keith. Why should a minor issue like a few hundred
thousand women dying in the third world, be a major issue to you
or to George?

They are not Americans after all. Much more serious is 3000
people dying in 911, because of course American prestige was
at stake here. Never mind that about 20'000 Americans die from slack
guns laws. They kill each other, so its not the Arabs.

8 years ago, Clinton left America in pretty good condition. The
budget was in surplus, the economy was doing well, relations
with the rest of the world were improving. His major blunder was
enjoying a bit of nookie on the side, a major crisis it seems,
for the Republicans.

8 Years of GeorgenDick and what do we have? A 1 trillion $ deficit,
the economy on the ropes, a non functioning banking system, the
Fed printing money as fast as they can to keep America's head
above water.

America is hated around the globe, as GeorgenDick have the people
skills of a couple of pitbulls. The only ones sad to see them finally
go are the comedians, as few presidents will provide them with
as much material as those two clowns.

Around the globe, journalists mostly agree that the Bush regime
has been a disaster. The American people have learned the hard
way and they too see the disaster.

But Keith tells us that history will see it all differently and that
George will be seen as a hugely successfull prez. Keith, you are a troll.

Just come clean, the game is over.

dagget

firstly, i did cite my source, saddam's KILLER FILE. most murderers in history have a profile at KILLER FILE. anyone who is interested in the subject and who knows anything about it would have gone to KILLER FILE.

secondly, your source justforeignpolicy.org obviously inflates its figures. i'd trust the UN even over that site, which puts the figure much lower. if 600000 iraqis have died VIOENTLY, then that leaves about 300 a day dead. also, it is illogical to count deaths that would not have been caused if the war didn't happen. for god's sake, a woman could have tripped over some rubble and hit her head!

you have to realise that freedom isn't free.

now dont the 500000 dead children show that sanctions DON'T work? how else do you expect to deal with a power-obsessed dictator? unless your morals are flexible enough to negotiate with such murderers.

what was this uprising? i've never heard of it but if it is true, then planning the overthrow of a dictator who has the power of life and death over every one of his citizens isn't easy and can be thrown off track. the repression of the rebellion is not the fault of the US because that type of thing is what the US tried to stop.

the reason for the war was simple - saddam was a threat in a post 9/11 world. he was a threat to our victory in the war on terror. in fact, the day after 9/11, there was talk of overthrowing saddam

but this link can answer your theory on the million dead iraqi children from sanctions - http://pages.prodigy.net/thomasn528/blog/2001_10_07_newsarcv.html#6228606

and this one can answer your doubts over saddams terror - http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001629

you have to realise that freedom isn't

Bushbasher,
I indicated six facts supporting my assertion.

You agree the fact he introduced a war on AIDS in Africa but try dismissing it by attacking part of his stratagy.

Creating the conditions for creating most wealth and it's distribution occured during his administration, a fact, you say he shouldn't be given the credit. Who do you credit and why?

You agree the fact he appointed more Afro-Americans and Hispanics but try dismissing this by calling them flunkies and disasters.

You think the war in Iraq isn't on a winning footing but you don't show us why the US isn't winning.

You agree the fact he's kept the US safe and secure from terrorist attack but try dismissing it by attacking what you alledge are debatable methods.

You didn't address the fact of the exit from poverty.

You haven't debunked the facts. You agree most occurred. You've only addressed political related issues in an attempt to discredit Bush.

If you could show Bush wasn't responsible for all or most of my six facts then maybe I'll be presuaded my assertion isn't likely.

I'd say you probably claim Kennedy as a successful President and you'd claim he was successful because he defended the US from the threat of attack by missiles launched from Cuba.

But history shows if he had earlier stared down the Russians over the physical division of Berlin 'the building of the wall', they would not have thought he wouldn't have objected to them placing missles in Cuba. ie That he caused the Cuban missile crisis through his earlier appeasment and perceived weakness.
There is another view also that he failled miserably because while the missile sites were demolished the missiles stayed in Cuba and the threat remained. Those missiles are still there.

Forty years later history is still debating Kennedy's successfulness. It isn't debating the politics of the time nor his very very narrow electrol wins.
History will record he enunciated the US quest to put a man on the moon.
History will record the fact he was the first Catholic President of the US.

keep digging, keith: there's gotta be a pony in there somewhere.

So we find another chapter in Daggest latest attempts to recast villains as misunderstood/misrepresented and the allied gov’ts of the democratic west, as evil conspirators in wanton death and destruction.

Dagget says >> “ if Hussein was personally responsible for umpteen squillion deaths, then why was he charged only with "the murder of 148 people…"

I see. He was responsible for only those deaths he was charged with, is that your contention? He must be one of the most restrained dictators ever in the Middle East. Buffoon.

To have Saddam convicted and executed they only needed to show a pattern of murder, torture and depravity in general. Why would they charge him with everything, thus ending up with a trial which might last 20 years.

Dagget says >> “If well over 100,000 or over 1 million Iraqis have died … “

I see you don’t have a problem with being wrong by a factor of 10.

Dagget says >> “Also, it is questionable that Hussein should be personally held responsible for ... the occupation of Kuwait ”

This is typical Dagget, You can’t blame Saddam for the deaths of 1000’s of Kuwaitis, merely because he ordered his forces to invade. That’s not HIS fault.

This is the typical blame shifting by Dagget. He quotes 100,000 or 1 million dead and blames the Allies for it. He then acknowledges that the VAST majority of these deaths have been caused by the warring Sunni-Shia-Kurds but blames undercover SAS soldiers for all this death and destruction.

It’s clear in Daggets world, taking responsibility for your own actions in an anaethema. A mantle to be avoided at all costs and preferably, to be passed on to some great conspiratorial power that is always behind it all anyway.

I see you have not dropped your slavish devotion to the Conspiracy Queen Klein, nor have you managed to generate any interest for your 9/11 conspiracy theories, although you continue spruiking for them.

Keith,

Someone said to me on another site, arguing with people with strong opinions but limited understanding is like sword fighting an amoeba.

Bushbred,

You say >> “Yet the one about the Surge, as I’ve mentioned more than once before, when I also told you to get onto the Washington Post and learn the real truth about the Surge”

So what is the real “truth” about the surge?

You say >> “when lo and behold in swoops a US gunship and rather than arresting the Sunnis, the marines poked their guns at the Shias.”

You still seem to be under the misapprehension that the allies went to Iraq to fight the Sunnis. That is NOT the case.

The rapprochement with Sunni Tribal leaders led to the decapitation of AlQaeda in Iraq and forced those remaining to flee to Afghanistan. Iraq has become a country which is governable because of the combined efforts of negotiation and force of arms.

It may not be the result the Americans were hoping for, but it is one which is far more likely to stand the test of time. It is no longer a country in which people fear to speak out on pain of death. Under Saddams police state no-one knew who was an informer and arbitrary arrest, torture and murder were every day occurrences.

Paying homage to a statue or painting of the leader is a thing of the past, people are free to criticise their rulers and do so. Freedom, albeit with a middle eastern flavour, has broken out in Iraq. Hopefully they will be able to hold onto it when the Americans leave.

Paul has dishonestly implied that because I question the number of deaths that have been blamed on Saddam Hussein that, therefore I am excusing those crimes.

To restate my original point:

"Paul has done a masterful job of excusing the bloody and destructive Iraq war, costing at least 100,000 Iraqi lives, and, by some credible estimates over 1 million and which may eventually cost US$3 trillion (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2199248.htm).

"Of course part of the trick is to massively inflate the scale of the abuses of human rights under Hussein (how come he was sentenced to death for the deaths of at most several hundred, when he is supposed to have murdered umpteen squillion?), ignore the deaths caused by the sanctions prior to the 2003 invasion or the war against Iran and understate the harm caused by the invasion and occupation."

Paul and others apologists for the invasion want us to forget the culpability of other countries for many of the deaths that occurred under Hussein's rule in order to be able to attribute all deaths in the region which occurred during that time to Hussein personally.

They do this in order to be able to morally bludgeon opponents of the invasion into silence over the crimes committed by the occupying forces.

Crimes committed by Hussein, whatever the actual numbers for which he is personally responsible turn out to be, which mostly occurred many years prior to 2003, should not have been turned into a blank cheque to launch the invasion, wreck the country, ransack its wealth, kill many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, arrest and torture opponents of the invasion, and displace and impoverish millions more.

Paul'l, per usual you don't answer the question clearly, only call myself and others against you, left-wingers.

Therefore I must ask you again, where would the most spin come from?

From right-wingers like yourself and Bush et al, or from the Murdoch School of Humanities which supports the Washington Post and any other portion of the media with a truthful record?

Finally, just be careful about your evasiveness and abusiveness, Paul', because surely you must know by now, that the global leaders you back have pretty well had their day.

Have Fun, BB, WA

Hey Paul,

it is much much easier than that. Watch.

Yabby,

'Ah of course Keith. Why should a minor issue like a few hundred
thousand women dying in the third world, be a major issue to you
or to George?'

Because Yabby I wouldn't be seen refering to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of souls as minor and I certainly wouldn't debase myself by using such horrific saddness, in such an insensitive manner, as casting aspersions merely to win points in an obscure internet debate.

The normal action here, of a man, would be to retract and offer an apology to those known to the poor souls... and to those you've attemped to slur.

Bushbasher,

off topic already and into personal abuse. How long will it take before you sink to Yabby's disgraceful behaviour.

Ah Paul, if you had read the links that I posted and had done a bit
of homework, you would start to realise that family planning in the
third world is a major issue, not a minor issue.

Yup, hundreds of thousands of women die in the third world, as they
don't have the facilities that Western women do, and crossing their
legs for Jesus, as George suggests, does not even work for priests,
as we all well know.

Did you read about the women in Ethiopia, sick of popping out kids,
who were denied family planning due to George and Co?

Its a scandal, but you write it off as a "minor issue".

You and George should be ashamed of yourselves.

'Did you read about the women in Ethiopia, sick of popping out kids,
who were denied family planning due to George and Co?'

No. Care to supply a reference?

"personal abuse"? there's something very odd about your posts, keith. you string words together well, and the words superficially have the form of an argument. but often what you say actually has very little to do with the actual stage of the argument.

there's clearly no value in going through the 6 points. you've strategically left important bits out, presumed much about my opinions and misrepresented the extent to which i disagree with you (except for the aids thingo, where you misrepresent the extent to which i agree with you!). my overall point was basically that *even* if i were to agree with you on each point, it wouldn't in any rational manner save bush's presidency from being judged a disaster. even the individual points (except i would argue (1)) were swamped by associated instances of bush's ineptitude.

the pony was a reference to reagan's beloved joke, and i think it captures well your hunt for something salvageable amidst the mountains of bush poo. you point at the thinnest of silver linings in an attempt to ignore the darkest of clouds, blowing it away with a truly bizarre characterisation of my claims as "political".

the fact is, bush will be judged by his work on a) the economy; b) global warming; c) 9/11. on all three he has been spectacularly awful.

finally, you refer to kennedy and the cuban missile crisis. it's a telling example. because there, a single wrong step could have immediately resulted in the deaths of millions, and possibly the end of life on earth. whatever you think of kennedy's response (and prior politics), it was a genuine crisis. by comparison, 9/11 is a fleabite.

now picture october 1962 in your mind, with no shortage of american military "experts" advising the launching of missiles against the ussr. picture that it is not kennedy but georgey boy who has to decide upon the american response. you picturing that keith? you're comfortable with that picture? truly ruly?

*George did far more then stop money being spent on the abortions
in the third world. He applied the gag rule, result being
no family planning for many Africans. Abortions are one thing,
not even being allowed to mention them, is another. FYI here
are some of the results :*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3028820.stm

I posted that reference on the 21st. You clearly did not
bother to read about the consequences of George's actions
in Africa. That is just one example of many.

Fact is, American policy is killing women in the third
world.

*The have cherry picked a few minor related issues and tried to debunk the overall assertion by attempting amateurishly to debunk those.*

That was your follow up to Paul. Clearly in that case, you think
its a "minor related issue".

Dagget say >> Paul has dishonestly implied that because I question the number of deaths that have been blamed on Saddam Hussein that, therefore I am excusing those crimes.”

You really are not very bright are you. I implied no such thing. I would like you to AGAIN withdraw an unfoundless accusation. For the dozenth time.

Dagget says >> “"Of course part of the trick is to massively inflate the scale of the abuses of human rights under Hussein ... Yada Yada "

I see you are now resorting to repeat yourself, as if that somehow negates anything I said. I’m not an apologist for the invasion. It was poorly thought out, poorly executed and based upon flawed intelligence. Nevertheless, the VAST majority of suffering which has afflicted the Iraqi people has been caused by Iraqis. To deny and attempt to lay blame on the Allies, for the acts of Iraqis, is dogmatic in the extreme, and only the loony left insist on doing so.

For example, take Dagget's loony attempts to blame the US for the behaviour of Iraqi looters in the National Museum. Another case of blame anybody but the person responsible.

Bush will be commended for having the fortitude to stick out the war, when everyone was squealing for the US to cut and run. The decision to stay, and indeed provide a troop surge, along with the rapprochement with Sunni leaders has allowed Iraq and its people some light at the end of the tunnel.

Frankly, it is undeniable, and only a hopelessly partisan leftist would try to argue otherwise, that the decision to stay instead of leave at the height of the bloodshed in 2006, has been a positive one for Iraqis. They may still hate the US and its allies, but they now have the chance to do so democratically in a reasonably functional society. The alternative was a Somali-like wasteland in which tribal sheiks were the new warlords and death and destruction on a Rwandan scale was inevitable.

TBC

CONT,

Dagget says >> “Paul and others apologists for the invasion want us to forget the culpability of other ... "

Dagget wants to believe on the strength of a handshake at some time in far past, that the US is responsible for all of Saddam’s actions. I wonder do you indite Chirac for his responsibility for Saddams actions? Putting aside the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam’s reign of terror over the Iraqi people WAS entirely Saddams responsibility. And he would have passed on this dynasty do his murderous sons, Uday and Qusay. Their behaviour truly makes Abu Ghraib’s unpleasantness look like childish horseplay.

Some facts

>> “1978, he had his government issue a memorandum decreeing that anyone whose ideas came into conflict with those of the Baath Party leadership would be subject to summary execution.” http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

>> Saddams torture techniques. Eye Gouging ( as in complete removal ), Drilling through the hands with power drills, rape including the use of broken bottles, acid baths etc. http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf1/fco_hrdossieriraq

>> Saddams war crimes, include the attempt to wipe out the Kurds (as in ethnically cleansing), attempt to wipe out the Shia (again by ethnic cleansing), wiping out the marsh arabs, the poison gas attacks etc http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

Dagget says >> “ if Hussein was personally responsible ... why was he charged only with "the murder of 148 people…"

Are you, by chance, suggesting he is NOT personally responsible for a large number of deaths because he was not charged with them? Because that would be really STUPID.

Yabby,

You say >> “if you had read the links that I posted and had done a bit of homework, you would start to realise that family planning ... ”

Mate reading the green left weekly and the Alternet on a regular basis doesn’t constitute homework. And I never MENTIONED family planning.

So how could I have written it off as a minor issue?

Keith,

The problem is, they don’t know when they’ve lost. It’s like that scene from Monty Python where the knight without arms and legs calls the hero a coward for leaving the fight.

*And I never MENTIONED family planning.*

Paul, quite correct, my mistake, for I typed Paul instead of
Keith and only noticed it, after I read the post. I was not going
to waste another post to rectify it. I thought that the mistake
would be obvious to other, I have yet to see a flaw free poster.

None of this of course changes the fact that George is a dummy
and that his policies are responsible for killing many women in
the third world. All very sad really.

As to Iraq, the problem is not that George killed Saddam but
how he killed Saddam and his two boys. Do you really need to
flatten a country, kill 100'000+ of its people, 4000 of your
own, plus another 20'000 war wounded, to kill 3 people?

Only an idiot would agree, IMHO. A single laser bomb, with
some good inteligence, which the US claims to have, could have
achieved the same thing. Instead, the Iraq war has nearly
bankrupted America and proven Osama bin Laden correct all along.

He did say that America could be beaten by bankrupting its
economy. They are not far off it these days, as the American
$ turns into the American peso, as they print more money to
keep their heads above water.

Paul wrote, "I’m not an apologist for the invasion. It was poorly thought out, poorly executed and based upon flawed intelligence."

The incompetence theory again.

The U.S. Government or April Glaspie (take you pick where the buck ends) were 'incompetent' to have told Hussein that the US would remain neutral in any 'border dispute' between Iraq and Kuwait in 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie#Meetings_with_Saddam_Hussein)thereby losing an opportunity to nip the first Gulf War in the bud and avoid hundreds of thousands of deaths over the following 13 years.

The US Government was 'incompetent' when it led Shiites and Kurds in 1991 to believe that they would support uprisings against Saddam Hussein when they had no intention of doing so. NORAD was 'incompetent' when it failed to launch a single fighter in time to shoot down the hijacked aircraft before they were able to reach the twin towers and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 (but managed to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 after the passengers had overpowered the hijackers (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0)). Bush was 'incompetent' when he impersonated an intellectually retarded child whilst knowing his country was under attack on the same day (http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI).

And they were supposedly 'incompetent' in their invasion of Iraq.

I don't buy that argument and I don't believe Paul does either.

They knew exactly what they were doing on each occasion.

The invasion was a massive scam to allow Bush's crony capitalists to ransack both Iraq and the US treasury.

If the US really cared about human rights they would have invaded Iraq at the end of the Gulf War or in the 1980's.

If they wanted democracy, Paul Bremer would not have cancelled the elections that were spontaneously held shortly after Hussein's regime was overthrown in 2003. That would have pre-empted years of bloodshed, but it would have also got in the way of the crony capitalists plans to loot Iraq's economy, sack hundreds of thousands employed in the public service and formerly state-owned enterprises and receive hundreds of millions from US tax-payers in no-bid contracts for shoddy 'reconstruction' work. (See "The Shock Doctrine" (2007) Klein pp309-359)

I note that Paul has included in his last post gruesome details of humans human rights abuses that were alleged to have happened under Hussein in order, as I wrote before, to "morally bludgeon opponents of the invasion into silence."

Two facts need to be noted:

1. The first document coming from the British Government (http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf1/fco_hrdossieriraq) which had secretly and illegally conspired with Bush to invade Iraq regardless of the outcome of the UN weapons inspections should be considered propaganda and just as suspect as claims made in 1990 of babies in Kuwait having been thrown out of incubators by Iraqi occupiers.

2. The gruesome crimes described in that document, if they occurred, seem no more gruesome than those committed by other US-sponsored regimes around the world in the 1980's, particularly by the genocidal death squad regimes of El Salvador and Guatemala.

---

As far as I am concerned, if Hussein murdered even one opponent during his reign that is one to many and he should have been tried and jailed for such a crime.

The fact that Hussein was tried for the murder of 148 people and not for thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions that the British and Americans claim he is responsible for remains suspicious.

Paul explains that away saying that it would have taken far too long for the trial to be held.

In fact the impression that many have gained was the Hussein's trial was rushed and made so limited in scope precisely to prevent embarassment to the US (and. perhaps other foreign powers) who would have been implicated in the crimes.

And as I wrote earlier, I suspect it would have been difficult given the overall levels of conflict and strife in the region throughout those years to have found Hussein personally responsible for anywhere near the number of deaths that the US and British would have blamed him for.

The human rights abuses of Hussein, mostly committed years before 2003 were nothing more than a (retrospective) excuse, but not the real reasons for the invasion.

Dagget

Says >> “ The incompetence theory again.”

Yes we all know you have major problems with ANY event which isn’t a conspiracy. Would you like to explain how the ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING US Gov’t couldn’t find weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ? After all, you clearly believe that the US gov’t can do ANYTHING, including murdering 3000 of its own people. Please tell me why they couldn’t organise a few stray WMD’s to completely legitimize their actions?

I notice you were unable to answer most of my questions from my previous post. This is typical Dagget evasion when things get difficult to explain. So no retraction for your false accusation? Not even a defence.

You couldn’t answer my point regarding the level of responsibility of Iraqis for their own suffering. Nor my point about the wisdom of leaving Iraq in 2006, when calls to do so were at their strongest, vs. the surge and staying on.

Dagget says >> “facts need to be noted: 1. The first document coming from the British Government”

>NO Dagget, the first document is an "about.com.civil-liberties" page. The second document is from the British gov’t. Actually all the torture claims come directly from complaints made to Amnesty International and Human Rights watch. Are you denying these things took place?

Dagget says >> “In fact the impression that many have gained was the Hussein's trial was rushed ... to prevent embarrassment to the US”

For starters, your impressions are irrelevant, coming from such a uniquely biased starting point. Secondly, the trial didn’t NEED to be any longer to convict Hussein. Thirdly, a shorter trial limited the scope for Saddam to use the witness stand, with all the world’s cameras watching, to rally Baathists and destabilise Iraq as much as he could.

Dagget says >> “And as I wrote earlier, I suspect it would have been difficult … to have found Hussein personally responsible”

You suspect? Again, it’s irrelevant. I notice you dodged this question from my last post as well. So, what crimes DO YOU hold Saddam responsible for?

Yabby

Your behaviour is that of a cowardly little grub.

You have completely quoted me out of context to support your disgraceful aspersion,

You said,

'Ah of course Keith. Why should a minor issue like a few hundred
thousand women dying in the third world, be a major issue to you
or to George?'

I said the following, in relation to the overall topic of whether Geroge Bush was a successful president:

'*The have cherry picked a few minor related issues and tried to debunk the overall assertion by attempting amateurishly to debunk those.*

But you claim that I said the above in relation to the 'few hundred thousand women dying in the third world'. "That was your follow up to Paul. Clearly in that case, you think its a "minor related issue"."

What a load of stupid deceiptfulness.

You drunken little mongrel.

I challenge you to show me where I have ever said

'... a few hundred thousand women dying in the third world, is a minor issue'

You know you shouldn't post when your lonely and pissed. With your behaviour you'll never have respect as a man.

Ah Keith, you clearly missed the question mark, for I posed it
as a question, so perhaps its you who should not drink :)

The consequences of George's anti family planning policy in the
third world, when on the first day of his presidency,he reintroduced
the "gag rule", was not a "minor related issue", but a major
one. Hundreds of thousands of women die in the third world,
due to lack of family planning services, botched illegal
abortions, etc. etc.

Had he actually had the intelligence to do something about it,
one might see him in a different light. But nope, his solution
was to preach abstinence. Never mind all the deaths, never mind
the misery, never mind the suffering, never mind the hunger.

Did you read the URL, about the effects in just Ethiopia?

Now either you are ignorant about all the problems in the
third world caused by this kind of policy, or you see it as
a "minor related issue", or you will concede that once again
George showed shocking judgement

Hey mongrel,

don't address me again until you've apologised for your blatant slur,

*Now either you are ignorant about all the problems in the
third world caused by this kind of policy, or you see it as
a "minor related issue", or you will concede that once again
George showed shocking judgement*

Ah Keith, I did not think that you could answer my question,
so easier to just try and shoot the messenger!

The Weekend Australian magazine of the 20th, carried an
interesting story about Melinda Gates and the Gates Foundation.

With the kind of innovative work they are doing, there is
some hope for third world women. They regularly took
a pop at Pepfar, George's fund, for putting Xtian Right
morality ahead of saving lives. That is exactly my point.

Interesting that the BBC are holding a debate, the question
being if George was the worst prez in the last 50 years.
I doubt if too many would disagree.

worst president in the last 50 years? why stop there? it's not a question of whether he's worse than eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon, ford, carter, reagan, bush1, clinton. that is blindingly obvious.

he may not be the worst president ever, but whether he is or not is definitely the appropriate question to ask. it's a question of whether he's worse than the truly awful: buchanan, harding, andrew johnson, fillmore.

Paul wrote, "Yes we all know you have major problems with ANY event which isn't a conspiracy."

In fact, Paul, I completely accepted the US Government explanation until about 18 months ago, when friend sent me a DVD about 9/11. As a result I committed myself to begin to seriously think about it. Only some time in September this year, not long after I started the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#53344was my mind firmly made up.

So, five and a half years of largely unquestioning acceptance of the Official Conspiracy Theory would hardly qualify me as someone who "(has) major problems with ANY event which isn't a conspiracy" I would have thought.

I am not actually proud of the fact that it took me so long to wake up to what had happened, but at least, if nothing else, it should demonstrate that your charge that I have a propensity to uncritically accept conspiracy theories is groundless.

---

Paul wrote, "I notice you were unable to answer most of my questions from my previous post."

I consider a lot of your questions quite stupid and not worth the time it would take me to respond, but if others disagree, then I will have to wear their judgements, won't I?

---

Paul wrote, "Would you like to explain how the ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING US Gov't couldn't find weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ? ..."

This nonsense non-argument has already been put in the "9/11 Truth Forum" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#46642 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#46642 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48438 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48471
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48488

... and has been dealt with at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48483
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48489
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48513
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48541

(if anyone wants to follow that argument backwards and forwards, use the search string 'WMD')

Paul wrote, "For example, take Dagget's loony attempts to blame the US for the behaviour of Iraqi looters in the National Museum. Another case of blame anybody but the person responsible."

The US was warned by scholars that the destruction of the Museum and archives was likely and urged that steps be taken to prevent that, but their warnings were ignored. Naomi Klein argues compellingly in "The Shock Doctrine" (pp336-337) that this was intentional.

Paul wrote, "... a shorter trial limited the scope for Saddam to use the witness stand, with all the world's cameras watching, to rally Baathists and destabilise Iraq as much as he could."

The point remains, if he was never tried for killing all those people the US claim that he did, then what firm evidence is there that he did?

Which of the 2 million said to have died during his reign, if that figure is to be believed, were personally caused by him and which were caused by others?

The point is not to deny that Hussein was a brutal dictator. The point is to get the issue into perspective and, also, get some idea of how many lives, if any, would have been lost if an invasion had not occurred.

As most of the worst human rights violations had occurred in the 1980's or in the immediate wake of the First Gulf war when the US deliberately declined to help the Shiites and Kurds, then it seems likely that the numbers that would have been saved by the 2003 invasion would have been very few indeed and far fewer than the million plus that have died as a result of the invasion according to some very credible sources (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/).

Paul expects us to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al cared at all human rights violations in Hussein's Iraq when US sponsored regimes in Central America to give just one example, were at least as brutal.

I think that that is drawing a very long bow.

Now where have we got to?

My opinion is that George will be seen by history as one of the most successful Presidents because:

He instigated a real war against AIDS in Africa ... Fact.
During his tenure we saw the largest number of people ever to exit poverty in the history of the world ... Fact.
During his tenure the world has become wealthier with the greatest distribution in the history of the world ... Fact.
He appointed the highest number of African Americans and Hispanics to the highest positions in US politics ... Fact.
He is the only President since Roosvelt/Truman to put the US in a position to win a hot war ... Fact.
Since he declared war on terrorists the US hasn't suffered a violent cowardly attack ... Fact.

'History tends to look at achievements or failures instead of the issues of the base politics of the all too close commentators. It knows they usually are pushing some sort of barrow.'

Besides the article being a prime example of that sort of rubbish let's look at the critics here.

Yabby: Is saying because Bush supports a policy of sexual abstinence till marriage all of the above facts are negated ... laughable rubbush and an example of a drunk pushing a wobbly barrow up the anti-US trail.

Daggett: thinks the US war effort is suspect because he thinks they shouldn't have invaded, were brutal and that the Americans attacked themselves on 9/11 ... he doesn't dispute any of the above facts. He's dragging his barrow up the anti-US trail.

Bushbasher: Opines he's the worst US president but doesn't say why. He think's we are the judge now, which is fair, but doesn't accept that history will judge more accurately. He think's George's war on AIDS was soiled by his abstinence policies. He either think's the world didn't become wealthier with greatest spread or that occurred in spite of George's free trade policies. He thinks many of the Hispanics and Afro Americans George appointed to high office are 'unqualified flunkies, or complete psychopaths'. He indicates he thinks the war in Iraq unwon as he asks to 'define win'. He only thinks the war in Iraq unnecessary and an US cesspit of human rights abuses. He thinks the US is safe from attack but a dictatorship... despite having elections and Obama indicating an intention to continue many of his security policies. He thinks George didn't win two elections. He thinks avoiding deaths in the Cuban crisis was a genuine crisis, which is fair, but that, in comparison, the deaths of over 3000 innocent people on 9/11 was a mere fleabite... and I assume insufficient reason to go to war on terrorists and terror sponsers in the mid east ... Afghanistan and Iraq. I wonder what he thinks of 12/7?
He's steps ahead of all of us and his barrow, which he is attempting to steer up that anti-US trail, by mind control.

And that is where the debate stands. No-one has refuted the six facts anywhere.

In deference to Bushbasher, I wouldn't mind seeing a comparable list of facts that indicate why history might judge him an unsuccessful president.

I notice that Reuben’s hissing-fit ignores the US Supreme courts deliberations before he denounces the Bush election, a convenient omission.

I note he has also failed to comment upon the school reforms and children of prisoners mentoring, which Bush has been behind.

Of course, he could have berated Bush for not pursuing Medicare reforms but I recall, Clinton tried and failed there too.

“On September 11, 2001, an estimated 2,762 people tragically lost their lives; a city lost two iconic towers and the Bush administration lost what little credibility it had left as the war on terror and pre emptive strike doctrine were announced to the world.”

Now I feel had Bush told the American people, who did elect him, anything less, he would have been negligent in his responsibilities as Commander in Chief or the US Armed Forces.

The point which he makes about relative numbers of dead compared to the number of American lives lost on 9/11 goes beyond the contemptible.

Another notable omission in Reuben’s pissant attempt at early writing, is Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which curtailed several deficiencies in US corporate law which became manifest after WorldCom, Enron and Tyco etc.

I suggest Reuben return to whatever garret of obscurity he came from and find another hobby, basket weaving or macramé maybe, something which will not over-excite him too much or if he insists on writing, childrens fairy-tales, something which he would have greater empathy with, than serious critical review.

*Yabby: Is saying because Bush supports a policy of sexual abstinence till marriage all of the above facts are negated *

Yabby is saying no such thing. Yabby has stuck to one point,
to see if even that penetrates your thick skull. It seems not!

Yabby is saying that due to Georges policies, family planning
clinics in Africa had to shut down, they provided assistance
to married couples, rape victims, etc. etc. Yabby is saying
that this causes more misery, more hunger, more unwanted children,
more poverty and more hiv spreading in Africa. Yabby is saying
what Melinda Gates is saying, that George has put the religious
right doctrine ahead of saving lives.

We can go through the other points one by one if you like.
But with two posts a day its a slow process.

*He instigated a real war against AIDS in Africa ... Fact.*

Wrong, he's providing some anti retrovirals. Given the US crappy
spending on development aid in terms of GDP, fair enough.

The Gates Foundation are instigating a real war against Aids,
not George.

*During his tenure we saw the largest number of people ever to exit poverty in the history of the world ... Fact.*

Now you want to give George credit for all that the Chinese,
Indians, Brazilians and others have achieved. Hey,they worked
for what they achieved. Meantime he has nearly bankrupted his
country and added 4 trillion $ of debts.

TBC

yabby, i'm surprised but pleased that you still have the patience to respond to such obtuse, dishonest nonsense. i've had enough.

Yabby hasn't the intellect to present a reasoned position and besides he's usually drunk.

Cut and run eh? Bushbasher ... that's what you'd have supported in Iraq too isn't it?

Personal abuse is the refuge of those who cannot produce a position to debunk their oppositions argument.

Typical.

My argument is just based on fact and yours ... well my synopsis says it all.

Well Keith, you are free to drop the ad hominems and produce some
reasons. Now, your next points:

*During his tenure the world has become wealthier with the greatest distribution in the history of the world ... Fact.*

Oops, the world just lost 30 trillion$ or so, as George was
asleep at the wheel. On Bloomberg they are talking of the
biggest crisis since the great depression. Even Keith
is fleeing to gold in panic. What a hero is George!

*He appointed the highest number of African Americans and Hispanics to the highest positions in US politics ... Fact.*

That could be true, I've never checked. So what?

*He is the only President since Roosvelt/Truman to put the US in a position to win a hot war ... Fact.*

Err, you mean the US, spending more on arms then any other nation,
bombed the crap out of some little Arab country, as despite
all these arms they were beaten by the Viet Cong and still can't
catch Osama bin Laden? Wow!

*Since he declared war on terrorists the US hasn't suffered a violent cowardly attack ... Fact.*

Neither has Australia, so what? The FBI were so busy looking for
Osama under the bed, that they forgot to keep an eye on Wall St.

Compared to 8 years ago, the USA is in far worse position then
they were after Clinton Fact.

Back on the bottle yabby

To all:

What motivates people to submit 15 - 20 comments to an article? Good grief. How many new thoughts come from it? If it's a matter of getting in the last word, Keith seems determined to get it in. Don't provoke him with another response. Let him have it. This article has been beaten to death. You win, Keith. Bravo! But we'll surely best you on the next article. Stay sharp.

Daisym

Because I initially disagreed with the author was challenged, abused and ridiculed by two other posters. I was hoping somebody would actually take the time to address the issue, in a meaningful way, rather than simply sink to the usual chattering abuse of George and anyone who thinks he was ok.

Why don't you ask yabby and bushbasher the same question but use the numbers 20-25 posts and proceed to talk down to them in exactly the same way you've attempted to disparage me?

It it because of bias or something else

Keith, Daisym sent you a hint. Do us all a favor, accept it and move on. I realize that we do not have to read these remarks but I have been looking to see when the duel was going to be scheduled!

Keith,

You are beginning to see what I'm talking about, I suspect. These people care nothing for reason or debate. Which is why when you hand their arse to them, they don't recognise it.

Ergo, sword fighting an amoemba.

To them, Online Opinion is a place where they can regurgitate the latest green weekly diatribe. Very few of them have ever read an academic article where all assumptions and stated facts must be acknowledged. They simply don't understand that if you make a point you need to back it up with evidence, and defend the validity of that evidence if necessary.

Bush is an object of popular hatred for the PC-left. He is a focal point for all those things the PC-left feel are wrong with the world. A discussion absent of hype and emotion is simply not possible for many of these people. In my mind there is a definite similarity between the way many on the PC-left view Bush, and the attitude of the Ayatollah's Iran towards "the Great Satan", the US. It is simply beyond many of these people's comprehension that Bush could have done ANYTHING right.

As there is still plenty of mileage to be made blaming Bush for most of the worlds ills, especially by the incoming Obama administration, it will be a while before a balanced judgement on Bush presidency will emerge. I suspect Bush will, at least for a generation or two, suffer a reputation not unlike Nixons.

So I would say to Daiysim and Joe in the US, no-one forces you to read a post. There's a simple remedy for not getting posts that you don't want to read, so exercise it. Don't be telling people when they can and can't post. It's simply not for you to decide. And that goes double for you two, since neither of you have contributed ANYTHING of substance to the debate

Paul wrote, "It is simply beyond many of these people's comprehension that Bush could have done ANYTHING right."

Actually, I thought he was right to invade Afghanistan at the time and continued to think so, until fairly recently. Of course the reason I thought he was right to do so was that I fully accepted the Big Lie of 9/11.

---

Col Rouge wrote, "Now I feel had Bush told the American people, who did elect him, anything less, he would have been negligent in his responsibilities as Commander in Chief or the US Armed Forces."

Col, how well do you think way President W discharged his responsibilities as Commander in Chief at the time America was under attack by extremist Islamists (or so we are told) on 11 September 2001 (see http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9UA1xcwRLM)?

---

Barrie Zwicker told of this in his documentary "The Great Conspiracy":

At a Town Hall session in Orlando, Florida on December
the 4th, 2001, here’s the President’s own account of the early
morning of 9/11.

Jordan (a third grader): "How did you feel when you
heard about a terrorist attack?"

George Bush: "Well, thank you, Jordan (applause).
Well, Jordan you’re not going to believe where, what state
I was in, when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in
Florida. And my Chief of Staff Andy Card, well actually
I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that
works, ... and I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to
go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower – you know, the TV
was obviously on..."

BZ: The President tells us he sees, on an ordinary TV
set outside a school classroom, the first plane hit the World
Trade Center. He gives the oddly reinforcing detail that "the
TV was obviously on." He continues:

George Bush: "I used to fly myself and I said, well,
there’s one terrible pilot and I said it must have been a
horrible accident, but I was whisked off there and didn't
have much time to think about it."

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Barrie Zwicker : "Didn't have time to think about it?" As if his being told,
"Time to meet the kids, Mr. President" stops all his
thought processes concerning the remarkable image of what
he told us he's just seen on an ordinary TV, on top of all his
knowledge of the unprecedented situation from earlier in the
morning. But anyway, could George Bush have seen, on
ordinary TV, the first plane hit the World Trade Center? No,
he could not have.

The footage of that first strike (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONEX8tme8)
only shows up on television
the next day, September the 12th, 2001. It was taken by a
French documentary crew that happened to be in downtown New
York.

Bystander: "Holy 5hit!" (Explosion)

Barrie Zwicker: The Orlando Town Hall session takes place seven
weeks after 9/11, so it can be suggested Bush confuses
the second plane with the first. But, how to explain this?
We'veall seen Andy Card do that. None of this can ever be
retracted. It is an interlocking historical record.

Why go on at length about this? Because it may one day
become the basis for criminal court proceedings.
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623 http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/tgc.html http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/pdfs/TGC_transcript_GOIssue9.pdf)

Keith, your assertion
"He is the only President since Roosvelt/Truman to put the US in a position to win a hot war ... Fact"
Would you state what, in your opinion, is the position when the hot war has been won. What conditions will exist when it can be considered a victory?
Thanks, mark conley

Mark my opinion is multi faceted and winning is not necessarily absolute at any one stage. I'll give my view with reference to specifics in Iraq.

The shooting by the military of both sides has to have ceased and one side is incapaciated by the withdrawal, surrender, capture or deaths of it's military and political leadership.

In Iraq that is the case.

But that is not the only condition. Another would be when effective local government replaces military occupation ... which is not quite yet the case in Iraq ... but that condition is very definately no longer a remote possibility and has been achieved by the actions of George.

All civil, criminal, terrorist or anarchical activities need be policed by local forces, laws and judiciary. That's on the horizon.

In Iraq another specific condition should be the conditions of the previous regime could not possibly reappear. ie a change of political system not just a regime change. That seems likely.

Another would be the renewed state would establish it's own relations with neighbours and other states. That is occurring currently.

Such were the conditions in Japan, Germany, Italy and Vietnam but not so in Korea.

My original statement that history will judge George as leading the US into a winning position in the hot war in Iraq is more likely than not. What we'll discover over the next couple of years is whether Obama's policies lead to continued improvement in these conditions or a slide back into defeat.

Cheers

More likely George will be remembered as the not too smart US prez,
who was the plaything of the neocons. The man battles to pronounce
"nuclear"!

Tell me something Keith. How much do you think that Osama bin Laden
has cost the US economy?

What amuses me is that the OLO defenders of George, are seemingly
far more right wing then anything I've heard on Bloomberg.

Now Bloomberg is not exactly left wing. Top analysts and commentators
largely agree, that what happened under George's watch is a total
disaster and they pity Obama's team for having to sort out the mess.

There is large agreement that Obama has assembled a top economic
team to deal with it, but the disaster is so large that the effects
will take many years to sort out and nobody really knows the best
way to tackle it.

Fact is that George had little interest in foreign politics, but
911 shook him up a bit. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc, were in
key positions to roll him into accepting the neocon doctrine,
the rest is history.

Osama must be rolling around in his cave laughing, as he watches
the unfolding disaster that is the present US economy and now
global economy.

Iran would be smiling too, as Iraq turns Shia, at no expense to
them, all bankrolled by the US taxpayer.

Hehe, what a great prez is George!

The man is a dummie, admit it.

Happy New Year Joe in the US,

Joe I would move on but to be fair, shouldn't you perhaps address your comments to the antagonists as well?

I've never seen silencing views that dissent from the majority as doing anybody a favour. I think George, Quincy, Thomas, JS and a plethora of other great US Liberal Democrats might agree.

Cheers

Keith, thanks for replying,

"The shooting by the military of both sides has to have ceased and one side is incapaciated by the withdrawal, surrender, capture or deaths of it's military and political leadership."
In Iraq that is the case. .............. most certainly, the war against Saddam Hussein's authoritarian government is finished, Saddam lost
If this is the sole definition then COW "won"
Obviously, many of those who hold opinions "left" of yours, regard the invasion that led to the "victory" as a blot against the Bush government.

As for
". Another would be when effective local government replaces military occupation" and
" All civil, criminal, terrorist or anarchical activities need be policed by local forces, laws and judiciary"
do you mean by 'local', regions within what is still referred to as 'IRAQ' or as in 'IRAQ' as a whole?
If I appear pedantic, there would be different responses to both definitions.

And re. …….."the conditions of the previous regime could not possibly reappear. ie a change of political system not just a regime change"
A return to an authoritarian government for 'IRAQ' would most certainly have negative implications for many.
Mark Conley

Keith holds that the invasion of Iraq should judged a success if 5 years after the launch of the invasion the insurgency appears to have been crushed by the might of the US occupation forces.

He accepts at face value the claims that the US was in any way interested in democracy and the welfare of the Iraq, but ignores the evidence (#130228) that at one critical time in this conflict, dictatorship was imposed by the US occupation authority so that the crony capitalists it served could plunder both the wealth of Iraq and the US treasury, thereby impoverishing Iraqis and creating the conditions that caused the conflict to endure as it did.

He also ignores evidence, that much of the conflict, particularly the sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis appears to have been a consequence of 'false flag' terrorism either directly carried out by the occupying forces or sponsored by them. I wrote of above (#130229).

Of this Dr. Elias Akleh writes in "British Terrorism in Iraq" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1024

"It had been long known to the Iraqis, to the Arabs, and to all Moslems in countries bordering Iraq that the majority of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, especially car bombing, are perpetrated by covert British, American, and Israeli operatives. It is also well known to them that the terrorist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and his 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' are just inventions of the coalition forces to justify their existence. More and more evidences are coming out of Iraq to support this fact. The arrest of two undercover British SAS operatives last week, disguised as Arabs trying to plant a car bomb in the middle of Basra during the Karbala Festival, which draws as many as 3 million pilgrims to the city, is just the latest of such revelations. ..." (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1024)

See also "Iraq probe into soldier incident" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm "State-Sponsored Terror: British and American Black Ops in Iraq" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9447

So the evidence that much of the violence that apologists for the invasion choose to blame on the Iraqis was indeed caused by the US and the Americans.

justone person,

I see your point. I was unclear, but I mean't a Iraq as a whole.

I've never really made up my mind as to whether the invasion was wrong or not. I supported both it and the surge at the time. I probably won't bother as I don't consider it all that relevant ... now.

A return to dictatorship or fragmentation of Iraq, unless the current fairly encouraging conditions drastically change, could only mean the effort was wasted and the war lost.

Daggett,
where ever did I give a timeline or claimed it as a success. You've set up a strawman argument ... and won. Congratulations.

Dagget,

You really are the most gullible person alive.

Can I interest you in a bridge I have for sale in Sydney? Its in good nick with a harbourside view.

You’re probably the only person left on this planet who thinks OJ was innocent.

Because Global Research tell you so, ALL of the violence in Iraq was carried out by the Allies undercover secret agents to make it look like the Sunnis and the Shia were at war, when they really weren’t.? Why?

The Bush regime, before they actually came into power, began the planning for the false flag, 9/11 attacks so they could attack Iraq and take over. But they told the truth about WMD’s which lost them most of the credibility and trust they gained as a consequence of 9/11. Why?

Then they helped organise the false flag attacks in Mumbai. Where else? London? Spain? Agin to frame the Islamic terrorists.

Is there any such thing as Al Qaeda or are they all CIA agents as well?

Is it really George Bush that’s President or is he some brainwashed look-a-like who does the EVIL Capitalists bidding?

Who’s really behind all this anyway? 50 Fat Cat Capitalists in a back room in Switzerland smoking cigars and plotting global domination?

By the way, you have to read this article on why aliens were the ones who built the pyramids. http://www.outerworlds.com/likeness/aliens/aliens.html

If you had ANY critical faculties whatsoever you would recognise the similarities between the tone, and the dodgy evidence, from your truther websites.

Yabby,

Osama can roll around in his cave all he likes but he can never, ever leave it or its locale, ever agin.

Iraq’s has always had a shia majority and democracy was always going to deliver power to them. That doesn’t mean we will have another Iran on our hands.

Frankly you don’t have a clue what right wing even means. Have a look at Fox news and then we can talk.

Might be an idea if you learnt to frame an argument, using evidence.

*but he can never, ever leave it or its locale, ever agin.*

Wow, what a punishment! I think you will find that Al Queda do
pretty much as they please, in the tribal areas of Pakistan,
along the Afghanistan border. The Pakistani military hardly
dares go there. Zawahiri seemingly moves around as he pleases,
they tried to bomb him but missed. This, the so called greatest
military on earth, unable to nail a few Arab towel heads.

Meantime, Osama's predition that he would bankrupt America
sounds more likely every day! Now how much has Osama cost
America so far?

*Frankly you don’t have a clue what right wing even means. Have a look at Fox news and then we can talk.*

Bloomberg is hardly left wing, so perhaps you don't know what that
means. Fox News is something else altogether. I give Rupert credit
for one thing, he is a great businessman, who long ago worked out
that to make a quid, you need to push peoples emotional buttons.

From the page 3 girls in his papers, to the religious channels,
to Fox News, there is money in milking the true believers.
Tell em what they want to hear and they will flock in and make
you money. So from the trailer trash to the hockey moms, the
devout believers will follow every word.

Bloomberg is about the views of business and corporate America,
a whole different story altogether and hardly left wing.

Paul wrote, "Because Global Research tell you so, ALL of the violence in Iraq was carried out by the Allies undercover secret agents to make it look like the Sunnis and the Shia were at war, when they really weren’t.?... "

Paul, if you want us to automatically disregard anything written by Global Research, how about showing us where they have got their facts wrong?

So what do you think the British SAS soldiers were doing dressed as Arabs in a booby-trapped car? (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm)?

Paul only finds unbelievable the notion that British and American occupiers would be capable of instigating violence.

He has no problem believing that the Iraqis themselves are the ones who have instigated nearly all the violence.

How about a pause and let's review the year 2008 in satire. The news by Uncle Jay Is spot on!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWiXy55OHyY

Dagget,

You really are a terrible LIAR aren’t you.

You post a link to an article claiming the British were in a booby trapped car. But whoops, the article doesn’t say that. The article says the soldiers were arrested after a shooting incident which killed an Iraqi policeman. Al Jazeera news showed footage of the car that the brits were in. >> “It purportedly [showed] the equipment carried in the men's car, assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and medical kit. This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theatre of operations, he said. “ Where is the bit about the booby-trapped car?

You clearly have become so comfortable with lying it no longer matters to you what you say. I will expect ANOTHER apology.

You say >> “Paul, if you want us to automatically disregard anything written by Global Research, how about showing us where they have got their facts wrong?

Again, nowhere have I said this. What I am pointing out is that you seem to have no critical thinking ability of your own. “If it’s published in Global Research, well then it must be true”, is the attitude you seem to take. I certainly am not suggesting they are always wrong, merely that they are not ALWAYS right, which is what you unfortunately believe.

You take a global research article, which without any proof accuses coalition soldiers of being behind all of the violence in Iraq. There was no such thing as Sunni-Shia civil unrest, just squaddies dressed in dish-dashas delivering booby trapped cars. The article further claims that there is no such thing as AlQaeda in Iraq or Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.

Whos this guy then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U68igQqLbVY

Frankly you should read David Irving’s propaganda about the non-holocaust as it seems you will believe ANYTHING and pro Nazi propoganda is right up Elias Akleh's alley.

TBC

Paul has a small point. Although the term "booby-trap" was used in one of the articles I cited (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20050925&articleId=994) in relation to another incident, it appears that there is no evidence that the car the SAS were driving was literally "booby-trapped".

However, in the same article, according to Sheik Hassan al-Zarqani, a spokesman for Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia:

"What our police found in their car was very disturbing—weapons, explosives, and a remote control detonator. These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets..." This is backed up by a photograph.

Of course, Paul will insist that we cannot consider any of that evidence reliable.

However, lets consider all the extraordinary facts and contradictions and the overall context. The SAS men claimed to be on a reconnaissance mission, so what were they doing with such a deadly arsenal in their car if that was the case?

Why did they kill a policeman and wound another as well as civilians if they were doing nothing suspicious? Why did the local British Commander resort to such extraordinary measures to prevent the Basra police from questioning them in order to establish what they were doing?

After this outrage the British 'apologised', but never conducted any investigation nor brought the SAS men to justice for the murder of the Iraqi policeman.

As I pointed out elsewhere, Paul has formed the habit of blaming the Iraqis for violence to excuse crimes such as Abu Ghraib and the invasion itself.

He has repeatedly made the claim that Iraqis are responsible for more deaths than the occupying British and Americans, when the evidence I have pointed to shows that this may not be the case. The Iraqis are entitled to have that evidence seriously considered.

---

I have no idea who that idiot in the video at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U68igQqLbVY is.

For further evidence that Abu Musab Al Zarqawi is a fictitious creation of the US occupiers, read "More Holes in the Official Story on Zarqawi's Death" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060611&articleId=2630

Dagget,

cont' from above

AGAIN you’ve had to admit you were, at best, careless with the truth.

Did you even bother to check out who Elias Akleh is, and whether perhaps he is a Hamas sympathiser?

He believes

1) The Iraqi constitution was designed to allow Israeli Jews who emigrated from Iraq to return and create a Jewish state.

2) Americans are responsible for the roadside bombs in Iraq

3) After 1948 Terrorist acts were perpetrated by Zionists against Jewish communities in the Arab World, as well as throughout European countries to coerce the Jews to immigrate … The Jews weren’t forced out of their homes by Arabs.

4) The Israelis were behind the Amman bombings and not militant Islamists. But then he doesn’t believe the militant Islamists exist so I suppose you have to blame somebody.

Akleh is NUTS. He is a worse conspiracy nut than you. He is one of those Arabs who believe that Israeli intelligence is behind EVERYTHING.

You say >> “So what do you think the British SAS soldiers were doing dressed as Arabs in a booby-trapped car? “

Working undercover moron. Covert surveillance maybe, or direct action, I don’t know. You certainly don’t know. All we do know is what was contained in the BBC article, and even that is no doubt debatable. Shia militias had thoroughly infiltrated the Police in Basra.

This is clearly demonstrated by the Al Sadr militia leader reffering to “OUR” police. And the fact that the undercover Brits ended up being held by a Shia Militia group speaks volumes as to the relationship between the police in Basra and the Shia militias. Or did you miss that as well?

You say >> “He has repeatedly made the claim that Iraqis are responsible for more deaths than the occupying British and Americans, when the evidence I have pointed to shows that this may not be the case”

That’s just the point Dagget. You have produced no such evidence. All you’ve done is mangle 1 story about undercover British soldiers. How you extrapolate from that is anyone’s guess

Of course it is to be expected Paul will crow triumphantly because I have committed a careless error of fact. I would suggest that if he were to back up his preposterous case with anywhere near as much evidence as I use that he would have committed at least as many errors as I had.

---

Whilst one detail I provided may be wrong, the essential facts remain: British SAS men dressed as Arabs were caught with a deadly arsenal by police in Basra, just before a religious ceremony was to be held. They killed a policeman and wounded other Iraqis, were arrested, but the Iraqi police were prevented from questioning these men because the local British Army attacked the police station and freed the SAS men.

Why that doesn't seem extremely suspicious to Paul, I don't understand.

The fact that the British are apparently operating in Basra against the wishes of the local population appears to have gone right over Paul's head.

---

Paul wrote, "... I don’t know. You certainly don’t know."

And as with the 9/11 atrocity (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=75#53689), Paul doesn't want to know and doesn't want anyone else to know.

He is happy to accept the assurances of governments, and excuses them for not conducting a proper enquiries.

Dagget,

You say >> “Of course it is to be expected Paul will crow triumphantly because I have committed a careless error of fact. I would suggest that if he were to back up his preposterous case with anywhere near as much evidence as I use that he would have committed at least as many errors as I had.”

You have been caught out being “careless” with the truth at least half dozen times in the last month. It seems to me you have decided the truth is no longer enough to make your case and you are resorting to flat out LYING.

Where are all these reams of evidence? And what is my preposterous case? That there was a sectarian conflict between the Sunni and the Shia? Because that’s what happened according to EVERY reputable news agency on the planet.

But not according to one Hamas sympathiser writing on Global Research’s website. Well heck, I’m convinced. I mean why would HE lie? Of course every Reputable newspaper in the world, with real journalists who check facts and cite sources, must be wrong. Hope you didn’t miss the SARCASM.

You said >> “ … MUCH of the conflict, particularly the sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis appears to have been a consequence of 'false flag' terrorism either directly carried out by the occupying forces or sponsored by them.

Is this another careless error of fact? Or do you expect us to believe that your one mangled case of undercover British soldiers, is in fact how the WHOLE CONFLICT played out?

You say >> “Whilst one detail I provided may be wrong, the essential facts remain: “

No they don’t Dagget. It seems clear that you have avoided the fact that the undercover Brits were rescued after being held captive by a SHIA MILITIA group. The police passed these soldiers on to a terrorist organisation and you’re wondering why the Brits wanted to rescue them? Are you seriously retarded or is it just an act?

Did you know that the Basra Police were acting unlawfully by holding the British soldiers?

TBC

CONT'

You say >> “The fact that the British are apparently operating in Basra against the wishes of the local population ... “

I see. You did a straw poll did you? How do you know this? Or, if just one of Basra’s residents opposes the Brits presence, that’s enough for you?

You say >> “Why that doesn't seem extremely suspicious to Paul, I don't understand.”

I don’t leap to conclusions that terrorists and their sympathisers hand to me on a plate. I know that Britain has operated undercover soldiers effectively during the Northern Ireland conflict and since. They go undercover to do surveillance and they are heavily armed because if they are compromised they may have to fight their way out without help. The informant who suggested that the Brits had a bomb and a detonator and were intending to blow up a religious festival, just COINCIDENTLY happens to be an armed combatant at war with the British. Furthermore, Al Jazeera TV filmed the equipment that the Brits were arrested with, and did not mention bombs or detonators. And Al Jazeera can hardly be charged with Pro-British bias.

Why that doesn’t seem suspicious to YOU, I don’t understand.

Do you really profess surprise that in a country at war, soldiers would be armed?

I notice you are still avoiding the simple question " Why did the Bush adminstration tell the truth about the lack of WMD in Iraq"?

You know its a good question, which is why you regularly avoid it. I cannot see why they would do such a thing after they had just carried out the biggest/worst covert operation against their own people in US history in order to legitemise the Iraq invasion. And then they shoot it down, by simply telling the truth?

I don't think so.

Finally, still spruiking for an audience for the 9/11 debate? Face the fact that no-one wants to read your drivel if they can help it. Anyway, the case that Aliens built the pyramids has more compelling evidence than the case for a false flag operation on 9/11.

Paul wrote, "You have been caught out being 'careless' with the truth at least half dozen times in the last month."

If Paul must lead this discussion off on such a tangent, then at least show others what he is talking about by, for example, providing links so that others can judge for themselves.

It's interesting that Paul, rather than I, is the one who seems embarrassed about the discussion in which he claims I have been caught out lying, "shown up", etc, etc.

If anyone is interested in the discussion on 9/11 Truth and I think they should be, because it is the central justification for the whole fraudulent "war on terror", they should look at the discussion at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=74#53689

---

Paul has not acknowledged the central point of my last post, that is, that he admits that he doesn't know what happened but excuses the British Government for neither bringing the SAS men to trial for the murder of the Iraqi policeman nor for conducting a proper inquiry into the incident

Paul wrote, "the undercover Brits were rescued after being held captive by a SHIA MILITIA group. The police passed these soldiers on to a terrorist organisation and you’re wondering why the Brits wanted to rescue them?".

The Mahdi Army was a militia which operated legally in the area. It had popular support and had cooperated with the British before September 2005.

As such, I think that they would have a legitimate interest in the matter.

Whatever protocols should have been applied in dealing with the suspected terrorists, that issue should surely pale into insignificance beside the issue of the crime committed and waht looks like an even greater crime that was foiled.

Paul wrote, "... Al Jazeera TV filmed the equipment that the Brits were arrested with, and did not mention bombs or detonators. And Al Jazeera can hardly be charged with Pro-British bias."

Well, where's your source?

Let's see for ourselves if the Al Jazeera report precludes any possibility of explosives. Did they at least report the allegations that bombs were found? If those allegations were made, then why shouldn't they have been investigated?

Paul wants us to only believe what is reported in the mainstream media and automatically discount anything that is not. In fact, it is clear that the mainstream media's reporting has been misleading and if we are to learn the truth, we have to go other sources.

Note, for example, this SMH story, which also fails to mention the allegations of explosives:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/petrol-bombs-fly-as-tanks-free-sas-men/2005/09/20/1126982027612.html

Dagget,

You continually ignore any question you have difficulty answering or which doesn’t fit with your preconceived world view.

I will again list the questions you have evaded from my last post

1) Where are all the reams of evidence you claim to have presented proving that “MOST” of the Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq was actually carried out by the coalition?
2) What is my preposterous case?
3) Why did the Bush administration tell the truth about the lack of WMD in Iraq"?

Your complete lack of understanding of the subject matter, which you have been forced to admit dozens of times, together with your sweeping generalisations, and complete absence of actual “evidence” for your BIZARRE claims is well known now.

All the evidence points to there being no bombs or detonators in the Brits car. All we have is the word of an organisation which has the most to gain from making such an accusation. YOU have produced NO evidence that there was a bomb in the car besides the word of the people who kidnapped the British Soldiers.

In any case, it’s not my job to prove to you that there were no bombs. Nor is it the British Gov’ts. When you make an allegation like this, you have to substantiate it. You have FAILED to do this.

I'm not surprised that you would believe the terrorists over EVERYONE else. However normal, thinking people will find it rather difficult to believe the group responsible for MOST of the roadside bombs in southern Iraq when they accuse the British of carrying out such an act. After all, what possible motive could they have for lying? (note heavy sarcasm)

I suppose you believe Iran’s Ahmedinejhad when he says there was no such thing as the holocaust?

Dagget says >> “The Mahdi Army was a militia which operated legally in the area. It had popular support and had cooperated with the British before September 2005.’

What planet do you come from? The Mahdi Army may have infiltrated the Police Force but they were by no means a legal force.

TBC

CONT'

They were involved in attacks on British and Coalition soldiers starting in 2004 with the Shia uprising and continuing on through 2005. There is NOTHING legitimate about the Mahdi Army militia, certainly not in 2005. You're clearly prepared to say anything.

I simply cannot believe that you are denying that the Mahdi Army were involved in terrorism in Southern Iraq. Maybe you've been reading the Mahdi Armies promotional literature.

The BBC article you posted as evidence of the “booby-trapped” british car, states .. “al-Jazeera news channel footage, purportedly of the equipment carried in the men's car, showed assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and medical kit. This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theatre of operations, he said. “

Don’t you even read the articles you quote?

You say >> “Paul wants us to only believe what is reported in the mainstream media and automatically discount anything that is not. In fact, it is clear that the mainstream media's reporting has been misleading and if we are to learn the truth, we have to go other sources.”

Again you feel the need to make stuff up rather than quote me. You seem pathologically incapable of telling the truth. Don’t paraphrase me anymore because EVERY time you do, YOU LIE. And it seems clear that you simply don’t care. You are happy to lie if it helps make your case. SAD

So let’s just summarize your claim. You have presented claims by terrorists whose main enemy is British Forces, that the British soldiers arrested had a bomb and a detonator etc. You have produced no other evidence at all, except for the BBC article which you LIED about. You then had the gall to suggest that this was proof that MOST of the terrorist attacks and bombing carried out in Iraq were actually false flag operations carried out by undercover Brits. You don’t mind a tall tale do you Dagget? Lack of evidence is obviously no sticking point for you as only non-westerners or loony-leftists tell the truth.

Once again, here are some of the indisputed facts:

Two British SAS men, dressed as Arabs opened fire on Iraqi policeman and a crowd of civilians at a roadblock. They killed one policeman, wounded another and wounding several civilians.

They fled in their car and were subsequently captured.

Why won't Paul acknowledge that:

1. a gravely serious crime had been committed

2. that by the behaviour the SAS was extremely suspicious and warranted further investigation by the police

?

The fact Paul fails to address these salient facts and, instead, attempts to lead this discussion into tangents, indicates to me, that once again, he is not here to help us understand the question at hand.

---

Paul wrote, " will again list the questions you have evaded from my last post ...

"3) Why did the Bush administration tell the truth about the lack of WMD in Iraq?"

The fact that Paul chooses to drag such a preposterous and irrelevant argument, which has already been put (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#46642 #48438 #48471 #48488 #48513) elsewhere and answered by me (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48483 #48489), into this forum seems to be a sign of sheer desperation on his part.

This seems to me to be a curious definition of "tell(ing) the truth".

Both Bush and Blair knowingly lied to the world about Iraq's alleged WMD program. We know this from leaked minutes of a meeting between the two on 21 January 2003 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/03/iraq.usa).

Paul has seriously attempted to suggest that, if, after the invasion, the US had planted evidence of a WMD program, no-one -- no journalist and no UN weapons inspector -- would have seen through it, and that the invasion would have been fully vindicated in the eyes of world public opinion.

The only possible motive Paul imagines for Bush deciding not to go to the enormous trouble and expense of constructing a fake Iraqi WMD facility was ... honesty!

---

I trust that others will understand why I don't immediately attempt to respond to each and every one of Paul's 'arguments', least of all those I have already responded to.

Dagget,

You say >> “… the indisputed [SIC] facts: Two British SAS men, dressed as Arabs opened fire on Iraqi policeman and a crowd of civilians at a roadblock. They killed one policeman, wounded another and wounding several civilians.”

Once again, Dagget, these are not undisputed facts. This is typical Dagget behaviour. You’re quite happy to add your own interpretation to events without any proof.

These are the undisputed facts.

1) Undercover British soldiers killed an Iraqi policeman and wounded one of his colleagues during a gun battle.
2) Civilians in the area were wounded in the crossfire.
3) The soldiers were arrested by Iraqi police
4) The Iraqi police had no lawful authority to arrest the British soldiers
5) The Iraqi police passed these men on to the local terrorists
6) The Iraqi Police were often involved in terrorist attacks against coalition forces
7) The undercover soldiers could have fought their way out at great cost in Iraqi life, but did not do so
8) The British rescued the soldiers from a terrorist safehouse

Who opened fire first, is in dispute. Who wounded the civilians is in dispute. Whether the Iraqi police were trying to kill British soldiers, knowing full well they were undercover is in dispute.

Dagget says “Why won't Paul acknowledge that: 1. a gravely serious crime had been committed
2. that by the behaviour the SAS was extremely suspicious and warranted further investigation by the police”

The behaviour of the British soldiers (you don’t know they were SAS) was not suspicious in the least. They were undercover. That’s not cause for suspicion. It happens all the time. If the soldiers were really on a black ops type false flag mission, they would not have surrendered to police.

TBC

There's so many glaring holes in Paul's last post, it's hard to know where to begin.

How could imagine that (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) are undisputed, is beyond me.

Just for starters (5) "The Iraqi police passed these men on to the local terrorists" is disputed in more ways than one by Fatah al-Sheikh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html
"Contrary to British authorities' claims that the soldiers had been immediately handed to local militia, al-Sheikh confirmed that they were "at the Intelligence Department in Basra, and they were held by the National Guard force, but the British occupation forces are still surrounding this department in an attempt to absolve them of the crime."

So, if the word 'undisputed' has any meaning at all, then that one falls flat on its face immediately.

If Paul wants to present so many outlandish claims as 'undisputed facts' then he should at least provide the sources.

So, by what law are police not allowed to arrest people dressed as civilians who have shot dead a policeman? If any such law exists it would be an outrage.

Had Paul hadn't even bothered to think through the implications of what he wrote?

Is he really trying to suggest that is likely that the police would have fired first unless the SAS men did something that appeared threatening to them, such as the SAS men reaching for their own weapons?

If the police shot first in an unprovoked premeditated fashion, then why would the police subsequently arrested them and not killed them outright?

In any case, if, for argument's sake, Paul's version is true, the why does he suppose the British apologised to the Basra government instead of demanding an apology from them, since the latter had obviously behaved so outrageously?

At least three corrections are needed to the above post. My apologies:

2nd paragraph should be:

How could [Paul] imagine that (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) are undisputed, is beyond me.

8th paragraph should have third word omitted to read:

Had Paul even bothered to think through the implications of what he wrote?

In the 11th (last) paragraph , the first 'the' should have been 'then' :

In any case, if, for argument's sake, Paul's version is true, then why does he suppose the British apologised to the Basra government instead of demanding an apology from them, since the latter had obviously behaved so outrageously?

Dagget,

You say >> “"The Iraqi police passed these men on to the local terrorists" is disputed in more ways than one by Fatah al-Sheikh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly:”

Yet Al Jazeera TV confirms(link beloew) that the two men were taken by the Mahdi army militiamen. Considering how much anti-coalition lying is going on in this article, the fact that they admit that the Brits were held by militiamen is conclusive.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2005%20News%20Archives/September/22%20n/British%20Occupation%20Forces%20Suspected%20Behind%20Sectarian%20Terrorism%20in%20Southern%20Iraq%20The%20Two%20British%20Soldiers%20Drove%20a%20Car%20Bomb%20in%20Basra.htm

It is confirmed here. http://www.payvand.com/news/05/nov/1047.html
And here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4262336.stm

In fact you yourself directly quote a Mahdi Army militiamen referring to “his” police. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8288#131210

You deny that the Iraqi Police were EVER infiltrated by militiamen loyal to Moqtadr AlSadr.

But the BBC confirm this to be the case The BBC's Paul Wood said >> “none of Basra's 20,000 police officers had helped the UK troops "partly because of reticence by their commanders, partly because, I am afraid, they have been infiltrated by these militants". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4262336.stm

The Iraqi National Police are often reported as being Shiite militia dominated, however there has been extensive reorganizations and purges in the ranks over the past few months. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2006/07/iraqi_police_take_an.php

“British forces killed seven gunmen and blew up the headquarters of the police serious crimes unit in southern Basra on Monday in a raid to rescue prisoners (Iraqi prisoners) who were about to be killed, the British military said. Calling the police station a centre of "criminal enterprise" and a symbol of oppression for the city's residents, the military said the building was demolished with explosives after a pre-dawn assault by around 1,000 troops backed by tanks.” http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL533203.htm

“The signs of the militias are everywhere at the Sholeh police station. Posters celebrating Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army militia, dot the building's walls. The police chief sometimes remarks that Shiite militias should wipe out all Sunnis. Visitors to this violent neighborhood in the Iraqi capital whisper that nearly all the police officers have split loyalties.”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001323.html

I have more sources if you are interested.

CONT'

You say >> “So, by what law are police not allowed to arrest people dressed as civilians who have shot dead a policeman”

Iraqi Police are not authorized to arrest members of the coalition forces. The reason is simple. It prevents militia posing as police from arresting soldiers and then killing them.

You say >> Is he really trying to suggest that is likely that the police would have fired first unless the SAS men did something that appeared threatening to them, such as the SAS men reaching for their own weapons?

Yes Dagget, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I know you have tremendous difficulty with comprehension but I will put this simply for you. The Iraqi police have a very long tradition of breaking the law, not upholding it. During Saddams time they were an instrument of state oppression. Since the overthrow of Saddam, many Shia police, (who make up virtually ALL of Sothern Iraqs Police) owe their first allegiance to Moqtadr Al Sadr. So yes, I’m saying it is likely that the Iraqi police fired first. Iraqi police KNOW they are not allowed to arrest coalition soldiers, undercover or otherwise.

You say >> if the police shot first in an unprovoked premeditated fashion, then why would the police subsequently arrested them and not killed them outright?”

Firstly, the men were arrested by OTHER Iraqi police. Obviously the dead man and his injured colleague didn't arrest anyone. Secondly, I have never suggested that ALL Iraqi Police are militiamen. It does however seems they were arrested by police who were loyal to the Al Sadr. As evidenced by the handover of the brits.

Paul wrote, "Iraqi Police are not authorized to arrest members of the coalition forces. The reason is simple. It prevents militia posing as police from arresting soldiers and then killing them."

Even disregarding the illegality of the invasion of Iraq in the first place, I would have at least thought that policemen of Basra would not have been under any obligation to submit to the authority of British soldiers unless they were in uniform and certainly under no obligation to submit to the authority of British soldiers disguised to look like arabs.

Anyway, please be assured, I intend to respond, in full to the rest of Paul's unusually bizarre recent posts.
---

In the meantime, I urge everyone to check this brilliant BrassCheck TV broadcast(1) at:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/253.html

... and then afterwards visit:

http://www.newbushcoins.com/

... and order a set of 'coins' (fridge magnets really) for US$9.98 + postage and handling, particularly if you happen to live in North America.

---

CELEBRATING THE AGE OF BUSH

The commemorative coin set

You've probably seen the ads for commemorative coins celebrating Obama's election.

But what about soon to be former president George W. Bush?

Celebrate the president who gave so much (irony alert)

If you need a laugh, this will provide it.

Details:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/253.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.

---

1. However, I suspect that some of the humour will be lost on some in our midst, including 9/11 deniers and the politically correct.

If some members of the Basra police force were in sympathy with forces opposed to the British, as Paul alleges, then I would have thought that that would have been cause to re-examine the question of whether the invasion and military occupation of Iraq was justified.

Given what Naomi Klein has chronicled in "The Shock Doctrine" of the suppression of democracy following the invasion in order to allow Bush's crony capitalists to ransack the wealth of Iraq and impoverish Iraqis (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974#108120), I think hostility to the occupation forces, even amongst the police, would have been understandable.

Instead, Paul has tried to imply that, because of this alleged hostility, those police must have been automatically in the wrong.

---

Paul cites British undercover work in the IRA as a supposed success and justification for other 'undercover' work in Iraq, but ignores the fact that those undercover operatives participated in acts of terrorism and murder under orders from their handlers, ostensibly in order to preserve their cover.

The fact that the British failed to act upon warnings ("State-Sponsored Terror: British and American Black Ops in Iraq" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9447) by an undercover operative of the 1998 Omagh atrocity apparently carried out by an SAS double agent ("British Terrorism in Iraq" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1024) in which 29 people died should surely cause any critical-minded person to question what the precise purpose of the British undercover work in the IRA was.

One has to seriously ask whether IRA acts of terror, far from, in any way, helping the oppressed of Ireland or the UK, actually, instead, served the interests of British wealthy elite.

In the case of Iraq the political value to the occupation forces of terrorism ostensibly committed by Sunnis against Shiites and vice versa is obvious. As I have pointed out, Paul, himself, has often made the claim that more Iraqis have died at the hands of other Iraqis in order to divert attention away from crimes committed by the occupation forces.

(tobecontinued)

Looks as if I have lost whatever it was I meant to add to the above post.

I would have considered making use of another account to post the rest of the above, but, as many here may appreciate, there are pedants on OLO who delight in using apparent technical breaches of OLO rules to sidetrack the discussion.

If what I intended to write comes back to me I will post it.

---

So, what's happened to Paul? He has suddenly gone quite on all the forums on which I have been arguing with him.

Not that I want him to return, but as he has doggedly abused his OLO account to obfuscate the issues on a number of forums for many months and caused me to spend huge amount of my time trying to counter his sophistry, not to mention insults and personal attacks, I think I am now entitled to point out that either he has gone away or he is hiding.

Dagget,

You are an UTTER MORON.

I have embarrassed you a number of times by highlighting your lack of basic knowledge of the subjects you hold such strident opinions about(actually I'm not sure regurgitating Naomi Klein ad Nauseam counts as having an opinion, but we'll run with it.) So I am not sure why you insist on bringing my name into every rant you post. I suppose I should be flattered that you see me as such an expert that you feel unable to discuss the subject without referring to me.

I started a new job and i haven't had access to the internet for two weeks. So HIDING? From YOU. You NUTTER. As if.

Don't worry, when I get my phone line installed I'll be back to exposing your increasingly insane global conspiracies theories, as the rubbish that they are.

ROFLMAO at this gem.

you say >> he has doggedly abused his OLO account to obfuscate the issues on a number of forums for many months and caused me to spend huge amount of my time trying to counter his sophistry, not to mention insults and personal attacks"

After months of attempting to point out the insanity of your claims I find this surprising. And coming from someone who has ACTUALLY abused his OLO account a number of times, lying to many people in the process, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word HYPOCRICY.

Of the two of us, only one has deliberately lied to the contributors of OLO. And its not me.

Hard as this might be to believe for a nutjob such as yourself, I actually don't believe that the US was involved in the attacks on 911. I'm not trying to obfuscate anything, I'm telling the truth as i see it. That you believe this to be obfuscation says more about your below average comprehension skills and twisted mindset, than it does about me.

Thank you, Paul.

I think your above post sheds just about as much light on any of the topics at hand as any of your other numerous posts to this and to other forums.

It seems as if Paul has not been able to live up to his promise to get back to "exposing (my) increasingly insane global conspiracies theories, as the rubbish that they are."

Those hoping to finally learn why the September 11 attacks always happened exactly the way George Bush always told us they did may have been disappointed with Paul's latest effort at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=47#56147

"... You are a nutjob of the highest order. Its a pity it took me so long to realize that you are an entirely irrational person.

"You keep believing everyone is out to get you. Won't be long before you start introducing discussions about alien abductions and poltergeists."

Paul's been saying that for four and a half months now, but I can assure everyone that after all this time I didn't then, and still don't believe in alien abductions, nor do I believe in poltergeists.

Perhaps some of the other 9/11 Truth deniers who have repeatedly assured us that they have read the material and understand why the case of The 9/11 Truth Movement is hogwash could take up the baton on Paul's behalf, especially given the way he has explained to them with such clarity all the issues.