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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Voters' bravery gives Iraq a real sight of liberty > Comments

Voters' bravery gives Iraq a real sight of liberty : Comments

By Alexander Downer, published 14/2/2005

Alexander Downer argues that the Iraq election has been a success.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
The real struggle in the Middle East will be for the separation of powers and the separation of church and state. The later being a struggle the US has settled itself yet
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 14 February 2005 1:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the Iraqis choose, thru the democratic process, a religious state, then so be it. That will be a democratic outcome and we have 'suceeded' in that export market. l suspect however, that democracy as we see it, is a euphemism for 'what we want them to have as it long as it serves our interests.'
Posted by trade215, Monday, 14 February 2005 2:36:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I take my at off" to the Iraqi's who risked death or being maimed by cowardly terrorists to do wahat we Australians take for granted, and even grumble about.

The big voter turnout was a setback to the terrorists and also the local vocal critics who have done nothing but snipe at the Coalition of the Willing, especially President Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard. There are still problems to be solved, but at least the people of Iraq now have the solution in their own hands. If they show the same determination in doing that as they showed in coming out to vote, there is cause for some optimism.
Posted by Big Al 30, Monday, 14 February 2005 3:21:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At least the Iraqis get to choose whether they vote or not. Not all democracies have such freedoms.
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 14 February 2005 10:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker - Well said. Nothing annoys me more than having to haul down to vote in an election where I think none of the candiates have anything to offer.

When I moved overseas, I took the time to write to them so I wouldn't be fined for not excercising my democratic rights. The bureaucrats still couldn't work it out and sent a fine through to my mum's place for me. If I could have back the time and effort involved in straightening all that I'm sure I could find something better to do...

That voting is compulsory in a democratic election is contradictory and absurd.
Posted by jcl, Monday, 14 February 2005 11:48:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The success of the elections in Iraq is a good thing for the country and Australia should be proud, but it is misleading to pretend NOW that we went to war to secure this liberation for the Iraqi people.

We do need to keep our troops there until the Iraqi security forces are in a position to safeguard the safety citizens of Iraq. We need to do it properly this time. If this had been done right at the time of the 1st Gulf War we wouldn't have needed to have the second. Now we are committed we must see it through.

The war was supposedly about WMD and the world was lied to. The fact that it has all worked out well in the end doesn't change this. It makes me wonder what these lies have done for the image of the USA and Australia etc in countries like North Korea, India, Indonesia and Pakistan. I would think they would be less likely to trust the intelligence our governments receive.
Posted by jcl, Monday, 14 February 2005 11:54:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With the "oversight" of the american occupying forces, the interim governing council in Iraq signed a law providing that everything in Iraq is to be privatised and open to full foreign ownership or leasehold for the next 40 years. That includes the oil resources, and all amenities and public services, including health and education.

Any new "democratic" government in Iraq that attempts to repudiate this "law" will undoubtedly meet with forceful retaliation by the american occupying forces and the "coalition of the willing", including Australia.

Thank you Alexander Downer for explaining to us the true meaning of democracy.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 12:06:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"To the victor go the spoils". Nothing has changed in hundreds of years.
Posted by jcl, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 9:15:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with jcl that we now have to stay and see it through to the best possible conclusion.
I think there WERE WMD's but Saddam had time to truck them to Syria. We know for sure Saddam had Sarin gas because he used it on the unfortunate Kurds. A Sarin gas shell was found just a month or so ago. Saddam had defied 12 UN resolutions to prove he had disarmed as per the 1991 Ceasefire. If he had no WMD's why did he frustrate and intimidate the UN Inspectors?
We also have the testimony of Saddam's son-in-law Kamal Hussein who defected in 1995 after being in charge of Saddam's weapons program. He said that the UN Inspectors had missed the stockpile.
Isn't it a fact that VIRTUALLY EVERYONE [including John Kerry and the Australian Labor Caucas] were convinced that Iraq had WMD's? If all these people from political positions across the spectrum thought they had WMD's President Bush would have been accused of negligence had he not taken action to protect his nation and cover his bases on the balance of probabilities. Weapons expert David Kay gave evidence that although he found no WMD's at the time of invasion, there was a sizable WMD system capable of rapid build-up or dispersal as circumstances dictated. I THINK SADDAM WAS VERY CUNNING, BUT NOT QUITE CUNNING ENOUGH!!
Posted by Big Al 30, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 8:59:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hon Alexander Downer seems to be blissfully ignorant that we went to war on one of the biggest lies of the 21st century. But on reflection perhaps he wishes to ignore this fact because he was one of the few people in this country who was gullible enough to believe it in the first place. I still get a chuckle remembering his incompetence as Opposition Leader ( as one comedian once affectionately called it 'the Downer Months'). Maybe it should be pointed out to 'our Alexander' that Iraq was not the only country in the world to suffer from a despot. I seem to recall a despot in Indonesia, with the blessing of USA killing millions of his own people in the 60s then went on to kill thousands each year ever since then. I believe he is retired and lives comfortably in Jakarta. I never heard the need for the US or Australia ever talk of a pre-emptive strike during his regime in fact they have often aided it.
Posted by Antigone, Thursday, 17 February 2005 12:05:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Al #0 once again you wrong. Think you need to reread the papers and other media from that period there were many experts who were saying Iraq had no weapons chief amoung them was the UN weapons insectors lead by Hans Blinx. There was even a large number of intell peple saying the same thing the the US,UK and Aussie govs. Tell me why Iraq was a bigger threat then say North Korean?
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 17 February 2005 10:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, to answer your last point first, North Korea, for all its faults, communism, crazy leader, repression et al, has not invaded anyone since 1950. It is certainly a worry, but one thing at a time. Iraq has invaded Iran [1980] and Kuwait in 1990, and fired Scud missiles into Israel.

Iraq also had WMD's and contacts with terrorist groups, which I will attempt to cover as briefly as possible. [a] we know Saddam and his sadistic crazy sons and monsters like "Chemical Ali" used chemical weapons on the Kurds. It has been admitted that they had a stockpile left, some said 10,000 litres. It has never been accounted for. I don't think Saddam destroyed it do you?

[b[ UN Security Council Resolution 1441. passed unanimously in November 2002 recognised" ... the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles poses to international peace and security." The UN was convinced.

[c] ALP Spokesman Kevin Rudd told Parliament on September 17, 2002 that Saddam " has invaded his neaghbours in complete vioation of International Law, and he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction which in the past he has used against his own people and his neighbours. "None of these matters are the subject of dispute."
The Labor Party was convinced.

[d] Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay stated" Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations, that continued even beyond the end of "Operation Freedom".
In response to a question from CNN as to whether the was was worthwhile, Kay responded:"Absolutely, and not just for the Iraq's. "I think the world is far safer. "I actually Saddam and Iraq were becoming more dangerous to us, not less dangerous".
Kay was convinced.

[e[ The Flood Report into Australia's Intelligence Services reported: "The Iraqi leadership retained the ambition and intent to have a WMD program [and there there was indeed a weapons program, if not stockpiles of weapons.." [f] The Butler report into British Intelligence reported that Iraq "... had the strategic intention of resuming the the pursuit of prohibited weapons program, including, if possible, its nuclear program...."Flood and Butler were convinced.

[g] Kay's successor Charles Duelfer reported that Irag was necotiating with North Korea for missiles, and its chemical wapons program could be reactivated at short notice. Duelfer was convinced.

Connections with terrorist organistations [1] In 1994 the deputy director of IIS {the Iraqi Intelligence Service} Faruq Hijazi met Osama bin-laden in Sudan. [2] Iraqi vice-president reportedly met Osama bin-laden in Baghdad in January 1998 and bin-laden's deputy Ayman al Zawahiri in February 1998. The purpose of these meetings was to establish terrorist training camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan.

There are other instances I could quote, but I recall reading that a terrorist training camp had been found in Northern Iraq in the first days of the war,

Iraq hates America. Osama bin-laden hates America. It's logical that they would get together, especially if Osama pledged that no activities would be launched against Saddam as captured documents reveal.

Kenny, you asked me to read up on this, but I don't think any of it has helped your case.
Posted by Big Al 30, Sunday, 20 February 2005 11:46:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, to answer your last point first, North Korea, for all its faults, communism, crazy leader, repression et al, has not invaded anyone since 1950. It is certainly a worry, but one thing at a time. Iraq has invaded Iran [1980] and Kuwait in 1990, and fired Scud missiles into Israel.
The West encourage the Iraqis to invade Iran to get rid of that Anatolia chap.

Iraq also had WMD's and contacts with terrorist groups, which I will attempt to cover as briefly as possible. [a] we know Saddam and his sadistic crazy sons and monsters like "Chemical Ali" used chemical weapons on the Kurds. It has been admitted that they had a stockpile left, some said 10,000 litres. It has never been accounted for. I don't think Saddam destroyed it do you? The US weapons inspectors do now and so did Hans Blinx team. The Iraqs simply did not document it very well.

[b[ UN Security Council Resolution 1441. passed unanimously in November 2002 recognised" ... the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles poses to international peace and security." The UN was convinced. Yes they were convinced with sexed up and down right doggey intelligence.

[c] ALP Spokesman Kevin Rudd told Parliament on September 17, 2002 that Saddam " has invaded his neaghbours in complete vioation of International Law, and he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction which in the past he has used against his own people and his neighbours. "None of these matters are the subject of dispute."
The Labor Party was convinced.

[d] Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay stated" Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations, that continued even beyond the end of "Operation Freedom".
In response to a question from CNN as to whether the was was worthwhile, Kay responded:"Absolutely, and not just for the Iraq's. "I think the world is far safer. "I actually Saddam and Iraq were becoming more dangerous to us, not less dangerous".
Kay was convinced.
David Kay to the US senate “Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here”

[e[ The Flood Report into Australia's Intelligence Services reported: "The Iraqi leadership retained the ambition and intent to have a WMD program [and there there was indeed a weapons program, if not stockpiles of weapons.." [f] The Butler report into British Intelligence reported that Iraq "... had the strategic intention of resuming the the pursuit of prohibited weapons program, including, if possible, its nuclear program...."Flood and Butler were convinced.

[g] Kay's successor Charles Duelfer reported that Irag was necotiating with North Korea for missiles, and its chemical wapons program could be reactivated at short notice. Duelfer was convinced.

Connections with terrorist organistations [1] In 1994 the deputy director of IIS {the Iraqi Intelligence Service} Faruq Hijazi met Osama bin-laden in Sudan. [2] Iraqi vice-president reportedly met Osama bin-laden in Baghdad in January 1998 and bin-laden's deputy Ayman al Zawahiri in February 1998. The purpose of these meetings was to establish terrorist training camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan.
Rumsfelt met with Bin-Laden as well does that mean he was in with him?

Most people who thought the intel was either being spun or fabricated generally had to resign to make their concerns know the most high profile one was former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in his March 2003 resignation speech:
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term -- namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.
Many others made the assumption is that Saddam had the WMD, but that they weren't very dangerous.
Australian Intelligence officer Andrew Wilkie in March 2003:

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program is, I believe, genuinely contained. There is no doubt they have chemical and biological weapons, but their program now is disjointed and limited. It's not a national WMD program like they used to have.
Again, the WMDs are there, just not much of a threat. And so on, with the most skeptical voice coming from Russian President Vladimir Putin saying in October 2002 that it's unlikely that any weapons exist, but even so, the Russians worry that they might. So everyone thought they were there, but only the Bush administration thought they were an imminent existential threat to the United States.


There are other instances I could quote, but I recall reading that a terrorist training camp had been found in Northern Iraq in the first days of the war,

Iraq hates America. Osama bin-laden hates America. It's logical that they would get together, especially if Osama pledged that no activities would be launched against Saddam as captured documents reveal. What documents ?

Kenny, you asked me to read up on this, but I don't think any of it has helped your case.
I don’t think you looked hard to find views that didn’t support yours have another look. I’ll give you this link to a right wing think tank the very famous Cato group. http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-19-02.html
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 21 February 2005 10:19:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, sorry I have taken so long to reply.
[1] David Kay. In the evidence given to the US Senate on Jan 28 Kay mentions that Jacques Chirac and German Intelligence both believed that Iraq had WMD's. Two more convinced. Surely they would have had different sources from the U.S. However, as Kay stated, they were "wrong"..
However, if you read his statement on October 2 before the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence, you see that what he is saying that we expected to find stacks of WMD's on the ground, and we were "wrong" inasmuch as we didn't find any. They had been removed or destroyed,and paperwork and computer records destroyed. But we did find evidence of the programs which made them. Kay's report which printsout as 9 and a bit pages says this:
"Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to acquire weapons of mass destruction. ...... " Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam and his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."
I uggest you read the side www.cia.gov.cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david kay It's a mass of detailed information, [much too long to attempt here] and might give you a different view of the WMD matter.

I have had a look at cato website with its 10 reasons for not invading.
Most of them, such as "High Casualties" , "Spiralling oil prices" and "Isolated Diplomatically" did not occur. "Increased al-Qaeda recruitment is a possibility, but I think the Israel-Palestine situation is the main trigger they have used, Also our assistance to East Timor is used as an excuse to fan hatred of the West. Any excuse will do.
Saddam certainly helped ME terrorists by financial rewards to Palestinian suicide bombers' families, and the 500 suicide bomb kits found in an Iraqi school were probably bound for Hamas or other terrorists groups there.

.
Running out of words. Will add another post later.
Posted by Big Al 30, Saturday, 26 February 2005 4:20:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re links to al-Qeda, [1] Iraq's Intelligence explosives expert Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed visited Osama bin-laden's farm near Khartoum in 1995 and 1996 with Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, Director of Iraqi Intelligence.

[2] Saddam first sought al-Qaeda's support after the 1991 Gulf War, through his connections with Sudan and Afghanistan. The leader of the National Islamic Front, Hussan al-Turabi arranged the connection. In 1990 an Islamic coup in Sudan had created a safe haven for al-Qaeda to build and organise.

[3]In Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir a customs official at the airport [who records later proved was a lieutenant-colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen] greeted one of the 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and accompanied him to a 3-day meeting with other 9/11 planners. Also present was the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole, Tawfiz al Atash.

[4] The Czech Government claims that 9/11 bomber Mohamed Atta met Iraqi Intelligence agent Zhmed al-Ani who had diplomatic status at the Iraqi Embassy. They planned to recruit militants to blow up Radio Free Europe, but their plan foiled.

[5] The captured documents I mentioned last time were referred to in a Memorandum from the Undersecretary of Defense for Police Douglas J. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was corroborated from multiple sources including captured al-Qaeda, Iraqi defectors and Iraqi Intelligence.

[6] Former counter terrorist adviser to President Clinton, Mansoor Ijaz has given evidence that Iraq trained al-Qaeda terrorists in explosives and WMD's gave them safe haven, training camps and financial support.

Re the Iraq-Iran war, no doubt the US was glad to see Iran clobbered, but I don't buy the complicity claim.

To sum up, some people would not endorse this war no matter how strong the evidence. Some people even today consider the Korean War and the First Gulf War unjustifiable . I believe that Iraq had WMD's they had time and opportunity to dismantle, transport to Syria, bury or destroy these weapons. They had the capability to re-activate these programs, and the connections to terrorist groups which created the unthinkable - WMD's in al-Qaeda and other terrorist hands.
Posted by Big Al 30, Monday, 28 February 2005 3:21:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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