Tim

"Collaboration in the illegal invasion of a country"
Please show a court case which has decided it was illegal or show how every possible reason for the military action was not valid. Otherwise you are just ignoring contrary opinions without discussion.

"which posed no threat to this country"
So you feel that the people of iraq have been brutally repressed for 25 years is not a good enough reason to remove Saddam and his regime?

"This country has been incapable of exercising strategic independence."
And yet the call is always for 'mutlilateral' action. So your saying we should act independently with a group of other nations?
Or do you merely want to imply that because our government agrees with another countries decisions and supports those decisions we are not acting independently?

"What public discussion there is of our role in global affairs bears on the efficacy of integration into imperial plans, rather than the question of independence from them."
I'm a little confused here Tim. Are you saying that America and Australia have made an empire by conquering and controlling those nations it has conquered? Please be specific about where you feel that America and Australia have stayed in decisional control of any nation they have attacked? are you suggesting perhaps Germany? Japan? Kosovo?
Please, enlighten us as to where this vast empire is? Or are you merely using inappropriate words in some poor attempt at propoganda?

"The proposition that the Empire, or anyone else, might be able to “export democracy” hardly bears much serious discussion. "
Of course. Dismissing serious discussion seems to be how you feel you will get people to believe you.

"the mass murder in military interventions in Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq, the backing of “dirty wars” in Indonesia, East Timor, El Salvador and Nicaragua,"
I'm glad you can decide that all this 'mass murder' has taken place with a quick wave of you hand. Are you saying all these wars were illegal or unjust? (Seeing as how murder is an intentional unjust killing) Or perhaps it is merely that you would have preferred the Taliban was still repressing women, that Saddam was still brutalizing and starving his own people?

Let me make it very clear. I am proud of the fact that Australia had a hand in the removal of Saddam. He needed to go, for the sake of the Iraqi people.

"the consistent support for ethnic cleansing in Palestine,"
Yeah. I hear over and over again how our leaders encourage and support ethnic cleansing (In palestine or anywhere else)? Oh, thats right, I have heard no such thing.Please, the propaganda is a little thick.

Note that I am saying that America or Australia is perfect, or that they have not done the wrong thing in the past. But so what? Clearly America has not taken any land from any other nation. They are not 'empire building' and to accuse them of such is rhetorical drivel that is not worth the bandwith.

"Rather than preaching democracy to other countries, as a self-styled “Deputy Sheriff”'"
Your right. We should avoid helping any nations people escape from brutal dictatorship. That would be immoral. Is this really what you are saying?

"The Australian media lauded recent elections in Iraq. Yet those elections were held under military occupation,"
Of course they 'lauded' it. The iraqi people got out and voted. Showing they care for their country. Under threats of death from terrorists and those who used to repress the iraqi people.
Are you suggesting that the military should just pull out straight away? That they should leave Iraq to chaos and civil strife?

"with widespread torture by the occupying army;"
Wow. 'Widespread' torture. Please stick to facts Tim. Your exaggerations are so transparent that it only makes you look like a wingnut, rather than a person with a reasoned opinion.

"the assassination of journalists"
I certainly hope you aren't referring to the rubbish mr Jordan was spouting that has been shown to be without factual support...

"What does it say about the Australian mass media that that it unanimously linked this bit of theatre to “democracy”? "
I would call it accurate reporting, as this is an important step in establishing a democracy. Letting the people decide who gets a say in writing their constitution before full elections.
You seem to be implying that we should just be able to snap our fingers and 'hey presto' a democracy appears.

"But our public debates are shallow and compromised, through our lack of independence"
or perhaps they are shallow because wingnuts keep spouting factless propaganda rather than dealing with reality and facts.

"First is the corporate grip on public debate,"
Wow. A corporate grip? In a capitalistic country, a group of individuals (i.e. a corporation) has a say in public debate. I'm shocked. Now, if you want to do anything but assert they control the debate I would be more sympathetic to your comments, but as it is, you don't. No suprise there really.

"second the poor structure of political representation"
If you think the politicians ignore the will of the majority of the people, then I think you must be badly misinformed. You need to realise that just because the government does something that you personally disagree with, does not imply that the structure of political representation is poor.

'At the same time this mass media labels as “terrorists”, to be exterminated, those poor and desperate Palestinian and Iraqi youth fighting to protect their families and homes"
Those poor and desperate palestinian and iraqi people who strap explosives to disabled people and young children you mean? Those poor and desperate iraqi's (lets not forget the large chunk of foreign terrorists) who want to return to the good old days of repressing the rest of the population. Those poor and desperate palestinians whose stated goal is the destruction of the state of israel?

And yet, we find in the media there is almost no labelling these 'poor and desperate' as terrorists. They are most commonly referred to as 'Militants' or 'Insurgents'. So once again, Tim, your exaggerations are transparent.

Please Tim. Next time, avoid the propaganda, avoid the exaggerations. Stick to the facts and your arguments will seem less like the rhetorical drivel of a wingnut and more like a reasoned discussion. There were definitely points in your article that should be discussed (e.g. America's mistakes in the past like in Chile, or even discussing what it means to be a citizen and the rights and responsibilities that entails), but these points are lost in the ranting.

Grey, now you are being facetious.

"beans" and "nutritious" are not labels, they have perfectly acceptable dictionary definitions. There is a significant difference between "bean", a simple noun whose first usage was over a millenium ago, and a composite term that is rarely used consistently.

But I think you know this, and are simply trying to obfuscate a lost cause.

And please, nowhere have I claimed to be "learned and knowledgeable".

The question of legality and justice in war is irrelevant.

Legality and justice are intellectual contructs. Cracking someone's skull open is not.

War is not reason. It is force. Competing interests seek to force their interests upon one another. Each believes themselves to be right and rationalises the decision as they see fit. Both cant be right or wrong at the same time.

No reason, no logic, no justice, no right, no wrong. Just force.

In any event the reasons are what they are. They deeds stand. In the end, it is the deeds that define not the words.

Sorry Grey, but if you will lead with your chin:

>>And yet, we find in the media there is almost no labelling these 'poor and desperate' as terrorists. They are most commonly referred to as 'Militants' or 'Insurgents'<<

It appears that you do in fact know the difference between a noun and a label. And clearly, you understand also the way in which they are used to demonize, without needing the intellectual rigour of an explanation.

Why did you protest so much before?

Pericles
"There is a significant difference between "bean", a simple noun whose first usage was over a millenium ago, and a composite term that is rarely used consistently."
There you go labelling again. Just because something can have multiple meanings, and so is not necessarily used consistently, does not mean it should not be used. Any number of words have multiple meanings and can still be used in conversation. It merely means that you may have to seek clarification on a meaning.

"It appears that you do in fact know the difference between a noun and a label. And clearly, you understand also the way in which they are used to demonize, without needing the intellectual rigour of an explanation."
I think you miss the point completely. I understand quite definitely the difference between a noun and a label. A noun generally tells you about something. For instance we known that a bean has certain attributes. So to call something a bean, is to say it has those attributes. It is a label. Now either the object you labelled a bean has those attributes or it doesn't. And before you can claim to be demonizing the object by calling it a bean, you first need to ascertain whether that object indeed has the attributes of a bean.

Now I do quite clearly understand how people can choose words that are inaccurate in order to demonize or spread propaganda. Tim's diatribe is a good example of this. But this decision is based on the accuracy of the "label's" he has used. As the obvious example, his use of the word Empire is clearly inaccurate for the reasons mentioned in my last post. As the whole of Tim's rant is anti-american, it is clear, when combined with this inaccuracy that he may indeed be attempting to demonize.

Note that I do tell Tim to not use the word 'Empire' simple because it is used in different ways, but because it is inaccurate, especially in the context it is used.

Of course, this leads in nicely to my next point. That is, that you complain about left/right, but why not Empire as Tim has used it?
Certainly it is a major theme in his entire article.

"And please, nowhere have I claimed to be "learned and knowledgeable"."
Of course. My mistake.

Trade
"No reason, no logic, no justice, no right, no wrong. Just force.

In any event the reasons are what they are. They deeds stand. In the end, it is the deeds that define not the words. "

Then why act? Why complain. If there is no right or wrong (i.e. no way something 'ought' to be) then why act at all?

if you are saying that might makes right, then surely the US is always right?