David Flint is quite correct. There have been some members of the extreme left media who have calaimed that there were no weapns of mass destruction. Were that to be true it would mean that the war in Iraq was illegal and 100's of thousands had been murdered.

Don, If there is ONE thing that I take extreme exception to, it is the concept of 'legal and illegal' when it comes to war. I would agree to moral and immoral, but NOT 'legal' as IF there were some high human authority which is 'without sin' that it can cast stones at others, without some rebounding on themselves.
You would HAVE to be on the left of Marx somewhere, because the obvious sign is that terminology u use. "legal war".. When the Germans attacked the Poles it was quite LEGAL (to them) but it was immoral to all. The UN (if that is what ur referring to as the basis for legality and its pet "international law") I have to just roll my eyes and sigh.

The concept is defeated before it begins, and its for the same reason 'socialism' as an ideology and political system failed and continues to fail, 'human nature, greed, envy, hatred, ego' etc etc.
Capitalism, on the other hand, 'succeeds' but newsflash, as a political system it will doom us to the on going scrap heap of history as it seeks to draw worshippers to the tabernacle of 'shareholder value' and economic rationalism.
By now u must be confused, "where does THIS guy stand" ? well, I'll save you the trouble of wondering. I'm what is usually called a'Godbotherer' in these forums.
I have the belief that no matter which political system we have, either left or right, it will inevitably fail to deliver true justice and responsible stewardship of the planet unless the hearts and minds driving the agenda are renewed by the indwelling of Christ. Theocracy u say ? not at all, just people who are able to govern under guidance of the still small voice which utters "this is the way, walk in it".

Ah, now he is hearing VOICES... watch him..... I'm referring to concience, which is sharpened and focused by a relationship with God thru Christ.

Boaz
I agree with many of your sentiments. I find the idea of legal/illegal war repugnant. The invasion of Iraq is immoral. I also agree that there is little difference between right or left wing governments in Australia - while economic (ir)rationalism rules, we are governed by the greedy and opportunistic.

You are right about conscience, mine is in constant vigilance. However, where we differ is that you believe to solve all this we just have to let jesus into our lives. I don't accept that christ is the one and only answer, maybe for you but not for others. I also find this concept simplistic. I wish it would be that easy. Human nature is fickle and a one answer solution doesn't work. I don't know just how we can inject some honesty and accountability into goverment and big business, but a sharpened conscience is a good start.

With regard to bias by our media - which ever government is in power - right or left, if criticised by the media then it is assumed that the media is biased in the opposite direction. Really just a way of condemning free speech.

Peace.

Somebody else commented about the futility of making ironic statements in these forums. Actually don, the reason the yanks have been shooting journos in Iraq is that the wicked Bolshevik scribes hid all the WMDs just to make the neo-crusaders look unjustified in waging war against a much weaker enemy.

The non-existence of the WMDs is a commie plot hatched by Fidel Castro and David Marr. As they say, Bush and his dogs of war know that Saddam had WMDs - because they still have the receipts!

Why, I bet all those WMDs have been secretly hidden in a bunker below the ABC Gore Hill studios. [Deleted for flaming. Author has been suspended].

Morganzola
You always bring a smile to my dial. This forum would be much poorer without you.

Have a little sympathy for flinty - he's not got much to do these days. Eeeek what am I saying? I'm just feeling too tolerant - must get back to feisty provocateur mode.

ciao

>>Pericles, are u suggesting that 'one clearly uttered statement' is not enough to base a view of bias on ?<<

Boaz, that is exactly what I am suggesting. It does of course indicate the prejudice of the utterer, but it is unrealistic to extrapolate that to the entire medium. If that were the case, how would you ever hear dissenting opinions on anything? We would have instead narrow channels exclusively catering to an individual bias.

"Say, I'd like to hear how the neo-cons think, I'll tune to CNN. Now I've heard that, I'll check on those soft-lefties at the ABC" People tend to have different views, they should be allowed to express them without the automatic assumption that the platform they use is also dedicated to their message.

On reflection, I think that may be where we are heading, and could also be the reason folks like Flint spend so much of their time demonizing the ABC. Once you have persuaded the world that the organ of free speech is in fact tainted, it is so much easier to suppress it.