The author doesn’t like America, the West, or other journalists because they are not reporting his ‘truths’. We are all going to remember the ‘dreadful’ things done in 2005 by imperialist America, but nothing said about Islamist terror.

“We should take heart from the fact that the US’s global influence is waning”…. and apparently look forward to …” a world without constant US threats and bullying “, according to Loewenstein. Pretty weird stuff from a Westerner in a Western country that has never been bullied or threatened by America.

The US is not perfect, but the rest of the Western world should be grateful that it is OUR imperfect ally, and not the other side’s.

Loewenstein warns us against the “false presumptions” of the Australian media, but expects us to trust someone called Dahr Jamail, described as an “independent reporter”. Does anyone know him? Is he telling the truth?

There are a couple of quotes from Noam Chomsky, the world’s leading left crackpot, and a claim that Iran is the major beneficiary of the Iraq war. This “truth” is, of course, obscured in the West. We are not told how or by whom.

Then we have Tariq Ali (at least we’ve heard of him) reminding the author that America couldn’t have invaded Iraq without the Iranian mullahs. It’s a pity we readers weren’t let in on the secret. It would make AL more believable and not leave us as suspicious of him as he wants us to be of other journalists.

All of AL’s other support material is weak too. Soldiers’ alleged “cultural insensitivity” “… may have spurred the growth of the insurgency”. The alleged experience of an interrogator (after he has left the job, as usual) describing atrocities. Who would believe anyone who told such stories without also telling how he tried to prevent it happening? He was in the same line of work.

This author shouldn’t be criticising the mainstream media. He should concentrate on lifting his own game. We want facts, not opinions and heresay.

Memo to Mr Loewenstein.

If you are going to write propaganda, at least try to write good propaganda. The trick is to be subtle. You have to pretend that that you are honest and impartial, and that you are simply writing the truth. Your article was so full of the usual reflexive anti Americanism that readers know straight away that you are a US and Western world hating trendy lefty. That straight away destroys your credibility.

Your effort is similar to the propaganda written by the Chinese in the Korean war. The Chinese submitted a "spontaneous confession" by a shot down US pilot to the United Nations entitled, "How My Cruel Capitalist Masters Forced Me To Wage Inhuman Germ Warfare Against Peace Loving Socialist People."

I didn't work. Neither will your article. At least outside of the readership of the Green Left Weekly. People are not as dumb as you think we are.

Remember, be subtle.

Fellow human. There is no space for a treatise on the problems with Islam. Which is why I included a link.

By doing this I defer to someone who is an intellectual superior ie I point to the other person's expertise not my own.

I don't claim the kind of knowledge Spengler has.

Its monotonous in its regularity but whenever there are substantive arguments against Islam the rejoinder is "get a life","so-called expert","racist","muslim basher","nazi", or some such thing.

Thank you for the link to your blog but the questions about Islam I want answers to aren't asked there. I hope you are successful in making many moderate Muslims, I think common sense moderate Muslims are God's mercy walking and talking.

The only way Christianity and Islam will be able to live together in modern world is if there is fierce theological dialogue. Superficial 'tolerance' will end up in disaster (eg Aceh). It is the left who don't believe in objective truth who think all religions are the same who are putting us at risk.

Fellow human can you find answers to the problem of mode of revelation in Islam? Can you really equate all the horrific sayings in the Koran with the Gospels? The Hadiths are triply horrific. What is in Islam that would prevent a pious young man having the courage of his faith to follow his religion to its logical conclusions? Islam's lived example is frighteningly anti human rights. Where are your words of explanation for non-muslims in here?

Martin Ibn Warriq,

“The only way Christianity and Islam will be able to live together in modern world is if there is fierce theological dialogue”.

Agree with your statement, and II believe there could a lot more done on this front.
There is too much of the “I am right you are wrong” debates but not enough dialogue.

I grew up where there was a dialogue and harmony between the two religions. My blogspot is an attempt to gather moderates of all Abraham religions to interact about future and better world. Its failry successful (I have 80 regular visitors). Its interactive by the way so I am publishing topics as I get asked, you can ask a question anytime.

I live by 'lighting a candle is better than cursing the dark', my blogspot is my candle.

Peace,

Interesting article. Thanks to everyone for their posts - this looks like another lively discussion.

BD ("'we were all sucked in by the WMD scam'....errrr.. nope.. never really cared about that, cared more that Sadaam was using Oil4Food money for PALACES while Iraqi children starved, and died through lack of medicine caused by his financial priorities") - I am relatively certain this was as much a result of the US and others trade embargoes of Iraq since the last war?

Are you really trying to cop out behind the fact that the US-led war in Iraq was some sort of humanitarian intervention for the sake of the Iraqi people? Yeah right. Just like Vietnam was for the sake of the people of Vietnam. The war was for control of the middle-east, and hundred’s of thousands more have died. I mean, lets not forget who installed Saddam in government in the first place.

In the end, even if what has happened leads to a lift in the standard of living and democracy of the reason, we have to ask – at what cost? And we surely cannot cop out behind the fact that this was even in the mind of Bushy when he pushed the ‘GO’ button

I absolutely believe there is humanitarian reasons for iraq, and they should be taken into account in discussions of war. You should note that John Howard was the only leader (out of america and britain and aus) that said that the humanitarian cause was of equal weight with that of the weapons of mass destruction.

When calculating the success, one should include the cost of not takin action, continued sanctions with all the death adn suffering which would have lasted at least until sadaam's death, perhaps twenty-thirty years. Only then compare that against the cost of acting, this too should be counted over a twenty year period. This is why only history will be able to answer the question 'was it worth it".

Given the number of authoritarian regimes kicked out in peaceful revolutions, one wonders why all people against the war never mention this in their posts.

Latte lefty is a great description of most of the western population, out of control!