I anticipate that most of the posts that develop in this will be quick, smart, anti Bush slogans along the lines of "I told you so".

The number of country references in the State of the Union (SOTU) address probably does not have the same self evident importance to us Aussies as a basis for argument that is does for John Hickman.

The last paragraph is gold though:

"...Bush asserted that a sudden withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would leave “a strategic country” under the control of Sunni Islamists and show that US commitments were unreliable. This is nonsense."

Not nonsense in the sense that future US invasions to "liberate" and "install democracy" will indeed be seen as "unreliable".

However Hickman may be right in the next sentence "When the US military ultimately withdraws, the Iranians will probably end up controlling oil rich southern Iraq and perhaps the rest of the country as well."

This is a genuine risk particularly if Iran has (or about to have) nuclear weapons. Iraq's conventional army has also been decimated by 2 to 3 years of US "assistance and training".

This is in the historical context that Iraq and Iran fought a large war between 1980 and 1988 in which there were around a million casualties.

The "domino theory" may indeed be trotted out by the US as a partial reason. Hickman means that the US needs to defend "democratic" Iraq against a hungry Iran - in order to prevent the next dominoes (Kuwait, Syria etc) falling to Iran.

The US may be correct about this Iran threat. Its hard to prove the US is wrong on complex, future, international crises.

We have lots of preconceptions but its wide open about this.

After the ritualised anti Bush sloganeering posters below may ponder what Iran has said and done.

The democratisation rhetoric is changing of late. Rumsfeld criticizes the several times democratically re-elected Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for "consolidating his power". The blackguard, fancy consolidating his power, what nerve! So democracy is ok, as long as it delivers a right wing government. But if it delivers a left wing or fundamentalist government, then democracy is not so reliable, in the US's (and by default Howard's) eyes.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.

So Plantagenet, yes, we told you so. You must admit that Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster of the hugest proportions. And don't tell me that it was worth it to capture Saddam or to install democracy. You can't give one justification before an action, and then choose another one afterwards. Howard said "We KNOW Saddam has WMDs". He knew damn well that was a lie.

I would love some of the anti-war posters to please explain to me how they would safeguard our appropriation of most of the Middle East's oil resources, make the world safe for capitalism, and maintain our current standard of living other than with a little war now and then. The way the maniac running Iran is going on, the prospect of a major war in the region is increasing steadily. At least this time there seems to be no division between europe and america, with everyone dusting off their missiles and re-orienting them toward Teheran. At least the west has major forces near the iranian border. They most probably wouldn't invade, just launch missiles to destroy Iran's infrastructure.

You are so right, Plersedus,

It is not a case of saying hullo to the new world, but a case of 'long time no see' to an old aquaintance, British colonialism.
Simply a case of changing from gunboat diplomacy to missile diplomacy. A case since the end of the all generous Marshall Plan after WW2, of swinging back to the colonial free market, just pasting a 'neo' behind it.

Without the Soviets, wish we could have ideas like the Marshall Plan back - days of generosity and forgiveness, and sharing the blame, what is needed so much right now in the world

What is "democracy?" Do we have democracy in Australia ? We have a totaliarian government, who do whatever they want, irrespective of public opinion or the 49% who did not vote for them.
Example of Australian democracy, we have a member of federal parliament, who received 1.88% of the primary vote, who has the power to dictate how policy should go accordingly to his belief. The other part of the "Coalition" party enjoy representation in the lower federal house yet received less votes than another opposing party, who have no representation. George Bush received 38% of the vote of the USA populace and enjoys world power.
Before we impose "Democracy" on other nations who have never known democracy. How about we bring a fair political representation of democracy to Australia.
As to the USA government, they are still playing the old tune to prove their exsistence.

Professor Hickman has penned his article with the black ink of pessimism, cynicism, and sarcasm. He decries the project of the Americans to establish democracy in the region as a "millennial expectation", and hence, as a blatant failure. He derides "neoconservative thinking" to "trigger a wave of democratization across the Arab... world and usher in Immanuel Kant's long awaited Democratic Peace". This really "embroiders" his pessimism about the establishment of democracy, if that is what he means by "Democratic Peace", with the golden threads of the great philosopher's thoughts that were span in the 1760s. Democracy in Europe was established long after the 1847-48 revolutions, whose volcanic waves would bring forth the birth of democracy on the continent. So democracy in the Arab region is of a long haul, although far from being as long as Europe's, and cannot be accomplished overnight, as apparently Hickman expects.

The goal of establishing democracy in the Mideast will bring economic prosperity and freedom from fear for its people. It will also deliver security to Western nations by defeating terrorism. It's not a millennarian goal nor does it need "rhetorical justification", in the aftermath of 9/11.

Also, Hickman, does not even ponder the high probability that Saddam's WMD were moved to Syria, just prior to the invasion. It's inconceivable to imagine, that whilst his major rival Iran was developing nuclear weapons, that Saddam would give up his own. This would have been akin that the iron dictator all of a sudden became a votary of the Dalai Lama.

Blog NEMESIS: http://congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com

Themistocles,
I agree!
____________________
Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction he had previously used them, so it was not a lie. Intelligence believed he hid them in Iraq. It was just that they were not found post the occupation. UN photographic reports show they were dimantelled about two months before the occupation. I have copies of these UN reports with sattelite photographic evidence showing the dismantling of the many buildings that housed them. This was given to me by persons working in RAAF Radar and intelligence gathering.

George Hormis visited Australia recently and verified they certainly had them and they were shipped to Syria.

Georges Hormis Sada graduated from Iraq's Air Academy in 1959 and was trained by elite forces in Great Britain, Russia and the U.S. An ace fighter pilot who trained other pilots, he went on to become air vice marshal in Saddam Hussein's military. His acts of bravery, including saving the lives of forty downed coalition pilots in the Gulf War, have earned him hero status.

John Hickman.Good article it is good to see someone bring back some sanity, to the unmittigated disaster called "Iraq Freedom".

As you are well aware(and you don't need any info from me)This war was hatched by George Bush and his coterie of rabid right wing evangelical
head cases, years before the actual invasion took place.There is not a sentient being on the planet that now believes this war was about W.M.D.

I find it interesting that after the other unmittigated disaster Viet Nam,that this war even got off the ground.Of course as we all know now it was the Gulf of Tonkin incident.The reporting of claims as absolute truths,and a pattern of lies took hold and a plient press fed this horse sh@t to the masses.This opened the floodgates for the bloody Viet Nam war.Of course then it was the domino theory.This war fought over thirty years ago,still has an impact on family's today.American prisons and mental hospitals are full of Viet Nam Vets.As an aside my brother is one of them.I asked him once "what possess you to volunteer for that debacle"He responded"I was young and niave,and I didn't think my goverment would lie to me.Of course then as now most of the morons who hatched the Iraq war have never fired a shot in anger.

What really annoys me is the supposed influence of George Bush in this disaster.For mine,I don't believe this man knows where Iraq is.I would truly beleieve,he thinks,a Sunni Islamist is some kind of T.V. dinner.

The Gulf war columnist Sydney Shanberg warned journalists, not to forget the unquestioning chorus of agreeability,when Lydon Johnson bamboozled us with the fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident,and blamed not only the press but also the apparent amnesia of the wider American public.

Thank God in a couple of years Bush will be gone,and come November the republican party will be swept from government.I pray that some one in the future can undo the damage this man has brought apon America and indeed the human race.

AMSADL

Your comments lack historical perspective and logic.

Read the posts from Philo, plerdsus and Themistocles etc. You’ll learn something.

Its not surprising that the US wants the kind of democracies that serve its national interests. That’s human nature at work.

Or do you think the US has ever been an even-handed godlike world policeman. Read a bit more history mate.

Why should Saddam have the right to:
- have enormous oil power;
- attack Iran in 1980
- keep fighting Iran for 8 years until 1988 for no gain (vastly worse in terms of lives lost than the US occupation);
- widely use chemical weapons, including mustard gas in the above war
- invade Kuwait in 1990 (blame that on the West)
- all the time killing his own people (many of whom wanted democracy)
- while building more palaces with the oil profits?

Do you think Saddam was a force for democracy and should have stayed in power?

Yes the invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam was just. It was also for OIL (not WMDs or counterterrorism).

Far fewer Iraqis are dying now than during Saddam’s wars in 1980-88 against Iran or during Gulf War One. Now its mainly Iraqi's killing Iraqi's. Before it was Iranian and Iraqi Muslims killing each other. But I'm sure you'll blame it all on the West.

You are more aware of the occupation of Iraq because America is involved – therefore the Western press are there.

The Press hardly covered the vastly worse Iran Iraq War. Therefore you know little about it.

Here’s an account of the Saddam’s Iran Iraq war AMSADL (you'll be thinking Iran-Contra affair as the reason - West-centric but...).

“...perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded- and millions were made refugees. The Iraqis suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties. Another 60,000 were taken prisoner by the Iranians. The war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives and injured more than 500,000, out of a total population which by the war's end was nearly 60 million.” http://www.iranchamber.com/history/iran_iraq_war/iran_iraq_war3.php

Read some history then reply.

Good point Kipp but I suspect that'll go strait over most people's heads and be branded as rhetoric. Most people are unaware of the shady double-dealings of the 2000 elections in the US (and the 2004 elections to a lesser extent).

I find it strange that the one person who is the most damaging to democracy in the US is trying to claim he wants to spread it to other countries. But before anyone goes too hard on poor ol' Bushy, remember, he's just the puppet. It is the likes of Karl Rove who are pulling the strings.

But there is one more motive that most seem to forget about and that is that governments always need a bad guy to scare the public with, and hence the reason Bin Laden will never be caught. The communists, the soviets and now the terrorists - one can only guess what the next will be.

Having an evil to defeat is essential for governments and their agendas. Without it, the people will have the time to concentrate on the scandals that they and their donating corporate partners are involved in. Speaking of which has anyone else noticed that every time the Bush administration is involved in a scandal, or is in some sort of trouble, Bin Laden releases an new video - even if it's not really him in the video? Who could forget the chubby, right-handed, gold ring wearing Bin Laden admitting to 9/11.

Philo,

While were on the topic of military personnel, what about the Republican's request to General Wesley Clark that he pin 9/11 on Saddam? When he requested evidence he heard nothing more. They may both be telling the truth but no prizes for guessing which one would come with the largest cash incentive.

Planetagent,

I wouldn't go too hard on AMSADL about researching history. Your post shows an equal lack of knowledge. Although I must say, at least you have some idea of what it is that you're supporting, rather than some who'll rant on about how God-like Bush is. I respect you more for that.

Themistocles.

You've done it again. Well said. Nothing needs to be added.

Thermocles- 'The goal of establishing democracy in the Mideast will bring economic prosperity and freedom from fear for its people. It will also deliver security to Western nations by defeating terrorism.'

How anyone can make a statement like this with a straight face in the aftermath of Hamas' election victory is beyond me. Democracy in the middle east will not bring freedom from fear or an end to terrorism. Democracy will bring theocracy. Not saying that's any worse than what is currently there, but let's be a bit realistic shall we?

As for the whys and wherefores of the war, the main objection to Bush's misbegotten Iraqi adventure is that it tied up the 'coalition of the willing' fighting a neverending insurgency, while allowing more severe threats to global security (Iran, pakistan and north Korea) to run rampant. Bush will never attack Iran. He has squandered his political capital and fundamentally weakened his military. Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, and Bush will be to blame. History will remember him as an incompetent moron.

Themisticles,

Keep the discussive pot boiling, matey, but I must say both you and John have not mentioned Immanuel Kant's main political recipe for Perpetual Peace, never to let one personage nor one nation alone ever to attain world rulership, for such can bring out the worst in man or woman.

Kant's recipe for Perpetual Peace, was a Federation of Nations, by which incidently the League of Nations was founded. It is a pity Kant did not warn about the power of the veto, in which nations such as the US and the Soviets began the elitist big power wrecking of the United Nations, the US finally finishing the rotten job with the help of Britain and us Aussies with the illegal attack on Iraq.

Looks like we need a great philosopher, and great Christian, incidently, like Immnuel Kant to be born again - certainly many decent people like Nelson Mandela must be praying for it.

George C, WA - Bushbred

I’ve got to admit, I kinda' supported the war at the very beginning. Like many of the pro-war nuts, I just wanted to see Saddam gone – I didn’t care about WMD, the sooner that bastard was gone the better. So I see where they’re all coming from.

My opinion on the war made a complete 180 degree turn when I learned the whole story along with the undeniable evidence of deceit and lies. One of the literally thousands of examples was the faked Bin Laden footage of him admitting to 9/11. Why did they need to fake the admission?

Could someone from the Right please explain to me why they don’t question things like that? No, none of you will, because you don’t have an answer, you’ll simply pretend it didn’t happen – along with everything else that contradicts your beliefs on this issue.

I’m absolutely astonished that Keith could say “Nothing needs to be added”. Keith, if you could actually say that, then you don’t even know half of what’s really going on. Level-headed people, with nothing to gain, will make perfect sense, and the Pro-War Right will let it go in one ear and out the other. Yet at the same time, they’ll listen to the mainstream media (who have everything to gain from their selective reporting) as if what they said was Gospel.

How about we start paying more attention to independent media sources so that we get the real story, instead of brainwashing ourselves with propaganda from the mainstream media, who are too afraid to report on what’s really happening, or the Right-Wing media, who are very well looked after for their deceit and bias.

Our governments must be laughing at us. All we’ve done is demonstrate to them that we’ll believe any old garbage they feed us, giving them the key to do whatever they want…a truly frightening concept.

Jinxy

I'm glad you've become "enlightened" by 5 years of conspiracy theory since 9/11.

You oppose and discredit a lot.

Show us your decision making ability.

If you were the President (of the US) what would you do about Iran?

If Iran, despite the anti Bush crowd and cospiracy theorists, actuaally wants to build nuclear weapons is that a good thing?

Would you fall back on the lazy logic that "its OK for Iran to have nukes because other countries have nukes."

Following the logic its OK for every country to have nukes.

About Iran - what if the threat isn't a manufactured conspiracy this time?

What if Iran's words and deeds are what they appear to be? Noting the precedent that the other regional nuclear powers (Israel, India and Pakistan) WERE conducting civlian nuclear power research until it became obvious that the main effort was on nuclear weapons.

I'm confident that the President of Iran will counter the UN sanctions by starving his people, circumventing the sanctions while constructing his nukes.

So if Iran's nuclear weapon development is not a conspiracy and diplomacy won't work, what as US President would you do?

Jinyx

I'll stick to my point. Themistocles said all that needed to be said about this article.
I refuse to respond to the personal abuse you injected into your post. It lowers the tond of this forum.

Planetagent,

I’m not talking about the conspiracy theories (Although they do raise some interesting questions that don’t have any other explanations – unlike the loopy man-on-the-moon conspiracy).

What I’m talking about is the unmitigated corruption, hypocrisy and cronyism of the current US government. By raising the question as to why they fake the Bin Laden tape, I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that the US government was behind it, just that there’s more to this than we realise. Another point, why would they show us picture of 19 apparent hijackers when one of half of those men are still alive and living normal lives?

I’m curious as to what your thoughts are on both of these? It’s a cop-out to merely throw accusations of conspiracy theories. You’ve seen the footage, we all have? So again, please share your thoughts on these.

If Bush was elected without seriously manipulating the electoral system then he would have more of my support. But I refuse to support such blatant hypocrisy and disregard for democratic values. I would have thought that all westerners would feel the same - obviously not. I don’t understand how Nixon could be impeached when Bush has done far worse things…ever read ‘Worse Than Watergate’?

It’s not so much about being anti-war as it is about being pro-democracy and anti-corruption. Of course war is sometimes the only answer. But I only support wars that are about freedom and security, not profit and fear-mongering.

To answer your questions: If Iran had intensions to develop and use WMD then I would attack. Providing that all diplomatic attempts had been made to disarm them and the intelligence was real, not the manipulated kind of intelligence we got with Iraq. But if I were President, I'd like to think that I wouldn’t manipulate it. Even Colin Powell refused to read the speech to the UN at first, branding it as crap.

If the Iraq war is necessary then it was only to undo something that they originally played a role in. Prevention is better than cure i.e. don’t give weapons to a madman, particularly biological weapons.

A true dodging and weaving of a politician.
Answer the question!

Um…Keith, read the second-last paragraph, I did answer Planetagent.

Settle down mate! Planetagent and I are merely having a civilised debate and you’re getting all upset. Why?

I keep re-reading my second post and can’t see how you’ve interpreted it as abuse. It’s not like I started name-calling or anything. But if my tone sounded abusive then I apologise. You sound like a very sensitive person. My tone was intended to be amazement, not nastiness…or were your accusations of abuse merely a cop-out?

If you read my response to Planetagent (properly), you might see why I was so amazed that you could think that Thermistocles had said it all. Don't you think these sorts of questions deserve scrutiny? Personally I think that having too much faith in governments and the mainstream media is dangerous. Here we are, focusing all our attention on the terrorists, while the socially acceptable crooks are getting away with just about anything...a brilliant diversion.

Jinxy

You are making my write all these words ya bastard!

While I suspect you don’t hold Dubya in high regard your reply appeared sincere and you’ve indicated that Iran may be a danger worth attacking if the threat is proven and diplomatic channels are exhausted.

Alternative theories of 9/11 and bin Laden’s mortality are actually the biggest conspiracy theories around (unless you can point to bigger ones). The theorists are generally US centric Americans who can't conceive that anything evil can happen without AmeriKa being involved. Some foreigners see the world through this American thought prison.

If you want to persuade me of your theories on the 9/11 hijackers and whether bin Laden is dead (or ever existed) you’re going to have to provide evidence and links to succinct websites. I’m aware that there are whole organisations that support these theories with religious fervour.

From what I’ve read there’s not much compelling on 9/11 – just a MANTRA that whatever the US Government says is a lie that must be automatically discounted in favour of the most unlikely scenerio which is “the CIA and Mossad did it”.

So you’ll need to do better than that. But beware. I see it as racist to believe that Arabs were incapable of planning and executing the 9/11 operation.

The level of “corruption, hypocrisy and cronyism of the current US government” is about the usual standard in my experience. Republicans are usually damned by the kind of press you and I read. Just remember what people said about Reagan in his time – he was seen as the anti Christ, but he stared down the Russians and ended the Cold War. Meanwhile Bush ain’t too bright and relies on Vietnam era advisers like Rumsfeld and several straight shooting Texans.

Nevertheless since 9/11 there’s has been no similar terrorist attack on the West (so far). This may vindicate his strategy.

COMMENTS TO Jinxy - Part 2

I'm ranging more widely in this part.

Most of the conflict in the Middle East is a fight between the US and the Arab world for control of oil and a killing ground for Muslim terrorists (who would otherwise be attacking the West including Australia). A potential and deadly overlay is Iran’s quest for nukes and Israel’s threats to “disarm” Iran. Meanwhile Iraq its overwhelmingly Sunni Muslims killing Shiite Muslims (until the Shiites exact revenge).

US Democracy

Remember that Bush was resoundingly re-elected in 2004 and that was after many of the problems following the invasion of Iraq were already apparent including the absence of WMDs.

On impeachment of Bush? Nixon was worse in Vietnam and Cambodia. Bush could be impeached if the Democrats get the numbers after the midterms but his Presidency is winding down anyway. If the Democrats get in, in 2008, they may increase the numbers of American troops in the Middle East. Booting out Bush may not solve anything.

A thought from William Arken’s Washington Post blog is worth quoting:

"The [US] government has trapped itself between its desire to maintain a unified ideological front against terrorism on the one hand and its ability to provide any meaningful or thoughtful assessment of where we stand." http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/02/blowback_in_the.html#comments

I think its quite apt. The US clearly has an aggressive approach (the “fly paper” approach) to take the fight to the terrorists (in places like Afghanistan and now Iraq) but how do you convince the public of that?

Oil

How do you also convey to the public that oil is a major reason and a legitimate reason to invade a country (particularly if its regime is illegitimate).

A whole new set of concepts needs to develop around oil, regarding national legitimacy versus realpolitik.

I look forward to reading your bin Laden and 9/11 evidence.

Pete

Hmmm Plantagenty, If you were the President (of the US) what would YOU do about Iran? You don’t seem to say anywhere in your posts?

However I would like to take a stab at that question if I may. If I were President of the US, I would have:

1. Not given the CIA millions of dollars to cooperate with the British to overthrow the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Dr. Mosaddeq of Iran in 1953, then install and support a Shah whose dictatorship would brutally suppress the Iranian people for the next 26 years and spawn an Islamic revolution in 1981. Leaving the rest of the world in a situation where radical fundamentalists today are in a position to gain nuclear weapons. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

2. Not given billions of dollars of arms (including chemical weapons) and money to a known torturer and psychopath to prolong a war with another country so that we could revenge for the results of an Islamic revolution that we caused!
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran-Iraq_War

3. Not supported or instigated countless other coup-de-tats around the world against democratically elected governments so as to make anyone with half a brain distrust my country and its motives. (Incidentally, the coup against the Iranian prime minister was the first for the CIA and the model created then used later all over South America and Latin America).
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
And Google; CIA+Coup for over 3 million hits!

One could go on and on endlessly. The current dilemma vis-à-vis Iran that we, the poor citizens of the world, find ourselves in today is a direct result of the failed geopolitical strategies for hegemony from the US over resources and trade. Anyone who argues otherwise should, as you yourself so wisely pointed out Plantegent, “read some history”.

Today’s situation calls for quiet diplomacy and not more saber rattling. When you back a scared animal into a corner, it’s going to fight back with all it can! Will brandishing a big stick calm it down?

Taiwan Teacher

You make a lot of sense.

I understand what you mean as a fellow world citizen. Time we realised that brute force doesn't work in the long term.

Would like to add more to my post but not able to at present.

Thank you

Jinx

You answered in your second last paragraph. I apologise.

I became distracted by your ungracious and inaccurate commentary on the US Electoral process and the freely re-elected US Bush administration.

I was interested in your definition of a just war. A war for freedom and to maintain security.
Iraqi fits that bill.

You'd want the US to attack Iran since it is intent upon developing nuclear weapons. It already has WMDs. There is no need for intelligence. The Iranians stated that goal themselves. They also stated they want to destroy another country. The Iranian elections were fraudulent. The Iranian people live in a country dominated by a minority. The Europeans and Russians have bent over backwards to convince the Iranians to desist.

If I was US president, knowing I’d committed one third of my military capability to Iraq and Afghanistan. Understanding the Iranians also knew this, I'd surmise they are going ahead with their development because I cannot do anything with my conventional forces and am extremely unlikely to do anything nuclear. I’d be aware the the Iranians have influence over the Iraqi Shia and any threat to Iran would be countered by a guerilla campaign in Iraq.

Sanctions would be my answer with a precision attack by a third country upon the development facilities. Either Pakistan or Israel would likely agree as they are the people mostly threatened by a nuclear armed Iran. I’d also make it plan to the Iranians that should a nuclear weapon be detonated anywhere in the world my nuclear weapons would take out Tehran immediately. No questions anywhere. I'd make sure they knew I had as many of my nuclear armed submarines as I could parked in the Persian Gulf. I’d also intimate it would not be inconceivable I could detonate a nuke in my own backyard to achieve such a result.
I'd also make sure the rhetoric from the UN matched a committment to sanctions and my implied and actual threats.
I'd also start to support dissention within Iran.
Nothing is ever as simple as the polemic you're spouting, Jinx.

Thanks Scout. It’s good to see there are others who realize that we are all world citizens.

Keith, have you actually researched what happened in the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections?

Are you aware of how the US electoral system works and how it is administrated?

The US is the only democracy in the first world where partisan officials are in charge of administering the vote. Unlike in most democracies where voter enrolment and registration are carried out by independent officials, each US state and county appoints their own officials along partisan lines.

The problems in Florida 2000 are widely known and the problems in Ohio 2004 are also widely acknowledged. Both were key states that needed to go to Bush to ensure victory and both had republican controlled electoral officials and both generated claims of vote rigging and massive disenfranchising of voters. In Ohio for example;
“Independent observers, including the FEI Delegation, were denied access to all polling locations and vote tabulation centers throughout the state, and were required to remain 100 feet from polling locations”. http://www.fairelection.us/fairelectionreport.pdf

There are hundreds and hundreds of other documented reports about irregularities and results where the discrepancy between exit polls and the final result in many counties was so large as to be declared a statistical impossibility!

I could post a few hundred links here for evidence Keith if you want. But it’s probably better if you just Google “Bush+Florida+fair” or “Bush+Ohio+Fair” and do your own research. Then come back and see if you can’t construct a reasonable argument here instead of making sweeping generalizations on a subject that you are so obviously ill-informed.

Thanks Taiwan Teacher, I was getting to that. That was one of the reasons I said to Plantagenet that he needs to research a bit more history.

Keith,

No, Iraq does not fit that bill because there were no WMD. The only person to claim this was George Hormis. Considering he told this to Sesn Hannity (a neoconservative shock-jock) on Fox News of all media sources, I’d be seriously questioning it. Give me a link not related to Fox or the “Religious Right” and I’ll give it a bit more credibility.

Fox News Corp, the Religious Right and the Republicans are all in each other’s pockets, so telling me this is like me quoting Bob Brown or providing a link to Green Lefty Weekly – not a shred of credibility. Also, try Googling it, these virtually nothing on it, just a few links to his unsubstantiated claim. How about the UN inspect Syria and we’ll find out.

As for Electoral fraud in the US, well, this isn’t something that’s disputed, it’s common knowledge in America so I’m surprised you could refute my claim. To say that Bush was “freely elected” is just dead wrong. A Google search for US+election+fraud gives 11, 400, 000 search results (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=us%2Belection%2Bfraud+&btnG=Search&meta=). Even Wikipedia talkes about it in depth…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities. So considering the rigging and the narrowness of both Bush’s wins, Gore and Kerry should have won both times. Show me a link that refutes this.

The problem I have with sanctions is that the leader of Iran would simply starve his own people. In Iraq, over 500, 000 people died because of sanctions yet Saddam was livin’ it up.

Plantagenet, getting to you…

Jinxy - don't bother - Save it till the next OLO article on Iran.

I'm moving on.

Taiwan - if the mantra solution of the left is:

"The current dilemma vis-à-vis Iran that we, the poor citizens of the world, find ourselves in today is a direct result of the failed geopolitical strategies for hegemony from the US over resources and trade. Anyone who argues otherwise should, as you yourself so wisely pointed out Plantegent, “read some history”."
Then your're on your own Taiwan.

Taiwan - You can put up some good arguments but in the end you are too bloody minded.

Keith - you'll note leftist prejudices can't be altered. Thats why most Western countries have shifted a way from a Leftist mindset.

This string has gone sour.

Bye - until other articles.

Pete

Plantagenet,

Well since I’ve typed it out MS Word I’ll post it anyway…

- Faked Bin Laden tape: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

If you don’t want to read it all, then the basic point is that the fake Bin Laden in the tape: -

1) Doesn’t look anything like Bin Laden;
2) Is wearing a gold ring (forbidden by Islamic law)
3) Can be seen writing with his Right-hand (according to the FBI’s website, Bin Laden is left handed… http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terbinladen.htm)

There’s a lot more though if you want to read it all. So again, why did they need to fake this?

- Suspicious picture of the 19 hijackers: http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

US DEMORCRACY

Well, I think Taiwan Teach and I have demonstrated that it’s dwindling (check the links I’ve provided to Keith). But aside from electoral fraud, you’ve got the Patriot Act. This is a sick piece of legislation that has everyone on both sides of the political spectrum up-in-arms.

What about the arrest of Cindy Sheenan for doing nothing more but wearing an anti-war T-shirt? Not very democratic…
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/

OIL

I don’t think that oil is the entire motive. But I think it’s fair to assume that it plays a part considering: -

1) North Korea has been ignored;
2) There are many evil dictators that aren’t being attacked;
2) Dick Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton. Haliburton is an oil drilling company with very big interests in the Iraq war. Haliburton’s stock has risen $78 million since the start of the war.

I think you’re capable of Googling all of this. The search results are plentiful so take your pick.

Keith,

Looks like Thermistocles hadn’t said it all afterwards I’d take Thermistocles on in a debate any day. Like Taiwan Teacher you appear to be very ill-informed on this topic.

Well said Jinx, however i hope that's a typo about me being ill informed!

Plantagant, how can you read that quote as being either a mantra or a solution? ? ? ?

How am i "too bloody minded"? I only tried to answer a question posed by you that you seemed unable, or unwilling, to answer yourself?

And i just loved this sentence, it's a beauty! "you'll note leftist prejudices can't be altered."

Perhaps it's because those pesky lefties are able to reason and debate? Look, if you can back up your opinion with a cohesive argument and solid facts, then you have a worthwhile argument to add to the debate. If however you can only make broad statements and generalisations, then when they are challenged, you cannot come up with any facts or evidence, then your just regurgitating some else's opinion. So who you been listening to Planetagent and Keithy? Rush Limbaugh?

"This string has gone sour."

Yes, just like the foxes grapes i fear!

Jinxy

Thanks for you last post. It is succinct and to the point.

Looking at the evidence you present - it seems possible some of the "bin Laden" tapes were faked. Whether some were faked by intelligence agencies from the US, Israel, Pakistan, Middle Eastern countries or by other terrorist groups is an open question.

Taiwan Teacher as you are a comic I give you a relevant funny (for the bitter Left).

Dear Cindy:

My cat just jumped off the couch and collapsed...now she is walking, but slowly. She is only about 8 months old. I'm wondering if she ate one of the weird little bugs around our house. Nothing appears to be wrong with her legs.

Feeble Feline in Fresno

Dear Feeble:

At least your cat can eat. Did you know that most Iraqis have nothing at all to eat? They are trapped in their tee pees, unable to milk their goats or go to the Quick Chek, because American death rains on them from the sky. They would probably be happy to have some of your disease-addled bugs. I hope your cat dies.

http://potfry.blogspot.com/