The only person who could control Iraq was a ruthless dictator like Saddam,but then we would be all whinging about him gassing and murdering his own people.

Face it,the place is feral with stupid religious ideology and the Yanks haven't got the will or the ruthlessness spirit to match what they are facing.Iraqis have been fighting for centuries.Nothing has changed.

Divide the place into three separate religious ideologies as it was pre-British invasion.It will take decades if not centuries for true civilisation to evolve.So lets stop the hand wringing ,scapegoating and look at practical solutions.

Here are a few quotes -

"I had to kill him Sarge, he would have grown up to be a Commie" - Sgt Rock, comic book soldier in Vietnam

"Terror is the War of the Poor, War is the Terror of the Rich" - Peter Ustinov.

"Right is always right, even if no-ones doing it. Wrong is always wrong, even if everybody's doing it"

I think the truth lies somewhere among these sentiments.

The bottom line is that people are dying to make the world safe for Haliburton and so that some Arab can enjoy a Big Mac in downtown Baghdad. Going to war for the US is an insurance premium that Howard thinks we need to pay so we can enjoy ongoing economic and political favors.

Here are a few quotes -

"I had to kill him Sarge, he would have grown up to be a Commie" - Sgt Rock, comic book soldier in Vietnam

"Terror is the War of the Poor, War is the Terror of the Rich" - Peter Ustinov.

"Right is always right, even if no-ones doing it. Wrong is always wrong, even if everybody's doing it" - Unknown

I think the truth lies somewhere among these sentiments.

The bottom line is that people are dying to make the world safe for Haliburton and so that some Arab can enjoy a Big Mac in downtown Baghdad. Going to war for the US is an insurance premium that Howard thinks we need to pay so we can enjoy ongoing economic and political favors when the New World Order is achieved.

Could well agree with Gary Brown and most of the insightly commentaries. As one of a group of oldies who try to find the answers back in history, I recently got very interested in an article from Google called "The Nine Paths of Global Citizenship" edited by Doug McGill. Though it does give impressions concerning the Paths to Reason, Faith, Democracy. Humanity, Ecology, Free Trade, Feminism, Corporatism, and Perennialism, it seems Reason and Faith are the pair to which the rest are linked.

It is so interesting that McGill chooses Socrates as the patron saint of reason, and Albert Schweitzer the Patron Saint of Faith.

But the chosen pair are so far apart in history that Socrates should be the choice. Why, because though he never ever wrote a word, his talks or teachings came from deep within, as quoted by Plutarch. And so fitting regarding our political and global socio-political problems of today, because Socrates talked about one world, as we might talk about globalisation and one system of democratic thought.

It is also critical that among his Socratic reasoners, McGill chooses Immanuel Kant, who in opposition to his later German contemporary, Wilhem Hegel, chose peaceful negotiation as a social cleanser while Hegel chose war as the cleanser of the soul. It is interesting also that many late 19th century Westerners, both economic and political became avid followers of Hegel. Some researchers say, in fact, that Hegel helped promote both Nazism as well as Stalinistic Marxism.

I think the point that many on these pages don't seem to understand is that International Law has set out quite a deal about what is and what is not acceptable behavior, and when it is or is not permissable to invade another country.

Has Australia been implicated and partaken in an illegal war?

Please read this from the International War Crimes Tribunal regarding the first Gulf War. The Bush mentioned is Ex President Bush Senior.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim3.htm#find

The biggest problem for the future is that if a country uses flawed or wrong intelligence to invade another country for whatever reason ... then other countries may use the same precedent to do the same in the future. International Law is therfore weakened through countries defying it.

In the big wide world of the International community "do as I say not as I do" just doesn't cut it.

If Australia is a signatory to these International Laws members of our Govt. may be brought before the tribunal at some future date to face charges if this war is in fact deemed illegal.

As can be seen from the rulings of the tribunal and the basis for those rulings the point that Hussein is allegedly a murderous dictator may not be grounds enough to go to war....

Please read this to find out more about International Law and War Crimes and why it was introduced.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm

Bushred - Part Two

As the above Socratic theorem leans much towards democracy, it is so important that McGill chooses an American, Woodrow Wilson, who was the original founder of the League of Nations. However, McGill who groups Socratic reasoners together when he brings in Woodrow Wilson as the founder of the League of Nations, fails to mention Immanuel Kant, who was grouped earlier among McGill's Socratic reasoners.

Indeed, Immanuel Kant is so important historically, being well known as the one so disgusted with Napoleon breaking the Enlightenment code of Liberty Equality and Fraternity, that he wrote a thesis on a Perpetual Peace achieved through a Federation of Nations, the idea from which both the League of Nations and the United Nations were devised according to most historians.

Further, in relation to the above, in his Path to Democracy, McGill quotes Jonathen Schell, who argues in his “Unconquerable World” that the string of non-violent revolutions that occurred in the late 20th century in the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, South Africa, South Korea and other countries is evidence that America’s present very active military and imperial dominance as the way to democratise problem nations like Iraq, goes against the grain of the obvious successes of modern people power.

Finally, it also must be emphasised, that the strength of such people power, as proven, is not generally related totally to the ballot, but similar to the 1688 Glorious Revolution in Britain, which behind the scenes was strongly influenced by the English philosopher John Locke, still a very popular historical figure in the US of A.

Finally, we are reminded how Chris Patten in his popular book, "Not Quite the Diplomat" gives reminder of the different America that initiated the wonderful Marshall Plan than the US we are witnessing right now. The problem is the thesis would take as lengthy a book as Chris Petten wrote, rather than the space allotted here.

George C, WA - Bushbred