coach,

I am not disputing Christ as an historical figure, or even that he was a charismatic, wise and/or revolutionary figure. However I dispute the propaganda/lies that he was something other than human like you or me, and that he had a father called God. Stories of him being anything other than human are, as I have said, just as credible as me telling you there are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

Your theories on the reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq miss the main point entirely. The US ruling class invaded, and continues to occupy, Iraq (and Afghanistan) in order to control the oil and prop up their own economic interests.

They couldn’t care less about the “score” with Saddam. If he had been willing to remain “their bastard”, they wouldn’t have invaded in 1991 or 2003. They also couldn’t care less about their “credibility” unless the lack of it undermines their ability to pursue their economic interests. They also couldn’t care less about Israel – the only reason they appear to do so is because they see it as in their economic interest (at the moment).

They idea that they do anything for any other reason than economic reasons is ludicrous. The underlying motivation of capitalist “democracy” is making profits and accumulating wealth – anything else they feed us is just obfuscation. Or perhaps fairytales.

Dear Mr Man
I appreciate your honesty regarding the 'alternative' situation.
There are others who would quite brazenly suggest that there IS an alternative, and they would point to it as a system in which we can have undying faith. I guess that those with the most 'vitriol' against me and others would be in that category, (not yourself).

There are two ways of looking at the huge and obscene expenditure used on the 'get Clinton' exercise.

1/ It was just an outright base grab for power. The Republicans sensed a glass jaw and went in for the king hit.

2/ The Republicans saw the potential for an irreversable change to the political/cultural fabric of the USA based on the Democracts reliance on and pandering to the Hispanic vote, including its more sympathetic treatment of illegal immigrants, and thus decided that they must 'act now, and at any cost' to prevent it.

I suspect it was a combination of both.

So, in spite of your considered view 'Anyone but Bush' I have to respectfully disagree, on the basis of the 2nd point above. I would LOVE to see less influence of economic lobbyists, and less pandering to Biggggg economic interests by the Republicans, remember, I have pointed out on many occasions their attempt to influence our PBS to evergreen pharmeceutical patents at OUR expense.

The equally ridiculous feature of the Republican party is its contradictory stance on illegals. So much 'bigggg' economic activity depends on their low wages, so they are caught between protecting their socio/political/cultural status quo,(kick em out, lock the border) and their 'keep costs down/capitalism' (bring em in, work em hard)

But back to Iraq. Same thing, vested interest competes with or is combined with altruistic endevour. Only history will show to what degree each drove the agenda :)

Dee,

It’s a sad fact that the UN (like every other major institution in the world) has been tainted by corruption.

However, it may not be a problem for much longer.

In one of the PNAC submissions (PNAC mentioned earlier) called “Rebuilding America’s Defences”, the current US policy is to denigrate and usurp the powers of the United Nations with an “overwhelmingly powerful force” ( with a “coalition of the willing”perhaps?).

It also implies that this is necessary because the role of the UN should go beyond peacekeeping in order to meet America’s needs, something it’s not willing to do.

Unfortunately it fails to mention what will become of the humanitarian role the UN performs and its work in areas outside of direct US interests.

Despite the obvious shortcomings of the UN, I would still prefer it to a period of unrestrained “Pax Americana” around the world.

BOAZ_David,

This article summarises what some of us feel about the role of secularism in Western politics.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0819-22.htm

Sadly, the concepts described are not unique to the USA but are part of our everyday life too.

Marilyn Shepherd – <you forgot a teensy little thing>

I ‘forgot’ nothing – I don't hold any ‘high moral ground’- I’ll leave such posturing to you. I simply stated facts. The sins of the AWB do not cancel out or excuse worldwide UN corruption.

Your rant about US soldiers raping and murdering Iraqis (but 'not a word' about the 2 marines who had their eyes gouged out, their penises cut off and were then beheaded) may be true but is yet to be proven. Just like the ADF soldiers you accused of ‘murder'. You had them tried and convicted before any facts were released, typical of your one-sidedness and tunnel vision concerning your fellow Australians.

Re Paul Moran – according to the SBS report, ‘His funeral in Adelaide … was a major event. Condolences, political figures, friends, work mates and relatives arriving in the southern capital from all over the world.’

Drooge – <Are you saying that Saddam Hussein sent his WMD to SYRIA ..>

I think most WMDs were destroyed within Iraq but it wouldn’t surprise me if some had made their way over the border. Perhaps there was personal rivalry and hatred between the two despots, but according to this interview with a former staff member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

‘[W]hat we saw prior to the [First Gulf] war was that Syria was the number one violator of U.N. sanctions against Iraq and the number one source of illegal foreign exchange to the Saddam Hussein government’

‘The American government also denounced Syria's refusal to adhere to UN oil sanctions on Iraq after the first Gulf War, during which time Syrian officials continued to do business with Saddam Hussein’.

‘Syria was an outspoken critic when American forces launched a second attack against Saddam Hussein in 2003 and American officials have repeatedly accused Syria of allowing anti-American insurgents to cross the border between the two states.’

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/syria/us.html

If anti-American insurgents could cross the border at will, why not a few WMDs? Hatred changes to friendship (or rather, alliance) in a moment in the ME.

Dee,

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas)did much to promote that Syria was the recipient of Iraq's WMD. Speaking at a veterans' celebration at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas on February 19, 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Johnson where he is quoted as saying "...Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We wouldn't have to worry about Syria."

Sam Johnson was a Korean and Vietnam war veteran where he was a fighter pilot and was using his expertise on the subject. He didn't think very deeply of what such action would do to the USA's enfant terrible Israel or other countries in the Middle East.

He went on to explain his theory to President Bush and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) at a White House meeting, the former not requiring much proof that Syria was indeed the recipient of Iraqi WMD. Johnson caught some considerable flack for his views and 11 days later retracted his comments in a newspaper interview claiming he was only joking!

It is a fact that no one, the CIA included, have found one shred of evidence to sustain the claim that Syria had anything whatsoever to do with Iraq's WMD. And though it is well documented that Republicans need for proof is non existant, most thinking people require it before jumping to conclusions. And USA media continue printing the Bush administration's suppositions as if it were fact.

Drooge – I don’t pretend to have a deep knowledge of ME politics, and had not heard of Sam Johnson. The fact that WMDs did exist is undeniable, the Clinton government also referred to them many times and regarded them as a danger, so I think its reasonable to wonder what happened to them.

<It is a fact that no one, the CIA included, have found one shred of evidence ..>

It seems that evidence abounds, but its all very contradictory. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s. According to the Washington Times, the CIA's chief weapons inspector said he could not rule out the possibility that Iraqi WMDs were secretly shipped to Syria before the 2003 invasion, and he cited 'sufficiently credible' evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.

The more you try to sort out the WMD scenario, the murkier it seems to become. Various ‘experts’ have completely different opinions although a lot of faith seems to have been (mis?)placed in George Sada’s word. Beats me.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm