IGNORANCE OF HISTORY is probably the biggest single deficiency of current supporters of human rights and the almost hyperfundamentalist zeal to dig up bodies from mass graves and apply blame and due process.

While reading the history of Afghanistan, I came across this quaint phrase

"In November of 2002, the United Nations began an investigation of alleged human rights abuses by Dostum"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

Its in a sublink from the main history, reached by clicking on Dostum's name in the text.

If we read the history, (please all read it) (and the same will apply to Iraq), one thing becomes overwhelmingly clear:

"Human rights" are about as relevant as a retarded mouse nibbling on the toenail of an Elephant.

Also as obvious as being whacked on the back of the head by a 2 x 4 is the idea that 'democracy' will ever have even a snowflakes chance in hell of every working in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mentioning "HumanRights" in the context of these countries which have never had an enlightenment or renaissanse or reformation or Magna Carta just seems so much like the chirping and muttering of old senile men with dementure.

What is also clear, is that the only way to solve the ethnic and sectarian problems is one of 2 choices, neither of which is palatable to Western countries with a JudaoChristian moral/legal/spiritual tradition.
1/ Genocide of one or the other side.
2/ Oppressive dominance of one or the other.

This observation leads to the following conclusion.

1/ Re-instate Sadaam (Sunnis destroy Shias, Iran invades)
2/ Get out and let them sort it out. Which will mean Sunni/Shia bloodbath, where the Sunni's will be wiped out, most likely resulting in a greater Iran by proxy if not reality.

It won't result in loss of oil. Iran sells it to us now.

This new state of affairs will then lead to:

a) Iran gaining Territory and Nuclear Weapons.
b) Polarization of the region. (Israel vs Rest + Shia crescent)

Why rant about this rather than the specifics of the article about human rights ?
Simple -Relevance!

As this thesis gives indication of the problem of selective reporting from today’s Iraq, it is asked that the following be allowed space?

A major headline in a recent Guardian newspaper expresses the phrase MASS EXODUS - the accompanying italics intimating that .........”as it is believed that a good half of Iraq’s well over one million Christians have now fled, why haven’t coalition forces done more to protect them?”

It seems Mark Lattimer the writer had gone to the trouble of showing a painting or wall hanging of the boy Jesus surrounded by an ethereal glow, with an adult male and female each side of him, also in Holy representation.

What makes the pictorial more interesting is that the foreground reveals the heads and shoulders of devoted looking Christian Iraqies. Apparently Lattimer has used the wall-hanging to help get his story through.

It does tie in with historical reports how certain Christian groups have long not been accepted and left to suffer by our Christian churches and their governments, and in this case it was so easy to shut them out because they have stayed too friendly with the Islamics.

As one gets older during retirement having spent years studying the philosophy of Western history, he becomes more and more shocked how much what could have been revealed as genuine Middle-East Christian history has been deliberately left out because it is not the way the Church and Christian governments want the Christian story to be told.

Indeed, there is much evidence to support the historical fact that the Arabic-type Christians could be the true original Christians rather than whom some researchers call the Latinised or Romanised Christians. It does include the story about St Patrick's Irish followers being of the same sect as the Arabic Christianity.

There is also a report that these Christians are not accepted in the Latinised Christian Church because they were never sworn in to believe in the Holy Trinity, which was passed during the First Council of Nicaea, and presided over by the Roman emperor Constantine early in the 3rd Century AD.

"Human rights" are about as relevant as a retarded mouse nibbling on the toenail of an Elephant."

A bit harsh, ain't it? Particularly since the Republicans have made such a song and dance about just that. What were those purple fingertips all about? Having said that I totally agree when it comes to the US military and government. Human rights have never been a consideration in Iraq.

The article rightly points out the US - and by extension, Australia's - government's attitude to Iraqi deaths. "We don't do body counts" is one quote that stands out from early on. As for the estimate of the number of Iraqis killed, whether 100,000 or six times that many there is only so much horror a person can withstand. After that, "it's just a number", according to the US military.

If the truth were known, if the war had its own cable channel, say, it'd never get off the ground.

Pretty much the whole world is waiting for the penny to drop in about 7 days, when the US has its mid-terms. Be alert for a subtle change in how the US does business. It simply can't be worse than it is now.

BD, thats a remarkably extreme post even for you, the author isn't talking about human rights neccessarily, he is talking about HALF A MILLION DEAD PEOPLE. Half a million people who didn't HAVE to die, half a million prventable deaths, the US was not forced to wage war on Iraq BD and you know it.

bennie, yes I too would like to see a change in the numbers in congress, and it might happen. But do not underestimate the power of diebold voting machines, strategically placed they can swing any election, and they already have, twice.

BD. I don't know what world you live in, but your cynical approach to life, puts in question your principles!

Guys guys.... as our esteemed Sheikh said.."You misunderstand me" :)

They are not 'my' principles.... all I'm doing is making observations on the current situation, which I'm connecting to the histories of the places.

I'm trying to highlight the irrelevance of such latecomer ideas as 'human rights' which are very much linked to our own socio philosophical history, to these tribal places.

Carl.. I agree that the US had no real 'prinicpled' basis to go into Iraq, it was purely strategic. But again, looking at the history of say Afghanistan (I hope you read that wiki link)... with all the various interferences of the Persians, Moghuls, British etc etc.. and the tribal mish mash of wanna be princes etc... its just a mess.

Point of course being. No amount of good will in terms of human rights can ever be imposed on these tribal societies. This is why Sadaam succeeded... the only way 'order' can be maintained is by ruthless uncompromising brutality. Not because I think its a good idea.. far from it, but in terms of
a) History
b) Tribal loyalties/competition

I simply cannot see any other workable solution (to bring 'order') than a rather devastating one. Notice in the Wiki article about the Soviet invasion. As soon as they relaxed the reins, little groups popped up and capitalized on the opportunity for selfish gains.

I personally suspect that the French and Soviets might be lurking behind the scenes (but well distanced) and the Iranians for the same reasons the Americans were supporting the Mujahadin in Afghanistan.... to teach the Russians a lesson. So GB..what goes around.... comes around.

All this says is that the US approach is doomed to failure because they cannot use the 'workable' force due to political and human rights constraints.

My points were not meant to be 'recommendations' but observations. Sorry for being fuzzy.