The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fact rather than fable in the Iraq debate > Comments

Fact rather than fable in the Iraq debate : Comments

By Ted Lapkin, published 31/10/2006

The study that claims there have been 655,000 civilian Iraqi deaths is the deployment of pseudo-science in a bald-faced campaign to sway America’s choice of leadership.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
Precision about exactly how many civilian Iraqis have been killed (are being killed) is almost irrelevant. It is abvious from daily news headlines that Iraq no is no longer a viable country - thanks to the American led invasion.

It was by no means perfect beforehand, but Iraq was at least a functioning, pluralist society with Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds living and working side-by-side. (This is not to excuse the abuses conducted by the partisan government of Hussein.)

Fascinating how many people who were genuinely traumatised by 9/11, Bali and London bombings suffer no distress about far greater numbers of innocent Iraqis being killed - happy to trivialise them or pass them off as mere statistics.

The number of real civilian deaths probably lies somewhere between the Lancet's figures and that of the US administration, but either figure is way too high, especially since there is no sign of abatement.

I was previously persuaded that a pull-out would cause even more chaos, but, like many others, am now convinced that an early pull-out provides the best chances of minimising further carnage.

The lesson we should learn is to not leap into another premeditated war without a really thorough national debate about what we are letting ourselves in for. It is not as if the consequences could not be predicted.
Posted by gecko, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 9:41:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It never ceases to amaze me how these spin-doctors can so brazenly take issue with reputable peer-review scientific journals. Ted Lapkin is a policy analyst for the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council - an organisation that is dedicated to embroiling Weetern countries in wars against Muslim countries on Israel's behalf. He has no scientific background whatsoever but does not see any irony in ripping into a professional epidemiologist who dares to challenge his flat-earth dogma on Iraq.

Maybe Mr. Lapkin should consider a career as a climate change sceptic?
Posted by Sanity Check, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 10:55:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to Ted Lapkin, Dr. Les Roberts "makes no secret of his anti-war sentiments", as though the doctor were suffering from some loathsome disease. It's tragic that such blinkered warriors as Lapkin are frequently quoted in the media as representative of Jewish opinion. He even writes of "fellow-travellers", almost as if the late Senator from Wisconsin were still around and poisoning the atmosphere. Feh.
Posted by Youngsteve, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 11:02:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the end the West had no alternative but to go into Iraq. Their leader was refusing to budge with weapons inspections and that attack on 9/11 was a great chance to rid Iraq and the world of an evil man and give that country a second chance!

It has not all gone to plan but how many plans do?

Before questioning the death toll in Iraq you have to look at 3 things.

1. How many people died in wars in Europe ridding it of evil power hungry people?

2. How many people died in Iraq between 1991-2001 becasue of
necessary UN sanctions?

3. If we had not gone into Iraq could we now be dealing with both an Iraq and Iran who are both trying to get nukes?
Posted by EasyTimes, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 11:39:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sanity Check, how do you do?

This post is neither in support of the author of the article, nor against him, or against your stance, except to say that I have seen so much utter bald faced rubbish and lies eminate from what you describe as "reputable peer-review scientific journals", that frankly I no longer trust anyone in research these days.

So many studies and surveys are bent beyond the wildest possible imaginations of anyone and obviously politically spun and by researchers who publicly and unashamedly advocate specific causes for which they then do the research. Their bias is overt.

I don't believe that the word "reputable" can be applied to ANY research anymore, or journal, in any field of endeavour. In fact, I'm more likely to believe the word of a used car salesman than anyone who calls themselves a researcher. In my opinion, researcher = liar.
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 12:27:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sanity and Youngsteve:

So let me get this straight - you guys really believe that in a little over three years of low-intensity conflict, Iraqis have suffered half again as many fatalities than the Brits did during six years of high intensity conflict in WWII?

Sorry, but that proposition is utterly absurd.

I don't consider anti-war sentiments to be some form of "loathsome disease," as Youngsteve purports. I do, however, consider them to be wrong. But that's not the point. The point is when Les Roberts freely concedes that he timed the release of his 2004 report for political reasons, then the political views that motivate those reasons are relevant to the debate.

The simple fact is that both Roberts and the Lancet editor Horton have revealed themselves to be extreme anti-war partisans. Fair enough. But if they are going to much so blatantly about in the political arena, then they can't turn around and claim scientific impartiality as they blatantly attempt to sway two US election campaigns.

And Youngsteve - I find it instructive that you found Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy to be so much more offensive than the Soviet agents who were operating in support of one of the 20th century's most murderous regimes. McCarthy was a bit rough around the edges, and he overplayed his hand in a crude fashion. But on the essential question of communist subversion, he was correct.

The KGB Venona transcripts, released after the collapse of the USSR, put an end to the debate about communist espionage in post-WWII America. Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent, as were the Rosenbergs and myriad others.

I don't want to take our debate off on a tangent, but the fact of the matter is that Ronald Reagan was correct, the Soviet Union was an "evil empire" that was bent on global domination. And defenders of liberty during the late 1940s and 1950s had valid reasons to be concerned about communism. But then again, perhaps you believe that Philby, Burgess and Mclean were mere innocents who fled an unjustified wave of Red Scare hysteria?
Posted by Ted Lapkin, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 12:34:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could agree with you a little, Easy Times, if little Israel was not illegally armed with its atomic tipped rockets ready to fire.

There was a study done even in a Westralian university during the Cold War, called Balance of Power Theory, actually based partly on Bismarck's Realpolitik, which taught how to avoid war by not only stopping anyone arming in the first place, but if one country broke the code, to arrange that the opposition country be armed accordingly, as actually happened more recently when there was not a lot of kerfuffle from the UN when Pakistan became nuclear to match Pakistan, or was it the other way round.

So what should happen in scientific power balance theory in today's Middle East, is that because Israel and Iran are at each other's throats, Iran should be allowed to go atomic accordingly - then we might all be gladly surprised when peace joined the party, even agonised Iraq becoming part of it.

It would be a stiff test for America also, which if successful, might prove her to be much of the cause of the main trouble in the Middle East with her previously backing the autocratic aggressive side to suit her purpose as she did when she backed Saddam to attack Iran in 1981.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 12:44:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ted

Spinning his backside off again, he wants us to believe the Iraq Body Count figure of 49,000.

Just how credible is this figure? Not credible at all. Collected from online newspaper reports.

1322 days have passed since the invasion of Iraq, so Ted expects us to believe that only 37 people have died per day in the war. That is significantly less than the deaths per day of Israels little 33 day incursion into Lebanon. (Without a civil war).

100 people died in Iraq yesterday.(according to newspaper reports)

Professor of epidemiology or web newspaper reports?
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 12:47:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh the irony of it all!

Ted, are you guilty of Iraqi Holocaust denial?

Look mate, I'm prepared to go to 599,990.

- and that's my final offer.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 12:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder why Ted is lying here why is it that he is not telling the whole story. His miss representing of the study seems to indicate to me that he is doing his usual shout louder routine whenever someone says something he doesn't like. What is also obvious is that he hasn’t read the study nor does he understand statistics nor have a good grasp on the methodology. That said he got a fine platform to rebuke it and that is because he doesn’t like it.
The great irony here is that many of the Holocaust deniers use a simular technic as Ted has to cast doubt on the Germans ability to kill Jews on such a scale.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 12:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ted slams the Lancet study because the results are so unpalatable but read what experts in the field have to say about the statistical analysis used http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/061018_democracy_and_debate.php

Who are you going to believe, Ted or people who really know what they are talking about?

Note also the media (in this case UK) attitude to the findings - don't like it so ignore or downplay. Australian media coverage is just as bad.
Posted by rossco, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 1:17:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would the horrors of the holocaust be any less if historians concluded that Hitler exterminated not six million but 5 million?

TL You are unbelievably hypocritical and callous in your tactics.

It is wrong to discredit Israel's enemies by taking advantage of difficulties of determining exactly how many civilians die in conflicts (just like the neo Nazi’s do). Of course, TL mentions inexplicably the 450,000 UK folk that died in WW2 but conveniently forgets to mention, for instance, that of the 5.7 million Russian prisoners of war 3.3million died -not to mention the German’s siege of Leningrad which killed close to a million. The total death count of WW2 ran into millions and millions, not counting the Jewish people who perished. Israel's propagandists, betray their own agenda by only mentioning Israel’s allies in its war against Arabs.

I guess, Ted, you’d better go and look up your list of childish clichés that evoke emotion rather than good sense. You know the ones you like to dump on to people who think that instead of trying to justifying killing and warfare you should embrace principles of justice and spend your energy more sensibly.

It probably doesn’t matter to you Ted because you seem to be more interested in Israel’s future than Australia’s. You see there are Australian soldiers in Iraq and I support those men and women and trust that they will hold firm to the principles of justice we as a nation supposedly embrace. However, I do not support the Liberal’s support for the US invasion and I don't want our soldiers "nation building" agenda to be undermined by propagandists who stupidly talk of “fable” because of some petty statistical inexactitude. To use this to deny the pain and civilian losses the Iraqi people must be suffering is cruel. What are you trying to do escalate the conflict and misunderstanding of Australian involvement with this callous nonsense? What is this some childish payback for the holocaust deniers?
Posted by ronnie peters, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 1:50:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ted,

Great article, as usual.

What the Coalition did by going to Iraq was the most moral decision of this short century, getting rid of a cruel murderer and giving Iraqi's an opportunity to live in a civilised western democracy.

It wouldn't matter if there were 650,000 deaths, although the figure is preposterous, even if going by the exaggerated daily estimates.

One thing that really irks me is that the Americans, and British, and too a much lesser extent the other Coalition partners like Australia, are blamed for the inherent racism, tribalism, of the Iraqi people.

The fact that they can't get it together and use this opportunity afforded them as the Japanese and Germans did after WWII, and the South Koreans after the Korean was, comes back, as I said, to their bigotry.

Those commenting that at least Saddam Hussein kept all this sort of stuff in check, although this is nonsense anyway, the murders were just behind closed doors, the terror was always there.

The Iraqi Prime Minister claimed only last weekend that if Iran & Syria stopped funding the insurgency, as well as arming militias and insurgents, the Iraqi forces - without Coalition help, could get control of the situation after three months.

The only thing the west are guilty of about the Iraq war is that they didn't anticipate just how bigoted, racist, and intolerant Iraqi's would be toward each other.

In my view, the troops should pull out to the outskirts of the major towns, let the Iraqi's control it, and make sure the oil is produced, arms aren't smuggled, and so on.

At $4 billion per month for the war those Iraqi's owe the Coalition big time.

It all comes down to the fact that there is no good will in such societies, seen even in diasporas in the west where they have emigrated with sky high crime rates.

Let Iraq be a lesson to those on the left, for it is the very reason the west must deter democracy in this volatile redneck region.
Posted by Benjamin, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 1:52:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it utterly incredible that at this late stage, the late Sen. Joe McCarthy can find defenders. No, it's impossible to deny that during the Cold War, the USSR had spies all over the place, just as did the US. But "world domination"? On 1 January 1990, the issue of Time magazine which made Gorbachev its Man of the Decade carried an accompanying article with the headline "Rethinking the Red Menace" by Strobe Talbott. Concluding, Talbott pointed out:

"[Western diplomats and other experts] now say they doubt that Gorbachev's Kremlin or any imaginable successor's will undertake foreign adventures while the home front is in a state of such crisis, as it will be for a long, long time to come. A new consensus is emerging, that the Soviet threat is not what it used to be. The real point, however, is that it never was. The doves in the Great Debate of the past 40 years were right all along."

Unless I am much mistaken, Mr. Lapkin, this is the 21st century. The Cold War is dead and gone, together with its rhetoric. To try to revive it to fit fit modern problems such as terrorism, the Iraq blunder and so on is at best foolish, and at worst, just plain crazy.
Posted by Youngsteve, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 1:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin history lesson
Germany hitler was voted in.
Japan has only ever had one party in power so it is not fully functional.
Korean has only had freeish election in the last few years. I could go on about the rest of your post but pointing out your factual error would do little to move to having a rational pov. Yes you can have a rational pov that is different to mine but the key requirement here is to have a grip on the facts and that is something you do not have.

If getting rid of evil dictators is their game then why havn't we got troops in Burma?
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 2:06:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As said by other posters, the number of casualties isn't particularly relevant. Even if it's just 50,000 that's enough.

Time for a pragmatic assessment of the options on Iraq.

1. Pull out now, witness chaos, a civil war of sorts, before a warlord seizes power, which is still fragemented and disparate outside the cities, similar to the situation in Afghanistan.
Kurds, Shia and Sunni are at each others throats, and the new leader of Iraq is probably sympathetic to Iran, and in favour of a sharia state.

2. Pull out further down the track. The only real difference here is that the warlord that seizes power has a better trained security force, and there is probably less bloodshed as he ascends the throne, through the security force will either quickly fragment or rally under their new leader.

There is a third option - the US could theoretically place a dictator in power, though this would have echoes of Hussein, and we all know how spectacularly that went.

I'm amazed that the US took on this war, which was nothing less than a complete and utter distraction from their already dubious 'war on terror.'
In fact, it's worse than a distraction because it will turn what once once a comparatively secular (if not horrendous) regime into a sharia one.
Say what you will about saddam, and yes, he was a brutal tyrant, but he didn't have sharia law and for this reason he and al-qaeda had a hostile relationship.

Makes you wonder who the new leader will be once the smoke clears.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 3:06:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ted

In your last post you mentioned the UK deaths in the second world war. Yet again you are selective in your quoting. We are talking about civilian deaths. The figure for civilian deaths in the UK is 67,800. Note the UK was never invaded.

Perhaps a comparison with Russia is a better one, 11,500,000 this puts civilian casualties into context in a country facing invasion. The Iraqi civilian death rate is totally consistent with a country facing an invasion.

Don't like Russia as a comparison:

Poland 2,200,000
Indonesia 4,000,000
Germany 1,840,000
China 7,000,000

The figures are entirely consistent. Shame your spin is not.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 3:35:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve:

Your dichotomy between civilian and military casualties only serves to prove my point.

Almost 400,000 of those 450,000 casualties were military, incured during savage frontline fighting that spanned the globe from Burma to Belgium. Yet you are prepared to argue that Iraqis over 3.5 years have suffered over 150% the casualties incurred by the WWII British military over 6 years?

The conventional war in Iraq that relates to your "invasion" argument lasted only three weeks. And when you add a relatively small number of major engagements - like Falluah - since, the implausibility of the Lancet study becomes yet more apparent. Sorry, but none of this even remotely equates to Normandy, Dunkirk, Italy, N. Africa, the air and sea wars, etc...etc...etc...

And your examples of Russia, Poland, etc... ignore the salient difference between them an Iraq. In E. Europe civilian deaths were largely caused by Nazi policies of racial genocide that collided with Soviet policies of scorched earth withdrawal. Now unless you are prepared to accuse US troops of acting like Nazi Einzatzgruppe, your analogy falls apart from its own lack of weight. And if you make such a comparison, its very absurdity brings about the same effect.

So yes, I find the Iraq Body Count project's casualty figures to be much more plausible than those of Lancet. And in fact, Lancet's increasingly erratic and politicised behaviour has come under criticism over issues completely unrelated to Iraq.

The [London] Times June 18, 2005

'SCAREMONGERING LANCET ACCUSED OF CAUSING HARM TO HEALTH AND WASTING MILLIONS

By Mark Henderson

Nobel prizewinners in the Royal Society attack on editor over publication of flawed research

BRITAIN’S premier medical journal is endangering public health by publishing unfounded scare stories, 30 of the country’s leading scientists say today.
Poor editorial judgment at The Lancet has fuelled panic over issues such as the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, hormone replacement therapy and genetically modified (GM) crops, the eminent medical researchers charge in a letter that the journal has refused to publish...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1658807,00.html
Posted by Ted Lapkin, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 4:07:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ted
The fact is that experts in this field back the methodology used to calculate the number of deaths in Iraq as published by Lancet. The number of deaths in other wars or other places have no bearing on that fact.
Also irrelvant to this argument is a disputed argument about measles.

The Lancet has a well deserved reputation over many years for being able to back up what it has published. You also have a well deserved reputation but at the opposite end of the plausabilty spectrum.
Posted by rossco, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 4:52:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stuff the sheik, lets deport Benjamin, to Iraq, so he can go about and convince everyone in that country how much they 'owe' us. moron.
Posted by Carl, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 5:31:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve Madden
"In your last post you mentioned the UK deaths in the second world war...... Note the UK was never invaded."

Was the bombing of London, Coventry, Leeds, Glasgow not an invasion? Can you expect us to take you seriously after that?

rossco
"Also irrelvant to this argument is a disputed argument about measles."

It is relevent. If one article by Lancet can be questioned then the credibility of other articles can equally be questioned.

And to others.
Why don't you take any account of the huge death rate caused by Saddam?
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 5:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For further information about casualities in Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

This article should be a discussion about sampling techniques.

The Iraq Body Count requires information about specific reported incidents. From this measure at least 45,000 people have died as a result of the war.

In a society which has been fractured by many years of dictatorship and war, a very large number of people will have died unreported. The sampling method attempts to estimate the total number of deaths, including the unreported number. This number will include violent death through criminal activity and must be compared against death rates prior to the invasion.

The arguments presented in this article provide no reason to doubt the validity of this estimate within the margin of error. It is an entirely plausable number.

It would be reasonable to check that the researchers applied the methodology correctly, however if we are to accept the scientific method, the result can and should be confirmed by a separate research team using a similar technique. That is how science works.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 6:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find the estimate of deaths due to the intervention to be way beyond my credibility. To overcome this disbelief I really need sound proof. I understand that the estimate is based upon the multiplication of results from a smallish sample to an entire population. The statistics of multiplication may be very sound, but how good was the quality of information gathered from the sample? "Garbage in, garbage out times ten" I would really need absolute assurance that the quality of information gathered from the sample was absolutely correct, how did the respondents to the survey distinguish between deaths due to the intervention and all other deaths? In Australia I suppose about 200,000 people (a calculated guess) die each year, and thus 600,000 every three years or so. To what extent is this mortality due to the war in Iraq?
Posted by Fencepost, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 6:45:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Why don't you take any account of the huge death rate caused by Saddam? " wrote 'logic'.

How about cos our taxes didn't fund Saddam, our PM didn't kiss his arse and our shores didn't shelter his exterminators, unlike the present situation where our taxes and 'our boys' support for the biggest pack of war criminals currently at large on the planet.
That the Australian Wheat Board DID fund Saddam, and the US DID supply the poison gas Saddam used, they're just tiresome details to RightThink revisionists like 'logic'.

So long as we kill less than poster 'logic' claims Saddam did, we're good guys?

That such drivel is routinely peddled shows how farcical public debate and hence democracy are in this deluded continent. Its obvious what the yanks are getting out of this 'war without end' (for declining resources), but why are we still bending over to yankee dominance? Sheer cowardice is the most common explanation i've heard.
Posted by Liam, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 6:55:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Iraq is much "fable". Mussolini spoke for political leaders: “The extent of credulity which can be found in any man of whatever class or intelligence is quite extraordinary”; “lies always win against the truth”. Napoleon/Hitler went on to prove the point that denying there is a problem is often the same as lying; they may have been talking about Iraq.

Bob Johnston (ex-Governor of the RBA), Prof Ross Garnaut, Prof Ken Parry, Prof Richard Badham and Warren Reed on my book, which contains the following quotes: http://www.jeffschubert.com/

Heading to Paris in the winter of 1812, Napoleon denied he had a problem. He admitted that the Russian “venture failed”; he added that he “shall have the means to retrieve it”. In the presence of General Caulaincourt, Napoleon had a conversation with his ambassador to Warsaw, M. de Pradt and others, to convince them that things were OK. Cauliancourt wrote: “He told then that the army was still strong in numbers, with more than one hundred and fifty thousand men, which was hardly the truth.” He also told them that “before three months had elapsed he would have an army as strong as when he opened the campaign. His arsenals were full, he had all the essentials in equipment and troops to make a splendid army. From his private study in the Tuileries he could impose his will on Vienna and Berlin better than from army headquarters.” Caulaincourt soon “made notes of the strange conversation I had just heard”.

In early February 1943, Hitler met with a number of Nazi Party officials and spoke about “the events of the winter”, including Stalingrad. Below, his Luftwaffe adjutant, later wrote: “Hitler had designed it in such a way that none of his listeners would have the slightest hint of the catastrophic situation. It contained neither uncertainties nor expressions of disappointment. Without beating round the bush, he admitted the Russian successes and set out his programme for clearing up the mess. I was astonished at how this approach convinced them. … His audience left visibly happier and returned home full of enthusiasm for the fray.
Posted by Jeff Schubert, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 7:34:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lapkin's attempt to discredit the estimate of Iraqui post-invasion casualties is similar to the neocon/right attempts to discredit global warming - bandy about the term 'psuedo science', obfuscate, attack methods often in a nit-picking way, but fail to come up with any independent data to replace the findings that are the subject of attack.

Whatever way you look at it, murder and mayhem now rule in large parts of Iraq, and the 'coalition of the (undoubtedly now much less) willing' and their puppet Iraqui government are powerless to stop it. The invasion has been a disaster for Iraq and for the invaders, and no amount of propaganda to discredit this study will hide that inescapable conclusion.

The curtain is starting to come down on the period where US voters were prepared to believe Bush and his neocon coterie. The Bush administration will now scramble to exit Iraq with a few shreds of dignity while probably leaving Iraq unstable and ungovernable for years to come, a breeding ground for Jihad, just the sort of thing the invasion was supposed to be about preventing.

Bush supporters including Howard should be hiding right now and for some time to come. They have completely bungled the 'war on terror' through the Iraq invasion, escalating, not reducing, future threats to countries like Australia from terrorists,
Posted by PK, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 7:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When it comes to problems in the world it seems that most people on this board support the opinion of

1. Put head in sand.
2. Put head in sand.
or
3. Put head in sand.

These were the same views championed by like minded idiots up until September the 2 1939.

They were heard to say
"Hitler is a good man he wants peace"
"Chamberlin and Curtin are war monger who want a war"

Some times you just have to act before the problem festers out of control. I mean if John George and Tony had not done anything and Iraq/Iran used a Nuke on either a western country or on another Arab state the first people to evoke criticism would be the same people who today label John Howard and George Bush war criminals. I can hear them saying "They should have stopped him back in 2001 when they had a chance"

You people are all cowards!

We are lucky to have brave leaders who are willing to do the right thing even if the loud whaa whaa squad complains every time we act in the best interest of the world.

Bushbred - Isreal has never said it wants to wipe Iran off the map. If it had any intention of using them it would have a long time ago.
If Iran gets them who knows where or in who's hands they may end up in.
Posted by EasyTimes, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 7:52:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those interested in Steven E. Moore's qualities as a "political statistician" you might look here http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_E._Moore . I'd therefore suggest Ted that before accusing others of "fanning the flames of partisan suspicion" you might remember that people in glass houses....

My apologies for an ad hominen attack on Moore, but I'm sure Ted won't mind. After all ad hominen is Ted's favorite debating strategy.
Posted by Johnj, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 8:43:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to Easytimes:

Don't you mean "they should have stopped him back in 1991 when they had a chance."

I'll go further: "They should have not backed him in the Iran-Iraq war or supplied chemical weapons during the 1980's." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Chemical_Weapons)

You seem to be keeping quiet on North Korea obtaining nuclear weapons? I feel you are trying to convince us that Kim Jong-il is a good man.

You have not mentioned Osama bin Laden? When you try to distract us with false Iraqi nuclear weapons claims, you give implicit cover and support for the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. You seem unaware that this group perpetrated the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001.

Response to Fencepost:
"Garbage in - Garbage out". You are completely right. But the same applies to any statistic. You personally conclude the number is beyond credibility, but that is surely opinion. There is no suggestion that the inputs have been doctored, so until a group does a more exhaustive survey, this the only estimate of its type that exists and should be taken for what it is.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 9:04:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"By all means let us engage in a national debate on the wisdom of Australia policy in the Middle East. But we owe it to ourselves to ensure that our arguments are based on fact, rather than fable."

The entire war was based on fable rather than fact.
As to Australia's policy in the Mid East, it comes directly from the USA.
How many people have died in Iraq since the war and even prior with sanctions and bombing raids, I would think a lot.

As to why they aren't cheering their liberation? i don't know?

Peace everyone
Posted by koalablue, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 10:05:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Saddam was a bad man - one of many in the world, but he was the USA's man - they helped him into power and kept him there for as log as he was useful.

They gave him all the WMDs he needed to fight Iran on their behalf and was still their buddy while he was committing those atrocities against his people.

When he was slipping out of their control (like Noriega before him), the USA conned him into invading Kuwait and after Desert Storm, when it became apparent that there was not going to be the MILITARY overthrow they wanted, the US helped the Republican Guard put down the POPULAR uprising that was starting. All Facts!

The ongoing sanctions also cost many lives, and now people are actually surpised when the Iraqis don't completely trust their "liberators".

The West has a long history of broken promises and betrayal in the Middle East and this is what fuels terrorism.

I also remember Israel's part in arranging for the bombing of Libya and how they shipped weapons to Iran on America's behalf so they can't play the part of the innocent oppressed bystander.

I challenge doubters to look up "PNAC" and check the timetable for the planned Iraqi invasion and their plans for the Middle East. Then look at the USA's plans for their military and economic domination of the world in the same documents.

We went along for the ride so we could be in line for the scraps from their post-war table and to sign them up to a Free Trade Agreement.
The "alliance" argument was meaningless and irrelevant in this circumstance.

It was supposed to be "months, not years" and "we're not after regime change, we just want to disarm Saddam".

Morality and democracy has absolutely nothing to do with it - never has, never will.

It's simply about money, oil and power.

As long as the dominant Western Media remains an accomplice rather than a spectator, I believe that hundreds of thousands of civilians have died and there will be many more yet to die.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 12:57:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
March 20, 2003 the 2nd Iraqi war began. On May 1, 2003 on board the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, Pres. George Bush stated "Mission Accomplished" and effectively the war in Iraq was at an end. The continued presents of Coalition forces in Iraq was to maintain local security for the new government while they were in their infancy rebuilding and manning their own institutions, and secondly to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq. Most of the coalitions wounded and dead are a result of security patrols meeting with insurgent rebels. While their have been friendly fire incidents and civilian casualties the greatest number of Iraqi deaths is down to religious and tribal infighting. To say Iraq would be better off if the coalition forces had stayed at home is to advocate isolationism over world involvement and to turn a blind eye to human misery regardless of it's geography or nature.
Those who are hyper-critical of American foreign policy and "know how it should be done", might want to consider the state of the world if the U.S. decided not to be involved or to contribute to world affairs.
Many Iraqis in the U.S. and Iraq were communicating with the U.S. government to do something. Another different power wants unrest and bloodshed in Iraq. Not the coalition of democracies.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 1:06:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the Iraq survey group used the same methodology as was used in Africa, to determine the genocide there a few years ago. No-one disputed the method then. In addition they're the only group to go out & actually ask people; everyone else finds it simiply too dangerous.

100 000 deaths or ten times that many, the coalition's gonna lose. All that's left is finding an acceptable way to do it.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 2:03:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do I belive Ted and his cheer squad or

Professor James A Angus
Professor Bruce Armstrong AM
Dr Jim Black,
Professor Peter Brooks
Professor Jonathan Carapetis
Dr Ben Coghlan
Professor Mike Daube
Associate Professor Peter Deutschmann
Associate Professor Trevor Duke
Professor Adele Green AC,
Associate Professor Heath Kelly
Professor Stephen Leeder AO
Professor Alan Lopez
Professor John Mathews AM
Professor A. J. McMichael
Dr Cathy Mead PSM
Professor Rob Moodie
Professor Kim Mulholland
Professor Terry Nolan,
Associate Professor Tilman Ruff
Associate Professor Peter Sainsbury
Dr Tony Stewart
Professor Richard Taylor
Associate Professor Mike Toole
Associate Professor Paul J. Torzillo AM
Dr Sue Wareham OAM
Professor Anthony Zwi

"The Iraq deaths study was valid and correct"
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2006/10/20/1160851135985.html

Sorry Ted I believe those who know what they are talking about.
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 2:40:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You people make me sick.

Instead of being divisive with your self-biased nitpicking of each other here is what intelligent-minded individuals can agree upon.

1. A cruel dictator imposed harsh punishment, including torture and death, on people he was entrusted to protect. Depite this being Wrong! - he was helped into his position, supported throughout many years of dictatorship and even armed - BY THE US and Europe! (with the help of Israel, and kickbacks by Australian business)

2. The only WMD's Iraq was ever confirmed to possess were thanks to - THE US and Europe! (courtesy the 80's Iran-Iraq war)

3. Despite my PM assuring me by letter that the war was to disarm Saddam and not about regime change, GW did confirm after 6 weeks of war with Saddam (not Iraq) that America's 'mission' was accomplished.

4 There is no such thing as 'an Iraqi' in the same sense that there is 'an Australian'. What there is are 3 distinct groups (Shia, Sunni, Kurds) who share a country and little else and who have long-held reasons to hate the others to the extent that they are willing to kill them at any war-lord's pretext.

5. People in Iraq were being murdered before the war and still are - arguably in greater numbers than under Saddam who needed to 'keep the peace' far more than the US does or is capable of enforcing with the world watching so 'carefully'. Either way this is wrong! Before 2003 it was an 'evil' man who was responsible now it is the 'good guys' who are to blame (for not controlling the country as 'effectively' as Saddam could).

6. Clearly, contolling peace in such a population requires the threat of deadly force, so was Saddam so 'bad' after all given the hostility between the Iraqi's (who just want peace?) Are we any better because we had 'pure' motives for 'our' action?

Where were our motives in N Korea? in Rawanda? in Darfour? in Lebanon when US jets and tanks were used to blow up civilian apartment blocks and UN command posts (what 'investigation'?)
Posted by BrainDrain, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 2:54:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is more verification of the validity of the report published in the Lancet http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php
Of course those who don't want to believe still won't accept that this report represents reality in Iraq today.
Posted by rossco, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 3:40:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Easy Times, what we are talking about with allowing Iran to go atomic is about a principle. What political scientists call, the axiom of the balance of power.

It just happens that against non nuclear Iran we have nuclear firepower from not only Israel and the US, but the UK and possibly France and Germany. Also remember Israel's firepower in this case is from a battery that is illegitimate, similar to America's in the case of Iraq.

Anyhow, please place yourself in Iran's dangerous position, and say what Iran has done wrong, apart from rhetoric which she is entitled to use, seeing that she is being cornered like a tiger cat that has never attacked anyone else apart from a snarl.

Also, seeing the way they have been treated by Western nations, ever since the double-crossing of TE Lawrence after WW1, why should any Arab or Persian nation ever have to bow and scrape to the West?

It is not so long ago that Mubarak of Egypt when asked by a Western journalist what was the real problem in the Middle East? Without question, Western intrusion and injustice: Replied Mubarak

There is a saying in political science, EasyTimes, that the best way to find answers to international problems is not to take sides, but take the overall look. Most of us now support the Western position on Iran, or of the whole Middle East, because we have the Big League on our side. Competent political scientists are not taught to work like that, despite them sometimes called left-wing loonies or fruitcakes.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 6:07:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Latimer: The augments you put forward are silly. Times change people change! During the Iran Iraq war we had bigger fish to fry AKA USSR. By supporting Iraq we may have been able to get there help in other ways if ever needed and by supporting them it would not enable them to form closer ties with the USSR.

We need a BIG reason to take any sort of deceive action today and I am sure we would have acted along time ago against N Korea if it had not been for the hippy/greenies/idiot movements!

For all practical purposes to act in the international community you have to wait until you are actually a physical victim, not potential! So until Australia suffers or one of our friends suffers another barbaric attack you purpose the “head in sand” strategy that many western governments seem to be perfecting?

We are doing what we can in Afghanistan to catch Osama. What more do you purpose we do David Latimer?

Bushbred: PRINCIPLES! According to the balance of power theory we should also give them a heap’s of money, tanks, aircraft and technology so that thing can be more “balanced”?

If Iran gets nukes it allows them to operate with almost total immunity in the international community and promote there stone age agenda. Remember the attack in Argentina on the Jewish property? When Iran gets nukes you can expect them to ramp up those sort of attack because “we have nukes what are you going to about it?”

Also remember you have a semi extremist organization in power in Iran. If the government collapsed and a group who are even more religious fundamentalist took power what might they do we a couple of nukes?

What groups might they “accidentally” give them to?

If you were in Israel position what would you do if a group like that took power in a country that wants you wiped from the map?

When it comes to Iran and nukes the worst case scenario must be considered highly likely.
Posted by EasyTimes, Thursday, 2 November 2006 2:05:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have we forgotten about Ted Lapkin and his attempt to revive the Cold War -- but without the USSR?
Posted by Youngsteve, Thursday, 2 November 2006 2:33:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like to get you in front of a team of scientific reasoners, Easy Times. Most of the stuff you are accusing Iran of is from mostly just commmon low grade street chatter. Like when you talk about someone you don't like as a neighbour. Nothing about any affection for Iran from this side, mate, just a case of a fair go, which Iran has not had very much of, ever since America moved in illegally dumping in the Shah, not long after the end of WW2.

Thus the holding of the US Embassy staff in the late 1970s was just payback, what even the CIA has termed blowback among the many other illegal incidents the US has been involved in trying to push its weight in the Middle East. Probably the most nastily ridiculous, re-shown last year on SBS, was Donald Rumsfeld's involvement in advising Saddam Hussein about tactics early in Iraq's attack on Iran in 1981.

You and many others, unfortunately, Easy Times, have been shutting your minds to what has been termed so many times by political scientists as neo-colonialism - the West still on the grab- when first it was the spice and tobacco economy, then the tea and coffee economy, now for too long it's been the oil economy, helped so much by the corporate political spin that is now propping us up, due to fall down with the real truth about a failing society through too long shutting our minds to global warming.

Pay you to read a few books on modern political economy, matey. In Murdoch University WA there is an excellent course, remodelled each year to go with the times - available for retired seniors pretty well for nix.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 2 November 2006 5:17:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Easytimes.

Where did Iran and Nth Korea get their nuclear bomb technology?

Pakistan

The CIA knew about A Q Khan's little scheme for 18 years but failed to stop him.

Why? Because it suited their geo-political purposes.
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 2 November 2006 5:41:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You people are simply amazing. Every time I think that knee jerk anti-Americanism can't get any more irrational, you come up with something new to surprise me.

Let's recap a few of the ludicrous contentions being advanced here:

1) Steve argues that somehow America felt it was in its national interest for North Korea to get the bomb.

2) Bushbred thinks that the Iranian mullahs are pure as the driven snow - I guess he missed that little news item from last week in which a former Iranian president, foreign minister and Republican Guard chief were formally indicted by the Argentinian government for the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Bueos Aires.

That's a bit more than "low grade street chatter" about a country that "that has never attacked anyone else apart from a snarl." Dontcha think, mate?

But then I suppose Bushbred will fall back on his secondary argument - it was merely a question of "payback," and those Jews in Argentina had it coming.

Before advising others on book lists, Bushbred, you ought to be doing a bit of reading on your own. Peruse any of the material out there on Iranian terrorist links and human rights abuses - even from organisations like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. And you'll see that the Iranian regime is cruelly despotic at home, and deeply involved in terrorism abroad
Posted by Ted Lapkin, Thursday, 2 November 2006 7:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When have I ever said anything about North Korea and atomic weapons? For the record, I am totally opposed to nuclear weapon proliferation, whoever is involved. But it's a bit rich for the US, whose nuclear arsenal is enough to blow the planet off its orbit, to preach to others on the subject. Nor do I have illusions about the brutality of regimes such as that in Iran, where public stoning to death is still practised as punishment for what we would regard as petty crimes. The point is not to press propaganda weapons into the hands of the Ahmedinajads and the Sheikh Nasrullahs with ill-thought-out adventures like the Iraq invasion. This must have multiplied tenfold the attractiveness of jihadist ideas in the Moslem world.

Well done, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al!
Posted by Youngsteve, Thursday, 2 November 2006 9:01:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Youngsteve - my comment about North Korean nukes was directed to your eponymous fellow traveller - Steve Madden.

But let me dispute your attempt to rewrite the history of the Cold War (you are the one who keeps bringing up Cold War references, not I).

You cite Strobe Talbot, whom I regard as nothing more than a crass leftwing ideologue. And his attempt to vindicate the dovish point of view in the conflict vis a vis the USSR is laughable in light of the Soviets' brutal track record of expansionism abroad and crushing dissent at home. We just celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising. You should have a little more respect for those who died defending freedom against the Red Army in the streets of Budapest.

There was no moral equivalence to be found during the Cold War.

Marxism is an ideological system that, by its very nature, negates individual rights and freedoms. Lenin presided over the 'Red Terror' of 1918, and Trotsky later wrote a tract entitled "Terrorism and Communism - Dictatorship vs Democracy" to defend the murderous record of the Bolsheviks. And then Stalin came along and took repression to a bloody new level. Between the three of them, they accounted for roughly 20 million deaths amongst their own people. And this is the system that the Soviets wished to export forcibly throughout the world.

That's what you just don't get, Young - on one side of the Cold War you had a totalitarian dictatorial system, while on the other you had a democratic system that guaranteed the liberties that are at the core of any free society.

Democracies are places where people risk their lives to reach, while totalitarian dictatorships are places people risk their lives to flee. Remember E. Germany had to build a wall with armed guards to keep its people in.

Ronald Reagan was correct - the communists did constitute an "evil empire" And even your comrade Gorbachev admits in his memoirs that it was Reagan's military build up that hastened the USSR's demise. And not a moment too soon.
Posted by Ted Lapkin, Friday, 3 November 2006 2:48:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do GREATER works than these, because I am going to my Father.

WHATEVER you will ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If you will ask ANYTHING in my name, I will do it.

If you LOVE ME, keep my Commandments.
John 14:12-15

We are not the pure son of God but we are (ALL) God's children in whom and by whom miracles will be performed (greater than those of Jesus who raised the dead),if we but have faith as a mustard seed. (miniscule size compared to a human body)

John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he doesn't follow with us."

Jesus said to him, "Don't forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us."
Luke 9:49-50

"If yer not with us, yer agin us"
George W Bush

If you cannot see the difference between christian Bush and Christ follower John's two statements then you will get all you truly deserve.

Hawaiilawyer, you paint a picture of no hope for us today, I suspect you long for the coming of the Anti-christ.

'Humans can't be ethical, no matter how hard they try'.

Not if you only deal in absolutes! To me Ethics is a spectrum: we do good when we move away from corruption, greed and contol over others and move towards Truth, Charity and encouraging self-control and Peace among all men.

A lawyer lecturing us on ethics? what next?
Posted by BrainDrain, Friday, 3 November 2006 3:41:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personally i would rather paint a Way to a picture of True Hope for all mankind and encourage any and all of us to fight for truth from our leaders and Faith and self-control (and even self-denial of that which corrupts us away from our Soul's purpose here on Earth) in our own minds and bodies rather than justifying the unjust and giving cause to keep people in darkness and poverty and perverting their faith.

I ask Jesus for a better world than we have let be created by man here NOW - starting today! Open your heart, eyes and ears to truth. Speak out and demand better from your elected leaders (or dictators) when you hear lies being spouted as propaganda for elite regimes. Do God's work, not George Bush's, Or Ahminajad's, Or Olmert's, Or Jong-Il's, Or Howard's.

This applies to Muslim's and conned christians alike. Even to the Hebrews, although i fear it will be much more difficult for most of them, because of their history.

Thou Shall Not Kill!

Thou Shall Not Spread FALSE Witness!.

What part of NOT don't American/Australian christians get??

C'mon all you George and Johhny Lovers out there explain THAT one to me?
Posted by BrainDrain, Friday, 3 November 2006 3:42:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ted Lapkin -- There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the USSR was hell-bent on "world domination". Influence, yes (cf. the Middle East), but domination, no. This was an invention of the fevered brains of the McCarthyists who, for various reasons, wished to purge American society of dissident opinion. Their rampaging not only ruined thousands of lives, it also badly damaged America's world image. For years, Hollywood was almost unable to produce any worthwhile cinema -- even movies like "West Side Story" were attacked by some as "leftwing" because they involved working-class youth and problems of ethnic tensions etc. There is no way I can defend or excuse the USSR's sins of omission or commission, but it is possible to find explanations in that country's actual history, primarily in the Wars of Intervention which resulted from the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, and then the massive bloodbath of the Nazi invasion and occupation. They could see no reason to trust the West, and this suspicion led inevitably to the Stalin purges of the 1930s and the setting up of puppet states in eastern Europe after 1945 as a buffer against the West. The black-and-white world of Ted Lapkin ignores most of this.

I wonder what Strobe Talbott would think of Lapkin...if he ever heard of him?
Posted by Youngsteve, Friday, 3 November 2006 4:36:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ted, mate, no hard feelings, but Israel with America behind it has had Iran in its sights for a long time now. What is happening in Iraq, is nought compared with what a war with Iran will bring on. It is just a case of using scientific reasoning of which scientific power balance is part of.

The power balance in the Middle East was lopsided towards the US and Britain quite enough without loading little Israel with nasty nukes. Those in charge should have got sacked somehow.

And breaking our global laws at that, maybe Israel might sit in the same Court as the US. I guess you may not have heard but the spin that America's attack on Iraq was legal somehow has been definitely scrubbed by the UN.

Yet I guess GWB and his gang might get out of it, seeing it's reported they have now got a stranglehold on the US Supreme Court of Law.

Nothing about who's the strongest Ted, because it should be all about a fair go, as we say in Australia. And the Middle-East Arabs haven't had much of it for years.
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 3 November 2006 7:36:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Youngsteve: your instinct towards appeasement blinds you to the moral realities of the cold war. You offer a diffident demurral from the “USSR’s sins” – but then you attempt to justify them by putting them in what you would describe as historical context.

Stalin’s brutal campaign to extinguish liberty throughout E. Europe after WWII is excused by you as an understandable “buffer against the West.” Never mind the hundreds of thousands who were shot or imprisoned, and the millions cowed into subservience though such political terror.

Yet, as you bend over backwards to understand Soviet motivations, you extend no such tolerance to the Americans who feared the real threat of communist subversion. At worst, Joe McCarthy and HUAC stymied the careers of a few hundred people in showbiz, many of whom had communist links. But you seem more outraged by this than by Soviet crimes.

Excuse me, Steve, but I consider mass murder and political repression at gunpoint to be far more serious than the Hollywood blacklist.

You accuse me of believing in a “black and white world.” I readily plead guilty as far as the struggle between Marxism and freedom goes. A system founded on the forcible negation of individual rights, is indeed black. And no effort on your part to justify the unjustifiable will change that.

Anatoly Shransky, who spent 9 years in a Soviet Gulag for the ‘crime’ of seeking emigration to Israel, tells a story that exemplifies the moral difference between freedom and communist tyranny:

“In 1983, I was confined to an eight-by-ten-foot prison cell on the border of Siberia. My Soviet jailers gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda. Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of President Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's "provocation" quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth - a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.”
Posted by Ted Lapkin, Saturday, 4 November 2006 7:25:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ted Lapkin has not even attempted to answer my argument that if you want to understand the dynamics of any conflict, you have to try to understand the motivations, not only of your own side, but of the other side too. Today, this applies most obviously to the Middle East situation. Those Israelis and Palestinians who are able to step into the shoes of the "other side" are very thin on the ground. As long as this remains so, this insane and bitter conflict will continue, egged on by the likes of Ted.
Posted by Youngsteve, Saturday, 4 November 2006 9:22:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Easytimes is still insisting on looking in Iraq for nuclear weapons when there is a real threat of nuclear attack from North Korea. He'd rather we address non existent threats before actual ones (No, I won't be told any more that Iraq had WMDs when it was invaded.)

Easytimes blames the hippies and greenies for North Korea's free run. I don't think George Bush listened to hippies when he bogged the US military down in Iraq for four years!

The coalition has not achieved any strategic goal in the war on terrorism, and Easytimes meekly responds "we are doing what we can."

How pathetic! We are not doing what we can. Osama bin Laden is able to conduct his campaign with impunity. Rather than being angry with these repeated failures, Easytimes seeks to shift responsiblity away from the governments involved and make excuses for politicians. The rest of us expect results.

People are realising that the US has failed in Iraq and it is costing us success elsewhere. This view is correct and those with their heads in the sand are the government apologists.
Posted by David Latimer, Saturday, 4 November 2006 6:33:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As an oldie who in retirement has a great interest in history and philosophy which my religous grand-daughter tells me makes me an unbeliever, can indeed agree with Ted that we do owe much to the Reagan era for getting us out of the Cold War.

Certainly what helped was Reagan's policy to get away from trying to keep a power balance between the US and the Soviets as was the advice from political philosophers to prevent an atomic catastrophe. But as it happened, with Reagan getting the whip out to his war factories, the Soviets being pretty well broke, gave in, helped much by feelings in Eastern Europe, where a more neutral type of Communism was on the go with Gorbachev the Soviet leader probably all too interested.

But Ted, I guess you know very well, that America in international relations has so often been called schizophrenic by political historians. So much like in the Wild West with a Bible in one hand and the other hand on a holstered gun butt. Similar to what is happening now in Iraq, with the President still talking freedom with his Bible always in his brief-case and the Vice-President with nary a thought about religion, but more about his new oil derricks and the use of half the US occupation force to guard them.

No need to say much more, Ted, it is so interesting that MASH is still on the go, and I still love to watch it, but now most anything to do with more recent US military exploits, many of us have lost interest.

Why, Ted? - many political philosophers can tell you, and it hurts, mate, because there must be some truth in it.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 5 November 2006 2:23:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
America's successes in foreign policy historically, I think speaks for itself.
Korea was left with a crook in charge,is one that comes to mind, Then there is all the other successes in Latin America and Vietnam, Cambodia laos, Africa not least.
Iraq is just another in a long list of stuffups.
I'm thinking of running a "book" on any further attempts to save the world.
I'm willing to to offer very good odds on Iraq not joining the list of failure.
fluff
Posted by fluff4, Monday, 6 November 2006 1:13:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Latimer stop putting words in my mouth! I believe that Iraq had the potential to produce nuclear weapons just like Iran does I never said that we should still be looking for them today!

N Korea HAS nuclear weapons now all we can do is try some sort of containment! .

The North Korea scenario is what we avoided with going into Iraq and we hope to avoid by dealing with Iran in a suitable manner.

“Osama bin Laden is able to conduct his campaign with impunity” What a joke! Osama is in some dark cave some where in the Himalayas thinking “is today going to be the day they get me” He is like a scared rabbit unable to operate because of the threat of his own death or capture.

The campaign in Iraq has not gone totally to plan but it is better to make an attempt at changing the world and be moderately successful then to do nothing.

Bushbred – is it bad that the US wants to fashion the Middle East like the United States? Which scenario is better for both the west and the people of the Middle East? Which civilization is more successful? You are obviously anti American and sure the Americans have made some mistakes but American foreign policy will benefit everyone in the long run.
Posted by EasyTimes, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 2:24:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Easytimes -- If you want the Middle East, or any other part of the world, to be more like the US, you would have to replace the history of the ME with that of the US. Any other way would lead to disasters like that which Iraq is suffering right now. Ignore history at your peril. There's nothing "anti-American" about this.
Posted by Youngsteve, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 4:22:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Won't the world be a wonderful place when it is just like America?

No Drug addiction problems.

No Gun control problems.

No Handgun Homicides

No Racial inequalities.

No Poverty and homelessness.

No Corporate Corruption resulting in billion dollar bankruptcies.

No Billionaire plutocrats amassing ever more wealth.

$7 an hour minimum wage with no free health care.

No need to tell the populace fabrications to get them to support political action and inaction on major issues - No need to lie, cheat, steal.

One world religion - we can all bow down to the Golden Calf.

Who needs anything America doesn't sell?

Who has the right to rule themselves contrary to the way we are told is the only way?

Who is going to win the Propaganda Wars?

Not me - that's for sure.

I can hardly wait.

Note to Easytimes - do us all a favour and move to America, then at least there will be two happier people in the world - you and me.
Posted by BrainDrain, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 6:31:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I am saying is that hopefully Iraq will go down the same path as Japan did with Australian American and Britain’s help. Japan is not a mirror image of the US and I don’t expect Iraq to be either but hopefully they will take the good things that the West has done with its civilization and fashion it into a form of government that is democratic and able to fit in with the Middle East. Maybe they could also get some hints from other Muslim states like Turkey?

I don’t love America I just think they are working for an ends that will ensure a more stable world. And hopefully countries like Australia will be there to help when ever we can.

Anything is better for Iraq looking at the way it is now or was under Saddam!

DrainedBrain would rather do nothing and shut his eyes and put his fingers in his ears the more progressive amongst us think being proactive is a much better idea for being proactive helps emerging nations go through tough times that we Europeans went through and paid for with the deaths of millions of our people.

The helping hand is there for Iraq but will they take it? Let’s hope so.
Posted by EasyTimes, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 8:28:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since you are so wiling to change my name Easytimes, can I suggest you amend yours to EasyAnswers? Totally, utterly, inhumanly wrong Answers but easy ones (Easy on you, deadly to millions)

Clearly, you want to believe that it doesn’t matter how – the Ends Justifies the Means.

Under Saddam, Westerners in Iraq were relatively safe travelling around the country in UN marked vehicles and convoys. Can that be said after three years of US rule and enforcement of ‘Law and Order’?? Take off your blinkers man.

Try asking the Kurds just what a success Turkey is.

Helping Hand in Iraq? With friends like these….

Look at my last post. When the US can claim success on those things in its own country it can tell everyone else how to live – and not before.

(btw. I forgot to mention peadophilia, prostitution, mafia crime bosses, unlimited porn and gang territorial battles in large cities – Such a righteously christian President and country, America)

You hypocritically accuse David Latimer of putting words in your mouth and then you make utterly false accusations of my actions, aims and motives.

My choice was to let the UN perform the ‘task’ of disarming Saddam Hussein. A task they have obviously successfully achieved since no WMD’s were ever found in Iraq or used in it’s own defence against an invading, conquering army
Posted by BrainDrain, Thursday, 9 November 2006 3:21:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EasyAnswers? Well, no I prefer EasyTimes.

Braindrain wants the UN to perform the task LOL. How many hundred’s of thousands died because of UN sanctions in Iraq up too 2001? How many more would be dead now if we had still been running around playing silly buggers there? And remember many of those who died were children.

The UN is a silly organization that keeps ill-informed people like Braindrain happy because it makes it look as if small irrelevant powers have a say. The fact is that the UN is the United States. I don’t like that but it’s a fact! Who else is going to do the dirty work when push comes to shove? China? Russia? Germany?
With out the United States the most the UN could do if a country was stepping out of line would be to “ask nicely” and say they will be very cranky if they did not listen to what the UN suggested.
Sure with small issues people can accept the UN but when it comes to decisiveness the UN is useless becasue you have so many differing opinions.
To put it simply has there ever been a debate on Onlineopinon where everybody has agreed?
If disarming Saddam was such a success why was he trying so hard to keep the UN inspectors out? If you have nothing to hide why stuff around so much?
Posted by EasyTimes, Thursday, 9 November 2006 6:08:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont.)
I would like to remind Easytimes that when I wrote to the PM in 2003 asking him not to send Aussies to Iraq (just what action did you take Easy – go on tell us what YOU did. Sit back and do nothing perhaps? Or not care because it wasn’t your land and house being bombed THIS time?) and to let the UN continue to achieve peace there, through their Weapons Inspectors, our lying scumbag replied personally by writing that we were only going in to disarm Saddam under a (US sponsored) UN resolution and that we were NOT going to in to obtain a regime change!. John Howard told me in writing he was personally willing to let evil, murdering, toturing Saddam remain in charge! As has been proven, Saddam was telling the truth that he had already disarmed before the invasion and so it was a completely illegal attack on a country that could not possibly defend itself against such a one-sided, massive, ‘Shock and Awe’ barrage.

GW showed that, at best, John Howard and Australia’s troops had been completely duped by his ‘good friend’ when he declared after 6 weeks of war with Saddam with his regime in tatters, his statue torn down and not one weapon of mass destruction found- ’ Mission Accomplished’. But apparently it is ok to lie to us and for our PM to lie to me to get what THEY want?

Easytimes is happy to promote the deaths of millions if it means those that survive can be as ‘free’ as everyone is in America. I would rather try saving the lives of those who have done nothing to deserve to die and give them the right to rule over themselves. It is not the people of a country who want to control the world, it is their leaders. That is where all the real world’s trouble lies – the discrepancy between what the average person wants and what those at the top want for themselves.

As for you last blather... (to be cont once the durn time limit lets me!)
Posted by BrainDrain, Thursday, 9 November 2006 7:35:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for your latest blather it is so full of inconsistencies, even of your own half-arguments, that i am not even going to give them the courtesy of a response other than this.

(Nope. He's so dumb he won't be able to begin to know where to start unless it is pointed out to him....)

The UN solved East Timor! (a former Muslim Colony of the largest Muslim nation on Earth, 200 million of em compared to Austrlia's 20 mil) - Peacefully! without firing a shot in anger - Australia (not the US) played a major contributing part but the UN made the elections possible - compare that to the 'success' and massive in anyones terms death toll in Iraq! geez....
Posted by BrainDrain, Friday, 10 November 2006 5:59:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Easytimes writes "If disarming Saddam was such a success why was he trying so hard to keep the UN inspectors out?" (9 Nov 2006 6:08:07) as though this proves something other than Saddam was found to not hold nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, or programs to create them.

Easytimes is a person who accuses others of having their head in the sand, at the same time believing and stating that going into Iraq to rid Saddam of nuclear weapons actually avoided a "North Korea scenario." (8 Nov 2006 2:24:45 PM) and that invading Iraq avoided the "deaths of millions of our people." (8 Nov 2006 8:28:45 PM)

We continue to find people who continue to justify going to war and the resulting death of thousands upon thousands of people: soldiers, men, women and children, so to remove an imagined threat.

As the facts are recognised by every government, the only plausible objective of Easytime’s post is to continue the diversion of resourses and attention away from Osama Bin Laden and/or North Korea, the latter of which has been presented as a fait accompli.
Posted by David Latimer, Saturday, 11 November 2006 12:35:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Comparing East Timor with Iraq…….. At least try and compare apples with apples Braindrain they are totally different. 99.9% of people in East Timor were begging for independence from Indonesia. Indonesia gave up East Timor freely. Also there is no parties trying to drive Australian and other peace keeping nations out. As for Iraq about 85% of them supported the toppling of Saddam. Iran Syria and other terrorist nations/organizations are pouring billions into trying to kill and destabilize Iraq. (Much to the pleasure of Braindrain and David Latimer)
So even for a nano brain like yourself Braindrain you can workout that comparing East Timor with Iraq is like comparing apples with oranges.

David Latimer please read my post again and you can then post an apology for miss quoting me again. I never said that invading Iraq saved millions of lives…….. put your glasses on!
Posted by EasyTimes, Saturday, 11 November 2006 12:09:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Easytimes your argument and statements are an utter joke.

I don't criticise in here the obvious to Anyone evil of Syria and Iran interfering in another nations self destruction or millions (or merely thousands) of deaths they help cause.

Why not? because it is OBVIOUS - no need

I criticise the hypocraisy and not so obvious evil of America enlisting AUSSIES into an unjust war and creating the power vacuum that permitted all the current deaths in Iraq in the first place.

Why? BECAUSE IT IS NOT OBVIOUS TO ALL YET! And dorks and apologists like you only make it worse.

You will never find me justifyng war in Iraq from either supporters side and if your figure of 85% is accurate (like so much of what you say)- why did they not topple Saddam themselves in more than 25 years the way they are destabilising the occupied forces and 'government'?

Bush got it majorly wrong in Iraq and worse he dragged us and the coalition of the willing into it. The deaths since 2003 could have and should have been predicted. Bush is the cause. If he stays in Iraq as long as Saddam did the death toll will be higher under Bush than Saddam. He never belonged there in the first place.

I won't be holding my breath for your apologies to me for saying Iraq's disaster brings me any pleasure.
Posted by BrainDrain, Saturday, 11 November 2006 1:09:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to Easytimes:

Yes, I'd like to correct my quote where I misread your statement about emerging nations, being proactive and the "deaths of millions of our people." (8 Nov 2006 8:28:45 PM) I mistook this statement as connected to the topic of Iraq and the rationale of disarming WMD's, however it is actually about past European death. As requested I retract and am sorry for writing you believe that Iraq saved millions of lives; clearly you do not believe that; and I quite freely admit that I cannot make any sense your statement whatsoever.

The total time between making this error and correcting it is 25 hours. The death toll remains at zero. I do not believe this retreat from my words has emboldened terrorism.

George Bush made a far more serious error over 32,000 hours ago, in commencing an invasion of Iraq and is yet to realise the enormity and tragedy of this mistake. As of yesterday, Bush continues to believe that "Iraq is the central front in this war on terror", and that front line troops are there to "win the war on terror." Rather than apologise, he says that "the world is more secure because of the leadership of Don Rumsfeld" (his sacked Defence Secretary.) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061111.html
Posted by David Latimer, Sunday, 12 November 2006 1:34:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Latimer,

No, George Bush did not make a serious error in attacking Iraq, because:
(1) the turn of pre-war events (eg. Iraq disregarded UN resolutions) was such that a DECISION TO ACT has to be made some time. Going to war was the decision. The alternative is NOT TO ACT (and always do nothing).
(2) if Bush is successful in trainsforming Iraq, then today you would not say that was an error. (A hypocrisy on the part of most anti-Bush bashers).

Why is Bush not successful? Unlike post-war Japan and Gemany which prospered (under occupation), the most improtant factor is: ISLAM.

Secondly- you cannot win a war with one-hand tied, tied by stupid people who count death bodies.

The American body count matters a lot because every life is important in the US.

What about Iraqi body counts?? Well, go ask Muslim mothers who proclaim her wish to breed many sons so that they can give themselves to Allah (by turning suicide bombers). Also ask those Muslim leaders who accept such a martyrdom with glee.

In fact Bush has played a much more important role in history than many of his predecessors (eg. Clinton). Bush is the president who vocalised the danger coming from Islam, did something about it... and failed.

And his failure becomes a vital lesson to us:

(1) Islam rejects freedom and democracy. Therefore Iraq will never be democratic and free.

(2) We may never win the "War on Terrorism" because people like you tie the hands of those at war.

(3) If a secular military dictator rises up in our neighbour Indonesia, support him and take advantage of his secularism (at the expense of freedom and democracy, unfortunately)

(4) Our duty to ensure the Islam cancer does not spread further in Australia. The cancer is terminal and irreversible.
Posted by GZ Tan, Sunday, 12 November 2006 10:06:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is "GZ Tan" a pseudonym for Pauline Hansen? Soon, my friend, it will be just you and John Howard supporting the continuing, disastrous occupation of Iraq.
Posted by Youngsteve, Sunday, 12 November 2006 10:30:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Youngsteve,

perhaps you're very young indeed...

fyi, it is not me to respond to somone with an utter lack of intelligence.

I notice that most writers do not respond to comments on their articles, but Ted Lapkin actually took the troubles to explain things, to even a fool like yourself.

I suggest you express gratitude to Ted in your next post (even though you cannot grasp what he says). That way, at least you will have said the most intelligent thing all day.
Posted by GZ Tan, Sunday, 12 November 2006 12:24:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to GZ Tan, I am:

1. Probably very young

2. Utterly lacking in intelligence

3. A fool, and

4. Ungrateful to Ted Lapkin.

Sorry, mate, I have to plead Not Guilty to all of the above. What you are really saying is simply that you don't agree with me. I don't mind that at all, but your ad hominem method of argument leaves much to be desired. Ted Lapkin? In fact I am grateful to him for providing a flint upon which others can sharpen their axes.

In these times of change, we need the Lapkins, the Bolts and the Sheridans to remind us of what we're leaving behind.

I apologise to Pauline Hansen for the slur on her character.
Posted by Youngsteve, Sunday, 12 November 2006 1:20:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm probably as guilty as anyone in this post of driving divisism between those who live in the same nation as me on the subject of what I believe to be a completely unjust, illegal, and improper war in Iraq and have attacked the seeming stupidity of some of those who support Bush's CHOICE. ('Action' does not have to equal WAR people).

I am however going to be the FIRST to suggest that people put their biases aside, stop attacking one another (because we ALL HERE want peace in this world - Agreed?) and discuss rationally what is best for Australia, not America, right now and for our continued and prosperous and safe future.

Any ONE of you got the intelligence to do that? or do you want to go on making war the rest of your lives and leaving Death of men in your wake ?

Once we can sort out Peace here then we can try spreading it elsewhere.

Maybe other country's could learn something from us?

Anyone else willing to give that a try?

Why do i feel another attack coming on??
Posted by BrainDrain, Sunday, 12 November 2006 3:47:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to the incredible post of GZ Tan (12 Nov 2006 10:06 AM):

According to Tan, Iraq disregarding the UN demand to disclose its stockpiles of WMD's. It is notable that Tan does not mention what the US demand was, because that would immediately make clear the demand was baseless.

As I remember the Iraqi response, it said it did not have WMD's and that past stockpiles where destroyed. The US did not accept this answer, although we know this information was correct and that the US demand was impossible to comply with.

It is absolutely clear the case for war was unproven, and the was nothing in the results of UN inspections to indicate a actual or growing threat, unlike North Korea or Osama Bin Laden.

Under all circumstances, governments are accountable for their errors however baseless reasons continue to provided for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Like most people, I believe in being accountable for my mistakes. By his actions since George Bush has shown he is not such a person.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 13 November 2006 12:59:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further response to incredible comments of GZ Tan (12 Nov 2006 10:06 AM):

The remainder of Tan's post, focuses on the importance of American life above that of Iraqi life. According to Tan, Americans value life but Muslim mothers want their sons to be suicide bombers.

This is a shocking statement and double standard, indicative of the desperate need of a small minority to divide the Australian community and have neighbour attacking neighbour. It the same approach used by Iraqi insurgents and American military interrogators and strategists alike, that incredibly has turned the heinous, repressive yet secular government of Saddam Hussein into something comprehensible by Western observers, something better than the current situation.

Astonishing!

People like Tan believe that Bush’s failure and confusion is the fault of those like Colin Powell who provided sober counsel (“one-hand tied, tied by stupid people” as Tan put it.) As far as I know Powell was the only moderating force on the Bush national security team and ultimately accepted responsibility for his failure as a member of that team.

People like Tan believe that Iraq is in the same position as Germany and Japan at the end of World War II, forgetting that the Axis nations declared war and were so ruthless in their persecution of that war that millions of civilians were killed, year after year after year.

It takes a twisted view of responsibility, truth and humanity to write a post as Tan has done.

The lesson of the Bush presidency becoming crystal. To win against repression and terrorism our greatest weapons are not smart bombs, aircraft carrier groups or interrogation black sites.

Our greatest “weapons” against terrorism are the principles of humanity, justice and democracy. Let’s start using them.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 13 November 2006 1:01:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not quite the attempt to reconcile all Australians i had hoped for Dave, compelling as your post may appear to me and similar minded individuals.

Lets remember that Australia also has as citizens people who might actually agree with the likes of Easytimes and Mr Tan and your undeniably accurate statements will only be taken by such people as highbrow pacifist crap and further cement their already set minds into a position of opposition and hatred of you and the principles you espouse, thus ensuring civil strife and disagreement on what should be a very clear issue to all.

I was making an attempt to draw Aussies closer together, not further divide them, so that each may truly understand where they are coming from and why they feel the way they do in order to achieve consensus and rationality instead of emotionality and blind opposition simply because someone sees something differtently to someone else.

I find it absolutely amazing that in a country such as ours this forum displays such hatred of peaceful ideals and an utter incapability of reaching agreement or even seeking commonality in our Australian natures. Rather we prefer to fight against ourselves without concern for understanding and appreciating the intelligence and human rights of those who oppose our beliefs.

Or at least a vocal minority do.
Posted by BrainDrain, Monday, 13 November 2006 1:28:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

U wrote: "According to Tan... stockpiles of WMD's..."
Sorry, those are your words, not mine.

The fact is, the turn of pre-war events was such that A DECISION had to be made, WITHIN A LIMITED TIME. ( I mentioned UN resolutions only as an example. Whether WMDs, chemical weapons, Sadam's atrocity or link with Al Queda is irrelevant to my argument.)

The point is, the only possible decisions are: Do something (War) or Do nothing. No such thing as a third option.

World leaders do not made decisions based on 100% truth and facts. Decisions are often based on analysis on a shade of grey and CALCULATED RISKS. You should know this.

On balance, the decision was to attack Sadam. Do not forget it was widely supported then.

I support the decision because I saw a very good outcome which was a real possibility... until the situation become dire, NOT because the decision to attack Sadam was wrong, but because:

(1) people constantly tie the hands of those at war.
(2) notwithstanding suicide bombing, terrorism, people only point their fingers one way - the faults of US.

In other words, Bush failed partly because too many consciously or inadvertently SIDED WITH TERRORISTS.

Many people, are "guilty" as charged.

What I said about importance of American life versus that of Iraqi's is a FACT !!
You'd be hypocritical and politically-correct to pretend otherwise.

The fact that Japan and Nazis were the agressors in WW2 is irrelevant. What is right about your country being "occupied", irregardless?

What was there to stop Japanese/Germans to turn to suicide bombings to expell US "occupations" even though they were wrong in starting wars in the first place?

Truths are:

(1) If all Muslims value their life as much as American or Japanese/ Germans do, there would be NO death due to suicide bombing or terrorist kidnapping in Iraq, NOT ONE!!

(2) If all Muslims value their lives, Iraq is already building a vibrant democracy today!!

(3) If Bush is successful, you would be singing praises of him today.
Posted by GZ Tan, Monday, 13 November 2006 5:08:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you erred in your reasoning as you under-estimated the influence of Islam.

As to your emotional (nonetheless naive) appeal: "Our greatest weapons against terrorism are the principles of humanity, justice and democracy....", I say:

--> Western powers will one day deal with Iran USING MILITARY FORCE.

Because:
(1) your noble principles do not work with an Islamic Iran
(2) just like Iraq, a decision to war (rightly or wrongly) will have to be made.

Mark my words !!

BrainDrain,
I don't think we are ready just yet...
Posted by GZ Tan, Monday, 13 November 2006 5:14:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry - my eyes have just been opened wider.

Forget what I wrote earlier. Dick heads like Tan should NEVER be allowed to live in Australia.

One Iraqi life is not worth as much as one American's life??

War or do nothing is the only choice ? - MORON!

Now where is my Gun?? I'm hunting me some Tan! War is officially declared - it's my only choice, apparently?
Posted by BrainDrain, Monday, 13 November 2006 6:36:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BrainDrain,

You asked: "One Iraqi life is not worth as much...??"

That wasn't what I wrote, neither have I make such a value judgement on life.

My point was essentially, what matters is how Iraqi Muslims THEMSELVES value THEIR own life.

The fact is - Iraqi's are murdering even themselves, everyday.

I rightly lay the blame on Islam. Unless/Until all Muslims THEMSELVES regard the sanctity of life same way as Americans/Japanese/Germans do, there will inevitably be terrorism, murders in Iraq... and that's NOT the fault of US/Bush.

You paraphrased: "War or do nothing....only choice ?"

In fact my statements were only referring to the Iraq scenario. I can see my statements were poorly phrased. I do apologise.

The Iraq pre-war situation came down to this:
(1) Saddam to stay, thanks to UN inaction
(2) No more Saddam, due to US-led action

I do maintain that option (1) was a proven "Do Nothing" option. Because "Iraq was Saddam", "Saddam was Iraq". As long as Saddam is in power, nothing would have been done/achieved. UN was proven to be a useless bureaucracy on Saddam. If the UN ever appeared to be doing something, it was because US was pushing it in the first place.

There was indeed no third option. UN sanctions? Been there, tried that.
Arab States could not, would not handle Saddam. Neither would USSR or China get their hands dirty.

Therefore I believe I was correct in the context of Saddam's Iraq and I merely reflected on events that have transpired.

You wrote: "Dick heads like Tan..."

There are all sorts in Australia, including Islamists who regard some women as uncovered meat. Hopefully you will do something about those too.

I can understand your wrathful outburst, due to the misunderstanding.

But I do insist - It is not only people who are anti-war that have an "automatic" and un-questionable claim to a moral high ground.

Enough from me on OLO...GOOD BYE, ALL
Posted by GZ Tan, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 6:53:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to Brain Drain:
Please avoid using directly insulting words against another participant. It does you no credit.

A final word:
In a society which has been fractured by many years of dictatorship, war and occupation, a very large number of people will have died unreported. The sampling method attempts to estimate the total number of deaths, when it is not possible to directly make count of them. This number is compared against death rates prior to the invasion and will include violent death through criminal activity.

The arguments presented in this article provide no reason to doubt the validity of this estimate within the margin of error.

It would be reasonable to check that the researchers applied the methodology correctly, however if we are to accept the scientific method, the result can and should be confirmed by a separate research team using a similar technique.

It is not valid to compare with the UK during World War II, or any other war. Certainly some wars have generated millions of casualties.

655,000 is an entirely plausable, albeit horrific number.

For further information about casualities in Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 8:34:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy