I would be more impressed if the Australian Laboe party started to take an interest in the welfare of the citizens of West Papua, but then, West Papua has no oil and the Indonesians do.

Lindsay, are you reading this thread? If so, maybe you could respond.

Before the invasion of Iraq, so many of us knew that it principally boiled down to the control of strategic oil supplies and their relationship to the value of the US dollar - and therefore the maintenance of the status quo. Any fool with an internet connection and a little technical knowlege knew that the excuses given by Powell were unlikely at best - just plain lies at worst.

Only two lone dissenting voices spring to my mind in the run-up to the invasion.

The first was Andrew Wilkie. The desire to tell the truth trumped his loyalty to the cabal of secret-mongers.

The second was Mark Latham, who began to speak the truth out loud, before he was swept aside by "circumstances". George Bush is indeed the most dangerous president in US history, but he pales in comparison to his handlers.

So where do we go to for some plain godawful truth?

Is resistance useless?

Can we even hope for a soft landing while we are joined to a criminal conspiracy hell bent on world domination?

Truth in politcis is a rare commodity

- we know we are not in Iraq to curb their WMD capability and we know we are not there because Iraq was a terrorist stronghold -

when compared to parts of the Phillipines Syria and Lebanon for example even then their international aspirations are more rhetoric -Iraq was a benign military and political cot case - and it looks like it is destined to stay that way for quite some time

we can only ever guess at the real reason we are there; maybe it was oil, I hang my hat on revenge - at least when it comes to the USA. As for the rest of us it is purely self interest and not wanting to put the US off side.

The argument about democracy is pure BS - the West has tried to strangle the elected government of Palestine - becuase it hates Hamas more than it respects the principles of democracy

Truly independant nation states either never joined the COW or have long since cut and run - a far braver course of action than most think

The article sums up the anti-war position clearly enough.

Chris there were considerably more than two dissenting voices prior to the invasion. The size of the crowd that took to the streets was the largest since Vietnam. Howard's response? He won't be swayed by 'the mob'.

Nope, we're there because we're lapdogs, or at least because our government is content to see us, and have us seen, as that much. Most Iraqis, when asked, see no good reason for Asutralia to be involved. The only comfort to be gained now is that most Australians, when asked, say the same thing.

You are pretty well spot on, Lindsay. Certainly it has mostly been a case of neo-colonialism, and some mixed up Biblical tale about a Promised Land for the good and disposal for those who are not good. Trouble is in the older God's eyes the Muslims could be on the good side as well.

In more modern times there has been the different marketeering slogans causing millions of non-whites to be slaughtered. Apart from gold and silver, in more piratical times, first the spice and tobacco economy, then the tea and coffee economy, now the oil and gas economy, which looks like will break the record with killings made in the name of freedom and the market economy.

Will we ever wake up? Gandhi tried to show us how, as did Nelson Mandela, and possibly Pope John. But looks like Zionist led regime change and the Plan for the American 21st century along with US unipolar rights to be the only one with military might, could still make a horrible mess of things.

All one can say if there really is a sensible God somwhere up there, please give someone out of the global crowd the insight and commonsense to fix it all without dropping a bomb, or firing a shot.

Tanner's piece is as short of positive proposals as it is long on Schadenfreude. He is even massively wrong with the headline.

The question is not "...the same as it always was: why are we in Iraq?" It is "how do we stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution?"

It is one thing to beat ones breast and wail about what a mistake it all was (and it was), but entirely another to propose a practical, workable and realistic solution. So far, all the opponents of Howard's strategy (follow the US) have been able to do is make cheap political points. And with the debacle that exists, making cheap political points at Howard's expense is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Since it is not possible to erase the past and start again, would it not be a really neat idea for these pieces to start "Iraq was a big mistake. Now let's work out what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people and make that our target."

Even determining "what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people" is a mammoth task, but that is not a good reason to ignore it.

Part of me wants to let the three factions simply get on with killing each other, but another part says that is inhumane. Unfortunately I am not a well-paid and super-featherbedded politician with all the time in the world to ponder these highly important issues. Nor do I have a massive department of public servants beavering away in the background working out fresh initiatives and exciting, radical and dynamic (*choke*) proposals

But I do know I could write a more constructive piece than Mr tanner.

Tanner's piece is as short of positive proposals as it is long on Schadenfreude. He is even massively wrong with the headline.

The question is not "...the same as it always was: why are we in Iraq?" It is "how do we stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution?"

It is one thing to beat ones breast and wail about what a mistake it all was (and it was), but entirely another to propose a practical, workable and realistic solution. So far, all the opponents of Howard's strategy (follow the US) have been able to do is make cheap political points. And with the debacle that exists, making cheap political points at Howard's expense is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Since it is not possible to erase the past and start again, would it not be a really neat idea for these pieces to start "Iraq was a big mistake. Now let's work out what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people and make that our target."

Even determining "what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people" is a mammoth task, but that is not a good reason to ignore it.

Part of me wants to let the three factions simply get on with killing each other, but another part says that is inhumane. Unfortunately I am not a well-paid and super-featherbedded politician with all the time in the world to ponder these highly important issues. Nor do I have a massive department of public servants beavering away in the background working out fresh initiatives and exciting, radical and dynamic (*choke*) proposals

But I do know I could write a more constructive piece than Mr Tanner.

Come on, Pericles, certainly something should be done, without making airy philosophies.

With unipolar US having the balance of atomic power by a collossal margin, with her nuclear missile carriers performing the role previously carried out by British imperial gunboats, and with cheeky little Israel still as her nuclear vanguard against such a horrible Iran in the Middle East, what else can we do but pray for some sort of miracle, as which happened with Gandhi when he beat the British without hardly pulling a trigger.

Lindsay

Getting on a soap box about peace in the Middle East and criticising US, British and Australian involvement in Iraq is akin to, during a drought, blaming water shortages on farmers for using too much water while not addressing the causes of the issue: the problems of storage, crop choice and the weather.

The march for democracy in the Middle East needs be set in Palestine and Israel, not Iraq.

What is the Labor party position on that situation.

Regards Keith Kennelly

(Yep I too enjoy mounting the odd old soap box too.)

Maybe our venture into Iraq is a 1991 redux. In 1991, we followed Uncle Sam into Iraq despite being many thousands of miles from that benighed country. The events at the time were allegedly confected but that didn't matter back then. The silver bodgie said go. Now it's Johnboy calling the shots and the ALP is unhappy. Is it any wonder that people have nothing but contempt for alleged politicians.

Pericles
If you think you can write a more constructive article than Mr Tanner please do so. Don't just carp.

The longer the occupation goes on, the worse things will get. Sunnis will continue to assassinate Shia, who they rightly consider to be much too co-operative with the USA - until we get out. As someone said, you don't solve the damage in the china shop by asking the bull to fix things up. The level of corruption, as exposed in London Review of Books in great detail a few months ago, is simply appalling. Both Iraqi and US and British contractors have had their hands in the till to the tune of billions. I gather Bush has announced that the USA will hold on to 25% of future Iraqi oil output to compensate themselves for wrecking Iraq.

To little to late Lindsay, the Labor Party should have exposed the Iraq war for what it really is 4 years ago, an oil war.

I do not understand surely we of the West replete in our wisdom have shown the way to these poor people formerly ruled by a bloody tyrant?
Gratitude to the victor is always slow in coming, those keening women with lost sons bedevill the pictuire made admittedly vague by lack of electricity and spoiled by the sewer smells.
Still people of good will go to Church or at least support the precepts of the UN Charter,except Mr downer still playing Colonial catch up,but as a learner he can be forgiven, so with such ethical correctness we can be satisfied.
Johnny is in his place to the right of God so I ask what is this all about? Realist foreign policy and foreign medals on display.
No criminality has been brought to the ICC. The deputy sheriff deals with the ignorant of our world. All is well.
Surely? or should this be !

Pericles, I agree with you that something should be done: get the hell out of there. Now. Don't worry about (actually only two of) the three factions getting on with killing each other if the Coalition of the willing troops pull out. That's happening already, with the US puppet Iraqi government almost openly siding with the Shia while the US effectively looks the other way, or si helpless to act effectively, whichever. It seems US policy may be complicity or ineffectiveness in the face of an attempt by the Iraqui-government backed Shai death squads to eviscerate the Sunnis. If so, what a sorry excuse for a strategy. And what a fertile breeding ground for terrorists on both sides.

The Sunnis perhaps are seen as expendable, a punishment for supporting Saddam. Their 'territory' contains no oil, unlike that of the Kurds and the Shia, and any territorial division is likely to leave the Sunnis as sore losers. Better to wipe them out, maybe the thinking goes.

But Bush and his war criminal cronies will not pull out without a figleaf of dignity. I believe they are working on a secret plan to hand over to a coalition of Muslim/Arab states, if they can find enough willing (or greedy) stooges. Iran is one fly in the ointment with that. That, and the fact that the Arabs are likely to require that the US cut Israel loose in return for getting the US off the hook in Iraq. Can any US President make that huge political sacrifice?

So, Pericles, got any simple solutions yourself?

For those who are struggling with the question: why are we in Iraq?

This link will take you to a fairly complete analysis including the machinations of the UN security council and that of other countries with an invested interest in Iraq. Notably, France and Russia.

The blame America crowd will find loads of ammunition as long as they continue to discount the workings of other nations and political agendas in the matter of Iraq or any other dealings with in the UN.

Mr. Tanner's "clean hands" is a excellent excuse to do nothing. Who after thousands of years of history has clean hands.

War and profit are synonymous. Every war since the dawn of man can show profit to one side or the other, and many wars have been of greater profit to the looser. Japan has never been in such a condition of profit as it has since it's loss during WWII.

Iraq could profit hugely with it's democracy if it ever gets off the ground. The Iraqis know this best. Part of this ongoing sectarian violence is to determine who will profit more. Sunni or Shia. The party who perceives themselves as loosing will not want democracy. Much better to reach the ignorant with anti democracy rhetoric considering one will have to pay their deciples with money. Even an idiot can see it's contradictory to say, "here is some money, now go protest vile money.

My apologies. Here is that link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Iraq_War

This link will take you to a template where you can choose to read from the beginning or select a particular point in time.

Lindsay,it was always about the oil.The Middle East owns 65% of the vital energy we use.Without the oil we all starve.The Middle East is not like Germany or Japan thet can be reasoned with.The US gave democracy to Japan and Germany who have no oil,yet have a history of learning and scientific discovery.Germany and Japan became economic power houses without oil,while Muslims languish in poverty with oil wealth.

The Muslims will not accept democracy since it undermines their religion,as they have witnessed with the Christian Church in the West.Basically they are feral societies who have been granted Western wealth and don't know how to progress to the next stage of their evolution,since it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

If the US was not in the Middle East,Muslim Nations could form cartels and dictate to us the price of our freedoms.In other words Lindsay,we would now be experiencing World War Three if the US was not being the moderating influence there.China,Japan,India or Europe cannot afford to be starved of energy.

It is all about keeping Muslim Nations divided so they cannot hold the rest of the world to ransom.Saddham was an American generated dictator to help keep the Muslim world divided,thus ensuring that oil was available to the rest of the world at competitive prices.

If you and the Labor Party have not worked this out by now,then I really fear for this country's future if ever your party holds the reins of power in the near future.

At last, something resembling half-way forthright concerning this, from a mainstream politician. I share the frustration of Chris Shaw and others and well-recall the treachery of Mark Bishop and others, as to the MCarthyism of "anti-americanism" thrown at Crean, Latham and a handful of others trying to warn the public four years ago.
Feel compelled to comment on Arjay's misleading, scurrilous statement concerning the mid east states not being willing to take on "democracy" because it comes at the expense of Islam.
Middle eastern countries for generations tried to implement democratic government, but needless interference of the sort that overthrew Mossadeq in Iran in 1953, involving Britain and the CIA, for example, demonstrates why the mid east finally lost faith in us and embraced an ideological Islam, to define their own threatened identity, out of frustration with us and our incessant and perverse neo colonialism.

In such debates I find myself in trouble always, I am not far right, anti far left and in fact entrenched in the centre of the ALP.
Yet that honesty demands that I say in the start of the Iraq war I was for it.
Openly held hopes for a free self governing Iraq, did not want its oil, money or even its leaders life.
I was wrong.
It never could be done, never should have been done and we had been told lies by our goverment and American.
America, still the hope of the free world in my view must learn very fast the art of talking to other people.
We are faced with the reality that the world is a worse place because too many of us thought as I did and supported this tragic waste of life.
End part one

Iraq has been a turning point in history the extremly poor handeling of the war has seen another lost war and it gets worse daily.
The anti war at any cost left will not agree but we are bound for a far bigger war as a result of this loss.
Our best hope is that Bush will not be conducting it .who will however?
The 2008 American election is far from over ,once again Democratic voters may see the wrong candidate beat them not the Repblicans.
Clinton should not be the candedate America should draft its last Democrate vs Presedent.
The world needs to see a more saleable America.
And America needs time to look back on Iraq and ask why the lies? why the cover ups? why the miss management?
And why did Americans act as bad as Nazis EVER DID IN SOME CASES?

Why are we in Iraq?

- because we have no choice!

Big Brother commanded us to join him there, and as dependent slaves we must follow his dictates and pay our taxes to Caesar (which are fortunately lower than what other nations had to pay). Any other reasoning, moral or practical, for or against, is futile.

To be free of our crippling dependency on the USA is a hard and long-term project: it cannot happen overnight or even in one year, so by then, even if we struggle in earnest to be free, Iraq-war will be history anyway. The Howard government has consistently gone the opposite way, probably due to Howard's personal ordeal in 9/11 when he was stuck in New-York and finally released by a special American military plane. Since then he signed the FTA with America, so now that we are more tangled, it is ever so hard to shake-off all those webs and the sacrifices we will need to make to break our chains are dearer.

Let us deal with the root cause, rather than the symptom.

There a long history of exploitation by Europe and the USA in Iran and Iraq. Saddam was an American creation and they were happy with the service until he threatened their oil supply. He was speedily murdered to distract from the USA and Britians complicity in his actions. Perhaps if you treat people like feces they are correct to see you as a rectum. It is up to US and Europe to prove their bonafides of Iraq and Iran.

Belly: "The anti war at any cost left will not agree but we are bound for a far bigger war as a result of this loss."

Actually Belly, I'd say the anti-war left would partially agree with this.

The war in Iraq has removed that nation as a counterweight to the aspirations of Iran. It is also leading to the creation of a failed state where Al Qaeda can operate with impunity.

Whether another half baked war, this time with Iran, is the answer however, I'm not sure. If the first one was so fundamentally screwed up, I don't see how a second one, launched from a position of weakness rather than strength, will do any better.

Funguay, like I hope that I also have on behalf of my studies, you also appear to have the required knowledge of Middle East history so much needed these days. Especially so since the end of WW1, when Lawrence of Arabia was double-crossed by his own senior countrymen, the British illegally taking over the valuable Iraqi southern ports, whjich originally belonged to Iraq since the beginning of ancient history.

With the Brits after WW1 it was a betrayal of trust, and a recent title that turned up in Google recently would have had an unhappy TE Lawrence agreeable to a T.

Looting the Iraqi economy in the name of freedom.

Your mention of the betrayal of Mossadeq, also brings the US into the putrid series of betrayals that the British began with Lawrence. Talking about democracy, there was an article in the Guardian written by an Iranian judge, who also wrote about promised Christian Western freedoms. After relating disgustedly about her younger life during Mossadeq’s reign being ruined by the Anglo-US takeover, she stated how she always believed that Iran was capable of forming its own style of democracy.

More to follow -

From a historian’s viewpoint, many more questions could be asked about Anglo-American intentions still regarding a promised freedom for Iraq.

Reckon you could well add to them.

1. Has the US always had double-intentions about Iraq, one to get rid of the dictator, and the other to capture the oil potential, proven by the fact that American and British corporates took over the oilfields quickly as first priority back in 2003 Also from non-media reports, as many troops are now guarding the oilfields and pipelines from sabotage as the amount now being brought from the US to try and win the nearly four year long ground war.

2. If the US finally wins the ground war bringing the promised freedom to Iraq, will freedom mean that the US and British oil corp’s will have to leave letting possibly Russian and French companies come in as was the case previously with Saddam. If this is so, it should also mean that Iraq will also have the right to turn back to the Euro, as was the case with Iraq before the illegal invasion?

Reckon it could be a safe bet that if the Americans do finally take over, it will be a colonial Dyarky Democracy, called by the 19th century Indians double-rule, with British commissars matching every home-rule government position. These days the commissioners or commissars could easily rule from the White-House.

The truth is, Funguay, that the Anglo-US record is so disgustingly unjust in the Middle East, honest historians could hardly think otherwise.

bushbred
An honest historian wouldn't take events out of context to suit purposes.

Lt.Col. Lawrence was heavily involved with the Arab revolt and battling the Turks (Ottomans). Britain was embroiled in WWI and maintaining her colonies. At that time to Britain, Middle East meant Suez canal. And Suez canal meant the fastest connection to goods and markets between colonies and other world trade.

One can not have a war with out money. While dying for the cause is held in high esteem. Cutting off or controlling trade routes cripples a waring nations impetus and strangles their ability to maintain the battle.

Money makes the world go round. It's a horrible, nasty reality but, reality non the less. It isn't just the root of all evil. It's the way to all the good things too.

Have we no further interest in intent. Or has that become irrelevant in todays 20/20 hindsight critics of our world today?

America is spending ~400 billion a year in Iraq. To date the oil revenues are around a couple million per day. If Iraq is just about oil Americans have a greater problem than GWB. They have a severe deficit of understanding on economic realities.

Yes, aqirivs, the US IS spending huge sums in Iraq.
This introduces the other element behind US policy planing.
The US (or actually the military-capital-industrial complex that runs it and the rest of the world) needs wars to sustain its position as global arbiter not only with politics, economics and confidence in the current global currency regime, but to maintain itself through ordinance development into the future. It constantly updates its military technologies, ensuring that other countries must have access to its expensive hi tech ordinances or fall hopelessly behind.
The price paid by the rest of the world is an end to any immediate hope of sorting the world's manifest social and environmental problems. The world "melts down", for the sake of a few thousand Dick Cheney types and their immediate lackeys at home and across the globe, who no more ultimately benefit from this state of affairs that just about anyone else .

Yo fungi

Love the tired old "The US (or actually the military-capital-industrial complex that runs it and the rest of the world)" conspiracy.

Man was warring against his neighbour long before The U.S. even existed. Then again perhaps it all goes back to the inventor of the spear. He must have been of pre-American ancestry? Whoo dude. The time machine does exist.

No one. Especially those whom you say rule the world from behind their smart bomb technology is going to invest billions hoping for a return of millions. It isn't simply illogical. It's asinine. Ones economic lifetime would be very brief and of little note. However if your conspiracy truly exists and has existed down the ages. Profit idealization would be at the forefront of their corporate policy. Like right next to world domination.

Both of which I'm unafraid to state would currently exist as a fact. America would dominate as a single world government. And China wouldn't have a strangle hold on the monetary future of the American dollar, their GNP and their GDP.

If you really want to see how ridiculous such a theory is. It may be interesting to note that there are more millionaires and billionaires in this world than ever before in mans history. The WHOLE world. Not just America.

Doesn't take much to get shot at around here, does it, which is of course part of the fun.

Bushbred: "Come on, Pericles, certainly something should be done, without making airy philosophies."

Nothing airy about my philosophies Bb. I was making my observations on the quality and purpose of Mr Tanner's piece rather than trying to solve the entire Middle East conflict myself. The point I was trying to get across is that if politicians think it is a neat idea to use the highly complex and dangerous situation in Iraq to obtain political capital against their opponents, they are setting a very bad example to the rest of us. It is almost smug, in that Tanner knows full well that he can get away with criticism without any comeback, since he is responsible for precisely nothing.

Rossco: "If you think you can write a more constructive article than Mr Tanner please do so. Don't just carp."

Pot. Kettle. Black.

PK: "So, Pericles, got any simple solutions yourself?"

Well actually PK, I haven't.

However, were I the minister concerned, with the resources of an army of public servants to research, formulate and recommend different courses of action, together with a reasoned analysis of the likely consequences of each, I might well be able to take a stab at a solution.

Though I doubt it would be described as "simple".

We can all voice our opinions, though. And in my opinion this is an almighty complex mess, and one that does not lend itself to a one-line response, such as "get out".

In this regard it has many similarities with Northern Ireland. A section of the population saw the British troops as peace-keepers, another section saw them as invading forces. Precipitate withdrawal would have endangered the lives of many innocent civilians.

While it is easy to say "the British shouldn't have been there anyway" - similar to Mr Tanner's argument - it is a far more challenging task to unravel the problem and arrive at a compromise.

Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck "let's all throw bricks at each other" stage.

Thought this might be an amusing, yet relevant distraction (anyone who knows my posts well will recognise my regular referencing of the late legend) for anyone who's interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_sjqaj-W9k (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzDskyMBxzQ (part 2)

This was about the gulf war. Amazing how applicable it is to todays conflict.

Aqvaris you are right to point out the massive amount of money spent by the US government in Iraq. This public money not corporate money, in fact corporations like Haliburton are big recipiants of it. I am old enough to remember the idea that in the future the corporations would fight wars to defend their assets. They found a cheaper way. A billion will buy you an American president,700,000 for a British PM. An Australian PM perhaps a pat on the head, good jonny, nice jonny. It makes you pround to be Australian.
This is of course, just another instance of socialisation of costs and privatisation of costs. The stripping of public money to enrich an oligarchy.

Aqvaris you are right to point out the massive amount of money spent by the US government in Iraq. This public money not corporate money, in fact corporations like Haliburton are big recipiants of it. I am old enough to remember the idea that in the future the corporations would fight wars to defend their assets. They found a cheaper way. A billion will buy you an American president,700,000 for a British PM. An Australian PM perhaps a pat on the head, good jonny, nice jonny. It makes you pround to be Australian.
This is of course, just another instance of socialisation of costs and privatisation of profits. The stripping of public money to enrich an oligarchy.

aqivirus, I thought to respond in detail to your arrant nonsense but Ted has done it for me. At least while you are heckling me you are not bothering some poor unfortunate who HAS been able to escape their denial syndrome. Au'voir.
PS; someone else mentioned in passing Gulf War 1, immortalised by Baudrillard who described it as the "war that never happened", so saturated was it with bunk tabloid propaganda.

Whipped ted and fungi

WASHINGTON, July 7, 2004 — More than 150 American companies have received contracts worth up to $48.7 billion for work in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. This figure represents an increase of 82 companies and more than $40 billion since the Center first released its study of contracts awarded to U.S. companies for postwar work in Afghanistan and Iraq on Oct. 30, 2003.

Here is a list of all the contractors working to create a better Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the most inclusive and up to date publication I could find. Knock yourselves out. I'm sure you'll have no difficulty in proclaiming their injustice towards earth and all living life. God forbid the bastards make a profit.

And if you two don't like people messing with your names show enough respect to get others names correct. If you can't spell try cut and paste.

Abt Associates Inc.
BearingPoint Inc.
Bechtel Group Inc.
CACI International Inc.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Chemonics International Inc.
Chugach McKinley, Inc.
Contrack International Inc.
Creative Associates International Inc.
Dataline Inc.
Dell Marketing L.P.
Diplomat Freight Services Inc.
DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.)
Environmental Chemical Corporation
EOD Technology Inc.
Explosive Ordnance Technologies Inc.
Fluor Corp.
Force 3
General Electric Company
Harris Corporation
Intelligent Enterprise Solutions
International Resources Group
JSI Inc.
Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton)
Military Professional Resources Inc.
MZM Inc. Contract Iraq Interpreters
Native American Industrial Distributors Inc.
PAE Government Services Inc.
Parsons Corp.
Perini Corporation
Readiness Management Support LC (Johnson Controls Inc.)
Red River Computer Company
Research Triangle Institute
Ronco Consulting Corporation
S&K Technologies Inc.
Science Applications International Corp.
Shaw Group/Shaw E & I
SkyLink Air and Logistic Support (USA) Inc.
Social Impact Inc.
Sodexho Inc.
Stanley Baker Hill L.L.C.
Stevedoring Services of America
Tetra Tech Inc.
Unisys Corporation
USA Environmental Inc.
Vinnell Corporation (Northrop Grumman)
Washington Group International
World Fuel Services Corp.
Young, Brian
Zapata Engineering

funguy
"The US (or actually the military-capital-industrial complex that runs it and the rest of the world) needs wars to sustain its position as global arbiter not only with politics, economics and confidence in the current global currency regime, but to maintain itself through ordinance development into the future. It constantly updates its military technologies, ensuring that other countries must have access to its expensive hi tech ordinances or fall hopelessly behind.
The price paid by the rest of the world is an end to any immediate hope of sorting the world's manifest social and environmental problems. The world "melts down", for the sake of a few thousand Dick Cheney types and their immediate lackeys at home and across the globe, who no more ultimately benefit from this state of affairs that just about anyone else."

You should be ashamed of yourself and your bitter anti-Americanism. How ironic is your use of the internet to communicate your abuse. A system developed for/with the U.S. Airforce. A system that has created millions of dollars for many, and helped launch emerging businesses and technologies around the world. Which in turn has created employment opportunities for even more people all over the world.

Part One

Hullo Aqvarius, seems like we are all into a very interesting much needed discussion. Reckon the more the political pot is stirred without going to more war-war regarding today’s Middle East, all the better.

Could say, in fact, that holding back and favouring the strongly realistic - survival of the fittest - or - the means to an end factor- as you seem to believe in, matey, could leave the Middle East in a horrible mess, possibly Terehan plastered with Israeli rockets. The US then with the excuse to finish Iran off, culminating in a much more globally unpopular US with her co-Anglipholic allies Britain and Australia still happily tagging along.

It was an angry Charles Darwin who condemned both Western businessmen and warmongers about using his survival of the fittest concept to set up what is still known as social Darwinism, the socialiam employed being right-wing enough to eventually help the rise of Nazi Germany.

An extract from Darwin on man’s moral qualities.

Different to the animals---- ‘......man is a moral being capable of reflecting on his past actions and motives - approving of some and disproving of others....’ - ‘..... the influence of an all-seeing Deity has also had a potent influence on the advance of man’s morality.’

Or should have had, one could add.

BB Part Two

By now, over the centuries so-called Western civilised
man should be ethical enough not to resort to tactics such as allowing little Israel to go atomic to create some sort of politicised peace between Jews and Arabs, justifying the Jewish Old Testament doctrine that any means justifies a successful end. But a doctrine certainly not justified by Jesus in the New Testament.

Instead it could be a case of love or forgive your enemy, as Nelson Mandela seems to have done to be rid of Arparthaid.

Though the the US has been on the right track to rid the world of dictators like Saddam, it is such a pity America had to use Rumfeld to help Saddam get rid of Iran, which turned out a failure, with Iran stronger than ever.

Added to the above is the crazy scenario now in Iraq which could be a future young historians possible intense interest.

America’s so-called allies the Saudi Sunnis have in the last few years not only produced Al quida as well as bin Laden who ordered the 9/ll destruction, but also appear to sympathise with the Iraqi Sunnis who are also blowing up the Shi-ites whom George W’ went into Iraq to avenge, the Shias strongly supported by Americas’s sworn enemy Iran.

A arch-politico' dog's breakfast if ever there was one.

Keep the conversation going Lindsay. I was pleased that Hilary Clinton used that phrase in her announcement. Dialogue is the vision I have for the future about anything. It is in dialogue - not monologue even if it is clever - that we reach understanding and can see clearly to act well. It takes longer but there are strong indications that democracy is best served by it. To sit around and talk and weigh in with frameworks of Justice and Kindness for example, always lead to what is a better outcome especially for those who have the most to lose. Juggler

bushbred the world has been talking and talking and talking to all the involved States that make up the Middle East since the United States first built it's navy to fight the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.

Your many worlds in one philosophy and "Christian" turn the other check nonsense only goes so far. There is only one end. That is that TODAY the world is far too small and far too nuclear to have two or more opposing world philosophies. The means to a peaceful end is war. I don't like it. You don't like it. Anyone who has ever been in a war doesn't like it. You will not be able to talk al-Qeada or Hezbollah or the Taliban or any other hate filled radical jihadist or Ayatollah of a Islamic Theocracy into a peace settlement. You may be able to coerce, or bribe, but talk ain't gonna do it. You may argue that reality but, reality it remains.

Part two of this situation is that oil is only going to get them so far. Most every nation is working to produce their own alternate energy sources. In a few years they will have to dump oil onto the market to make alternative fuels to expensive to be worth producing. The real hit will be overall employment factors. How many investor's will want to pour millions into a hostile desert landscape? How many jihadist will put down the AK47 and unstrap the vest bomb to become waiters or shop keepers?
All those American companies I listed earlier are in Iraq to see that those people eventually have the capability to manage themselves and compete in a free market economy. To have all the advantages of the free world. Something they didn't have under Saddam or will not have under a Islamic Theocracy by Ayatollah al Sistani. Who by the way is Iranian.

Funny how you "Christians" always have the Christians turning the other cheek.

Part One

Aqvarius, you are no historian, otherwise you would know that your extremist realistic theories are nothing new. We now have a unipolar world with the Americans as top dogs, as the Greeks were top dogs in the time of Alexander, then came the Romans who were virtually rulers of the world from around 200 BC to beyond 500 AD.

Your talk is so selfish and unipolar in fact it is scary and immoral, as if we do need this as simply a replacement of British gunboat diplomacy with US missile diplomacy, America simply inheriting the hatred and dubious respect that pretty well all of Asia, particularly the East had for 19th and early 20th century Britannica.

With the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during WW1, the formerly proud Middle East Muslims, already subjugated by the Ottoman Islamics, were looked down upon by British and Aussie troops and treated like sh--t during WW2.

Most historians and social scientists we have studied with have a similar view to the above, matey, so why haven’t you?

Don’t you realise Aqvarious that the hatred the Muslims now have for us has been fermenting for years. Even Mubarak of Egypt who is said to be now forced to behave like an American puppet, has claimed that the main problem in the Middle East over the years, has been Western intrusion and injustice. Certainly made worse by us shutting our eyes and ears when Israel went very illegally militarially atomic.

As that female judge in Iran has claimed, most Iranians in time are quite capable of forming their own style of democracy, as the rest of the Middle East Arabs are also quite capable of. Does not need to be Christian, neither.

Could suggest to you ultra-realists, Aqvarious, that you all take a lesson from Gandhi and Mandela, both non-Christians, who both proved how peaceful wisdom and understanding can achieve far more than can the sword or the gun, or today’s equivalent.

Just watched on CNN one US Senator talking about George W’s new version of Texan cowboy politics to fix the mess Bush has already caused in Iraq. Then on the following feature Tony Blair appears still backing Bush, as his arrogant neo-colonialist reasoning had backed Bush before.

It is also so interesting that Bush and Tony Blair were members of David Rockeller’s Trilaterists together along with Henry Kissinger who made such a blotch of buggering up Cambodia by advising the US to attack the little nation towards the end of the Vietnam War.

Really sums it all up, doesn’t it?

Sorry bushbred I haven't had the luxury of your social marxist education. I don't collect headline news from CNN and adopt those as my opinion and I don't rely on the PC movement to verify my thinking.
Your Utopian feminist ideology doesn't work. You bleed for the world Muslims because of British colonialism and rant about American hegemony and say Islam today is because of western "interference".
And then when more than 150 companies embark for Iraq and Afghanistan to get those countries up and running and able to participate in the free world all you can do is be derisive. And blame them for the last 100 years of political mismanagement.

I'd like you to have your way. I'd like the US to go home and stay within their borders. I'd also like for them to keep their aid money at home to. Their world investments and all other associations. I'd like for you to have your world with out "anglo" influence. I'd watch with glee as all the good men stepped out of your world and left you to your own. But we both know that isn't going to happen so there's no consequences for your cultural hatred is there. Matey.

Ghandi: "If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest Gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment." This is the advice he had for post war Jews.

Mandella: embarked on armed struggle, convinced that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had achieved nothing and could not succeed. Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, and attempts were made by his party to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Sorry but your idealized perfection is flawed.

Pull the other one.

"....I haven't had the luxury of your social marxist education"

"Your Utopian feminist ideology doesn't work"

"....there's no consequences for your cultural hatred is there. Matey."

- pure Bolt-spin. Cute, but it doesn't butter any parsnips.

You may care to read about this mob of philanthropists:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1559232

The Prez's Praetorian Guard. Privatisation of war raised to the n'th degree. You'll be hearing more of these fellers in the stoush with Iran.

There's a quick quid in this business aqvarivs. How sweet it is - to get loads of dough from someone else's misery, then return home to your calm and untroubled land. Maybe buy the kids a good education.

Makes you glad to be a white anglo-saxon, in these, the best of all possible times.

Aqvarivs, what a list. What's your point? ASX knowledge?

Why are we in I wrack? Cos George said we should be and the Prime Miniature saluted, pinned on his deputy sherrif's badge and sent young Australians, in this case our best troops, to a war which cannot change a thing. And AWB profits for shareholders of course. And $300 million for Saddam to use against those troops. Sergeant Shultz, again.

Why did George go is the real question. I still can't forget George leaning over the podium at a press conference with a puzzled look in response to that question. He said "Saddam tried to kill my Dad". That's why George sent his National Guards to their death. Oil too of course.

Democracy doesn't exist here so how can Howard say that's why we are in I wrack? it is a contadiction in terminology to say we can introduce democracy, particularly when it's not practiced here or in the US.

Hello and welcome Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464

Yes even pro democracy folks as myself have our alarmist. You should have read the articles. The language he uses is worth running to the window to see what the dogs barking at. Very colourful verbiage.

RobbyH

My point is that there are a lot of people out there trying to do some little part to help make the lives and future of the Iraqi people better than that which they had. Pissing on the lot to show everyone how clever they are undermines every good done. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and a great tool for the self-righteous, but there is a lot of hard work to be done in Iraq before honest hindsight can be used to mark the effort a success or a failure.

Not having access to the democratic process in Australia(?) Shouldn't preclude the opportunity for the Iraqi people to have even something that would equal that pathetic example of freedoms and human rights Australians must endure.(?)
And I don't give a tinkers damn about George Bush. If the American people can find a way to impeach him, good on them. I'll loose no sleep. Never lost a wink when they did for Bill Clinton either.

The Iraqi people in Iraq have a tough road ahead of them and I would like to see them get the opportunities to experience the life style many on this site take for granted. There is two things a person in a free world can do. Pitch in and help make it a better world for everyone or stick up your middle finger to life.

I just wish if people are going to stick up their finger to it all and rant against the machine. That they didn't go on like that was morally superior than actually doing something constructive.

Aqvarious - There is still a saying that we do need America. As we said during WW2, but after feelings and statements of deep thankfulness, we were glad when they left.

It is also so interesting that though the Americans had to quit Vietnam pretty well on the run, Vietnam is now using Western progressive economic ideas to plan for their future.

Tha same is said to some extent about Malaysia, troubled with Communist insurgents while the British were there, then the Malaysians themselves thoroughly finished the job, and have become so wonderfully successful without the British, especially as the British were wise enough to take away their corporates..

It is not that things have really changed, for it is human nature to first learn then carry on without someone looking over your shoulder. The very fact that they want to be on their own like a son or daughter learns from a father or mother then the natural urge to carry on, can be really a credit to their parents - just as it is creditable for a country to get out at the right time as the British did in Malaysia.

Had this happen with the son on the farm, who once he learnt the ropes and got married was full of beans to take over, the property having grown enormously since with his own sons taking over, with my wife studying art, and me philosophy and the social sciences. Unfortunately, my wife passed away last year at 82, me now 86 in June.

BB Part Two

One of the worse things the former colonial nations still try and do, especially in the ME, is to leave armies of occupation. As bin Laden said over five years ago, that his main resentment was based on America using Saudi-Arabia as a hegemonic military base for US forces.

Surely it is about time both the US and Britain let ME nations work out their own destinies rather than setting up some sort of Ersatz democracy that still needs Western overview, as well as the presence of foreign military forces.

Yes, as well as getting honours studying problems like the above, Aqvarious, admittedly I did learn the rudiments of both Marxism and Fascism, the second possibly the most dangerous these days, because like Nazism it still allows for corporatism, which with problems we are so over-concerned with as in the Middle East, can cause over-eager leaders to keep on making autocratic decisions despite low-level popularity, with democracy pretty well pitched out the window, as happened so much with Richard Nixon.

Marxism also certainly does have its anti-war philosophies, as Marx himself taught, and even as Lech Lewelska of Poland and Gorbachev helped de-Communise much of Eastern Europe, easing the change to democracy and bringing a peaceful conclusion to the Cold War. The former Soviets were even allowed to keep their atomic artillery.

Could recommend some interesting books on the above, Aqvarious, as well as on big power and corporate ethics. Certainly a big problem for both the US and Britain, was so evident in Iraq when we saw companies like Exxon and BP pretty well moving in behind the invading troops.

For such an important unipolar nation like America to allow corporates to more than half run its power politics, looks somewhat shoddy, especially as the vice President Dick Cheney has oil company connections.

Regards - George C - WA

The Trap of Perception (Part 1)

OK aqvarivs. Truce.

I think what makes us cranky is that we don't all have the same perception of the world. It's probably unfair to expect everyone to perceive the world in the same way (and it would be toooo boring). Nevertheless, there must be some measureable baseline for us to work from if we are to have a dialogue about this thing we call civilisation.

So let's trash perception - or try to shock it awake from the opiate of it's smugness - banish it from it's comfort zone.

1. The official conspiracy theory of 9-11 is a fabrication - and a grossly moronic and stupid one at that. The real perpetrators are still getting away with murder on a grand scale, while we twitter on with our little prognostications.

2. Oil energy, not money, makes the world go 'round.

3. There are not only too many mouths to feed, there are too many GREEDY mouths to feed. Big, big problem.

4. Left to their own devices, the people of the Middle East might have created a superior version of democracy to the rather friable one that satisfies yer average western consumer.

5. Their only crime was that they were unwilling to convert to the fundamentalist religion of Usurious-Loony-Consumerism. With so many hungry mouths to feed, they rightly did not want to sacrifice their only (oil) wealth to the greedy Usurious-Loony-Consumers. Even had they all been Christians, we would have found some other device to set the Middle Easterners apart and steal their wealth.

The Trap of Perception (Part 2)

6. One's race and religion is merely an accident of birth - no more and no less. One's inherited culture can just be so much baggage. Our folly is to assume that the baggage that we are burdened with is somehow superior to the other fellow's baggage. And we clutch that burden to our bosoms for comfort. And wear it like a burka with no eye-holes. And consequently we can be ignorant loons. Aussie-flag baseball cap anyone? Beachtowel? Stubby-cubby?

I guess I am trying to say that we are NOT special, and that all the things that have happened to the ME can happen here too. And I have grandkids.

"First they came for the Iraqis - and I did nothing."

Ring a bell?

That'll do. It's 11 pm and the cheap wine (4lt/$6.99) is starting to kick in - a bad move probably.

Cheers all....

bushbred

Aqvarious - There is still a saying that we do need America. As we said during WW2, but after feelings and statements of deep thankfulness, we were glad when they left.

Yes. ;-) and I understand the sentiment but, that in itself is a long way from hatred and misrepresentation of fact or history to vilify absolutely everything the Coalition or America is trying to do for the Iraqi people just because some one watched an American reporter attack his or her government and now spills that same vitriol as personal opinion for OLO debate. Let America attack Australia in the news and listen to the Aussie with his back up. Attacking America has become a pastime, a substitute for intellectual debate.

I have never said all was perfect. My contention is that it is not a finished project and to be determining it a success or failure is preemptive and unjust. Give the Iraqi people the time and opportunity.

"It is also so interesting that though the Americans had to quit Vietnam pretty well on the run, Vietnam is now using Western progressive economic ideas to plan for their future."

America didn't define the rules for the war of the Vietnam's. China and Russia did. Had Russia and China not promised to become overtly involved in that war the U.S. would have finished for the North as they almost did after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Also America and her soldiers spent a small fortune in South Vietnam during their tenure. Even an avid commie likes money. See Russia. See China.

People are a big problem. Me, you, them, all of us struggling to be. The friction, the crime, the errors of judgment. Our humanism if you like. To say this company or this corporation or this government or this nation is at the root of it all is unjust. It takes two to play.
As the kids say."Don't hate the player. Hate the game"

Our papers are full of home grown social injustice.
Of course we have those blaming America for that too.

Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464 The Trap of Perception

The only difference between man today and man who walked out of the developmental crucible that was Africa, is that that man today with his thinking, his emotions, now has nuclear weapons.

We as a world are at a crossroads of two realities or two perceptions. Give a nation the tools to compete among nations as an equal or give it aid moneys in perpetuity.

It's unreasonable to give aid let alone tools to a hostile government. Especially when that inept hostile government will not only subvert said aid or tools but, will not alter its countries management one whit.

Democracy is the only way to effect the changes necessary for an eventual world peace. Of course that's just my perception.

Aquarivs, thank you for the list. I am sure that not all the contracts were given as rewards for political compliance, but still we have public money spent for private profit. The ugly sisters as the oil companies were once called.
You are quite right that the US has created employment opportunities. Saddly many of these jobs will be in mending global warming and a generally stuffed environmnent. I am curious why do think that people should should ashamed of being anti American and is that the same as being Anti USA?
Democracy has prerequists without which it can not exist.
1. Open access to a wide range of opinions
2. A genuine ability of the elected government to deliver what its citizens ask.
On this basis should Iraq become a democracy it wil be the envy of the world.

Whispering Ted,
What's wrong with being anti-American. It's wrong in the same light as it is to be anti-Australian. Or anti any other nation.
An opinion isn't a right. To speak it is. Just because I have the right to voice my opinion does not mean it isn't refutable. Or that wide sweeping utterances of hatred mingled with tinfoil conspiracies are truthful or accurate assessments of a given subject.

It's a mis-characterization to say democracy is to give the people what they ask. We elect representatives, who in turn represent political parties. Each political party represents a particular strata of that society. ie: Labour, Greens, liberals, Conservatives.

In our society if a party wants to win the election they had best give the nod to the Industry/Corporate types.

In other societies the military, or the socialist, or the religious take command. And in those societies the people are fortunate indeed if they have any say what so ever. Ever indeed.

Democracy isn't an Americanism. It isn't a Britishism. It isn't any fashion of colonialism. Democracy isn't taking anything from the Middle East. It is a gift to the common man. The everyday citizen.
And for citizens of a democracy to want to with hold that opportunity from a people who have been oppressed by their own. Well in my opinion that is beyond selfish. It's criminal.

And please lets not go on about the oil. There is all kinds of untapped oil around the world. The only reference Iraqi oil has in this situation is where that revenue goes. To a better Iraq and living standard for the citizenship or to the coffers of the al-Qeada types. And more terror and unrest around the world.

What is terrorism? Is it an explosion in a subway? Is it people being minced in their homes by rockets or children being shredded by cluster bombs? Is it knowing that your children will be dead next week for the want of food? Personaly I include all those with atomic bombs as terrorists as I see atomic holicaust as the ultimate terror. To a thoughtful person the subject of terrorism is complex and should not be decided by jingoistic politians looking for distractions or the Murdoch press.
Of course to have complete equanimity to all persons is a worthwhile ideal, but one that is rarely met. To be anti something does not infer hate, just opposition to. Should I not been anti Pol Pot or Saddam Hussain? I think that one should oppose what one deems anti social behaviour. I also make a distinction between individuals and collective political behaviour.
Democracy arose with the industrial era. It has been useful but in need of change. What will be? We will have to wait but I think it wil arise in the EU.I think you have a rosy view of democracy. A view not shared by those who do not vote when given a chance. This a large % in both USA and UK.
It is well accepted that "peak oil approaches. It will be too valuable to burn. To say it is just laying around is somewhat whimsical

A Tad Off Topic....

Peak oil has arrived.

It has arrived in the form of peak petrol and diesel.

Forget the price of a barrel of oil for now. Look instead to the bowser. Remember that oil companies can dispose their profits as they please.

The whole oil argument revolves around the quantity of distributable energy (petrol, diesel, kero etc) that is LEFT OVER after exploration, development, infrastructure, transportation and refining have taken their toll.

FACT 1. We exploited those oils with the highest energy content first.

FACT 2. We exploited the largest and most easily (cheaply) accessible oil wells first.

FACT 3. Oil wells naturally yield their lighter, most energetic fractions first, leaving the heavier, energy-lean residues to be scavenged later.

FACT 4. From now on, to simply maintain a constant supply of liquid fuel, ever more poorer (heavier, sour) oil must be pumped and transported further to ever larger refineries, all of which takes an ever larger bite out of the energy cake. How much is left over for us?

FACT 5. The end of the oil age will arrive with a rush that will make our heads spin.

Try telling that to the captains of industry, or even an economist. The price of oil won't make a blind bit of difference to consumption, because oil energy dictates the value of money, not the other way 'round.

Here's a simple parable -

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/george-the-axe-and-the-cherry-tree/

- the math would be beautiful if it wasn't so poignant.

Although I have posted this elsewhere on OLO today, I think I might do it again here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&hl=en-AU

Don't be put off by the title, pay close attention to the content.

Cheers all...

Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464,

I have this little cottage industry where I sell kits for $100.00 to assist people like that. If you would like a kit let me know. Each kit contains one sheet of tinfoil and diagrammed instructions on how to create a three dimensional triangular hat. Wearing this hat should deflect most of the messages.

:-)
Ah, sometimes I make myself laugh.

Why are we in Iraq? Because George Bush and John Howard refeuse to learn the lessons from Vietnam. It's the people who will decide the government they want, not the Lesder of a Nation that is in decline as a world power and some lap dog who believes that war is the only solution.