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 > Iraq is not Vietnam, it is much worse > Comments

Iraq is not Vietnam, it is much worse : Comments

By Tom Clifford, published 9/7/2007

By comparing Iraq to Vietnam is President Bush softening the blow of a radical change in policy?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Just to get something straight, I'm so old I can remember 10 presidents. Of these Bush is the worst I can remember by a huge margin. When he gave the order to invade Iraq I thought he had lost his marbles. I now realise he had none to lose in the first place.

But, having said all that, now what? Leaving aside dubious historical parallels with Vietnam and Cambodia, where do we go from here?

Right now coalition troops are being asked to put their lives on the line in a futile bid to stop Iraqis killing each other. Over 3,000 Americans have already lost their lives. Mercifully, accidents aside, no Australian soldier had died in Iraq.

But do we have the right to ask our troops to risk their lives in what we all know is a hopeless mission?

I think not.

What happens if the coalition withdraws?

Most likely the Iraqis will get on with the business of killing each other, or not, as they choose. Perhaps Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia will be drawn into a proxy war in Iraq. The war may spread with Iran aiding the Shia in Saudi Arabia and the Saudis and other Arab states aiding Kurds, Sunnis and Azeri irridentists in Iran. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may intensify their efforts to destabilise each other.

All this is appalling but, realistically, is there anything we can do to stop it?

I think not.

The only sensible policy is immediate withdrawal and a determined program to lessen our dependence on Middle-Eastern oil.

When people say that alternatives to oil will be expensive ask them one question:

Will substitutes actually be more expensive than the all-up cost of continued reliance on the Middle-East for our transport fuel?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 9 July 2007 10:31:46 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
I think there are similarities to Vietnam, especially with the way the fear-mongering far left have used public opinion against in reality is something that needs to be expanded to the entire region, not withdrawn.

It is through public pressure that the US left Vietnam, and that was stupid. Vietnam is a Communist dump where people are imprisoned for criticising the government.

It seems obvious that everywhere the US and west goes is left better for it. One only need point out this truth by looking at Korea, with the South prosperous, and the people have rights, and the North a communist dump where people are starving.

Even if the US pull out of Iraq they'll be back soon enough because Muslims, on the large, are intolerant bigots.

Their media channels show the hatred on a daily basis, as well as (which I find quite astonishing given how backward they're values are) supremacist intent.

I believe the war on terror is really a war on fanatical Islam, and rightly so. Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, all need to be brought into this war.

There is no point fighting them unless we stop the production lines.

I think this writer is completely wrong, and has a logic all his own. To say that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion is outrageous, utter garbage.

Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. We must not make a distinction between state terror and fanatical groups. They are one and the same, share the same Islamist goals, and need to be destroyed.

The hypocrisy of Islamists in wanting to use western technology to implement their savage religious value system is laughable. The idea of a racist caliphate will never be realised.

The west run the planet, but even if we didn't, and only China was around, do you think they'd be fighting Islamists with all the rules we impose on ourselves?

Of course not...
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 9 July 2007 10:33:45 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 only comparison between Iraq and Vietnam is the fact that the Coalition of the Willing have stay too long. The terrorist will only stay while the US is present.

As for the future, Saddam will be replaced by the Shia and the Kurds will rule in the North.

Why will the Kurds rule in the North, simple, every nation in the region wants a place where these people can be forced to live. You cannot name one nation in the region who wants these people living amonst their own.

The Kurds will have their own country, but it will be a place of great hardship for them.

When the US leaves Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing will fold up like a deck of cards and forget about the Iraqi people.

From the point of history, Vietnam all over again, they will leave like a mongrel dog with its tail between its legs.
Posted by southerner, Monday, 9 July 2007 10:49:34 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
...in a way, I hope we do pull out of Iraq.

I personally don't think non-westerners are ready for democracy. We've seen what they think democracy is with Palestine, not only voting in murderous bigots, but mob rule.

The minority Christians there, as everywhere else in the racist, intolerant middle-east, are persecuted shockingly.

Hamas should be bombed just for that.

Arabs aren't ready for our civilised ways yet, and they aren't worth the western lives sacrificed. What a waste, young men and women dying so bigots can dominate each other.

Their racism is unbelievable, they know our ways are superior and all want to live in the west, yet are so racist they want to hang onto their tribal values - corruption, decadence, immorality, and vile sectarianism.

Think about how xenophobic they are to still be killing each other after so many centuries. How dare we think we could impose civilisation on these brutes!

Those young soldiers lost in this quest were sacrificed for noble ideals surely, but naive.

George Bush' vision to create a stable Iraq can never work while the people living their are racist bigots.

It's the same in Islamic Diasporas in the west - all they care about is their own tribe, which is why they have xenophobic marriage practices.

One would think Muslims here would be jumping up and down about turning Iraq into a western country, but it can't work as they have no goodwill.

This is why they're communities are all crime-ridden, dumps, and their youth sexually harrass young women. They have no respect for those outside their tribe, their clan.

They need to go through their own enlightenment as we westerners did.

They need to learn that you shouldn't hate someone because they have different skin, you should have empathy.

What Iraq needs is another Attaturk, although even his work is being undone by filthy Islamists in Turkey.

It's time our leaders understand that we are at war with Islamic values - and rightly so.
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 9 July 2007 11:25:17 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
Just as well we only get two posts a day. Now we don't have to put up with this drivel from Benjamin for another twenty four hours. Get real mate.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 9 July 2007 12:41:37 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
When John Howard was last in Vietnam he said that he had not changed his mind about the Vietnam War. His pro-war views were the same as ever. He did not elaborate because none of the journalists asked him which part he had been right about. I'd like to hear that!

I wondered why they didn't. Was it ignorance of what had happened or the glaring inability of many in the media to ask an un-prepared question?

The obvious similarity is that he just does not get it. He will not shift until the Americans do. Vietnam was a civil war before we intervened. We have created one in Iaq. Iraq is paying a heavy price for the stubbornness of Howard and Bush.

Kevin Rennie "Labor View from Broome" http://laborview.blogspot.com/
Posted by top ender, Monday, 9 July 2007 1:52:41 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
Biggest difference between Vietnam and Iraq is oil.

America can't pull out of Iraq, like it pulled out of Vietnam, there is far too much at stake. Oil is the lifeblood of the American economy, its endemic sources, the once grat Texan oilfields, are down to around 17%, so it has to shore up its external sources - at almost any cost.

Biggest mistake Bush made was not to tell the truth about why he (we) invaded. If Americans were told right at the start that their lifestyle depended on maintaining oil supplies from all of the dwindling sources around the world, then he probably would have had a mandate from his people to kill for it.

That's not a justification for the war, just a reflection on his failed strategy
Posted by gecko, Monday, 9 July 2007 2:54:32 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
vietnam was much worse than iraq in about anyway you would like to measure. but at least the american war machine was not directed by madmen.

part of the charm of resource war II is that megalomania underpins american policy, and there is a real goal driving the invasion and occupation. the mixture of insanity and perceived necessity means anything can happen, as long as it's not good.

the clear lesson is that the human race had better take the direction of nations out of the hands of politicians, before they kill us all. assuming they haven't already started that ball rolling.
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 9 July 2007 4:20:30 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
Regardless of Bush's plans, tactics or wharever one thing we know for sure.

Australia will stay the distance. Even if the US leaves we'll stay as we wouldn't want to "cut and run". It's just not possible that we could leave, ever. As the job is never going to be done. How do I know that?

Well no one has ever defined "the job". So how can it ever be done? if the job were democracy then they have had an election. Job over. Nope, different job apparently. Remove Saddam? nope, he's gone. WMD? Nope, none there.

I get it. The job is just to copy the US. So we will be out as soon as Bush leaves office. Solved!
Posted by DavoP, Monday, 9 July 2007 4:47:52 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
Iraq and Vietnam, have you ever imagined that imposing policy will face failure and utterly failure . simply USA wants oil, this is acceptable, but why in the cost of Iraqi people and on the base of previous failed project by Britain in early twenties last century.

Iraq can not functioning as a normal country, it is invented country and the only logical way to stabiles Iraq , its not by withdrawing like did in Vietnam . this would be huge disasters . but it is divided to 3-4 part, every region ( Kurdistan, Sunni area, Shia and Baghdad itself) functioning .

In this case , Shia and Kurd will be very successful state, and Sunnis will follow them in rebuilding their area.

Its wasting time , money, and most importantly human , if anyone still think , something can be stabilise and not become Vietnam

Iraq much worse than Vietnam , simply because , the Iraqi people can not and never ever be untied. Anyone understand , politics, culture, anthropology, religion. They are not be able to live together.

Lets save Iraq and Iraqi people to help them to be disintegrated….

We are as Kurds, want our independent and our country on our land, we do not hate Arab, and Islamism, but we do not want live with them anymore.

The conducted genocide against us, they killed more than 300 000 civilian Kurds from us, just in the Saddam’s era….,enough , enough , Iraq is not my country , it is my grave, I want to be called as Kurdish people rather than Iraqi…
Posted by Kurdish guy, Monday, 9 July 2007 5:43:19 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
The headline article makes just one salient point: in
Vietnam America's enemy was a government with a credible
project of national unification and nationalist development.
The government in the North was the legitimate government of
the entire country, so the only goal the Americans had was
to save Vietnam from itself.

The machinery of state in North Vietnam was damaged, not
destroyed by war, and grass-roots opposition in the South at
all times had the leadership and material support of the
North.

The real prize in that game for America was not Indochina
(which the USA was happy to "bomb into the stone age") but
Indonesia, where US encouragement and the threat posed by
its intervention in Vietnam ensured a million summary
executions on suspicion of communism.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Rulers-World-John-Pilger/dp/185984393X

In Iraq, there is no credible nation-building alternative
government, and none can arise as long as the situation
remains as cloudy as it is now. The only thing which might
unite the Iraqi opposition is their common enemy, and
divide-and-conquer is working fairly well in that enemy's
favour as each ethnic or religious group is perceived by
some other as being in the Americans' pocket. Saddam
himself had brutally suppressed the labour movement, which
might otherwise have provided a secular (and thus credible)
leadership to the opposition.

Absent a political left wing, President Saddam Hussein's
administration *was* the best secular hope for Iraqis, but
through brutality and venality had long since lost the
support of liberal and religious Iraqis of all ethnicities.

Saddam took power as the lap-dog of the West, and squandered
the good will he had in the early years of his reign by
pursuing a debilitating war against Iran to serve a foreign
agenda. A tragedy of miscommunications led to his invasion
of Kuwait in 1991, and only the lack of a credible
alternative left him in power after that war. A decade of
sanctions and ever-deepening corruption left Iraq without a
sense of itself; removing the regime left a region where
there really is "no such thing as community".

Iraq and Vietnam are utterly different.
Posted by xoddam, Monday, 9 July 2007 5:55:43 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
Re. Gecko's comment about America not being able to pull out of Iraq because of its dependence on oil: America is not as dependent as it makes out. It is more important to the USA to keep the global economy and "security situation" on an even keel than it is to acquire oil for its own consumption. After its quiet acquiescence to the September 2001 attackers' principal demand (to remove US troops from the holy soil of the Prophet's country of Saudi Arabia), the USA needed somewhere else nearby to wield its big stick, and it was time Saddam (who had just announced a switch to accepting payment for Iraqi oil in Euros instead of US Dollars) had another hiding. Building the "coalition" for Afghanistan established a pipeline route to the Indian Ocean for Central Asian oil & gas, bypassing both China and Iran, and Iraq is just another square on that board that needed occupying.

Chinese growth is the biggest threat to American dominance. As long as American capital controls much of the Chinese economy, that threat is minimised, but China still has a nominally communist government and might easily expropriate capitalist assets within its borders. An American stranglehold on the fuel supply to the Chinese economy helps ensure Chinese co-operation.

The USA need not be dependent on imported oil at all, despite the propaganda to that effect by left & right alike:

"Investing $180 billion over the next decade to eliminate oil dependence and revitalize strategic industries can save $130 billion gross, or $70 billion net, every year by 2025."

http://www.oilendgame.com/ExecutiveSummary.html
Posted by xoddam, Monday, 9 July 2007 6:14:57 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
btw, kurdish guy, one possible situation is that the yanks give up on holding all of iraq, and settle for remaining in 'kurdistan', where they will be 'welcome'. inviting prospect, huh?

then the yanks discover wmd in syria and lebanon, and tie together their client states from iran to egypt. ah, to be a kurd- every time is 'interesting times'.
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 8:15:34 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
VKUA33,

Is it any wonder the left is falling to pieces when you're response to the legitimate points raised in my criticism is personal slander.

Truly, debate my points, ignore them altogether, don't waste your post with a silly, pointless comment.

It only reveals that either you:

(a) can't argue

(b) know it's the truth, or

(c) are angry because your a religious leftist

Whatever it is, argue against my points or not at all. You do your insane cause no good by responding in such a juvenile way.

Try arguing against the logic in one of my statements. Are you ignorant of the severe persecution Christians - although it's the same for all non-Muslims, face on a daily basis?

Do you really think to report on this brutal treatment is racist to Muslims? Isn't it racist to ignore the racism of Islamists?

It's all about education. Learn about Islam, learn about it from their sources, their holy books.

Don't take my word for it.

Be sceptical of Muslims who ask you to read what Islam is by a non-Muslim too, such as the vile Karen Armstrong, an ex-nun who so hates the church she supports supremacist Islamic dogma, beginning with the classic 'it's a religion of peace'.......just as in 1984 'war is peace'....

Learn yourself.
Posted by Benjamin, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 11:25:46 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
Xoddam,

It is extreme cynicism to suggest that the war in Afghanistan was about central Asian gas and oil. Get off your high horse. Afghanistan was harboring and refused to give up al Qaeda, the group which murdered over 3000 innocent people in one morning. Al Qaeda terrorist training camps were set up all over the country. These people declared war on the US and by extension the west. The Afghans were give a chance to give these people up and chose not to. It seems that the Afghan people are not all that sad to see them go.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 5:15:35 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
... had to wait a few hours before being allowed to post again.

Paul L says my post is cynical to claim that attacking Afghanistan was to secure resources rather than wreak revenge. For anyone to suggest that it was done purely for the sake of escalating violence seems -- to me -- even more cynical (on the part of the commentator).

Military deployments *are* cynical, and always have been; the only exceptions are when you're defending your own territory from an immediate threat. The Bush/Cheney administration is a little more cynical than most, and a little more obsessive about petroleum resources than most.

To be fair (to Bush and Paul L alike), attacking Afghanistan was not really necessary to ensure the pipeline; the contracts were as good as signed in 1997 but (allegedly partly due to "pressure from women's groups") the major American player Unocal had withdrawn.

It was part of Cheney's brief to resurrect the deal, and military action was one option considered -- and chosen, when the opportunity arose to sell a war to the public. A petroleum industry representative was duly installed at the head of the puppet government.

Attacking Afghanistan was not at all necessary for obtaining the head of bin Laden; the Taliban offered in September 2001 to extradite him to Pakistan.

To suggest that the Afghan people are happy the Taliban are gone is pretty presumptuous on your own part. No doubt some are, but others certainly aren't. Before and after the rule of the Taliban, Afghanistan was riven by warfare the proxy armies of foreign powers and by warlords, exploiting ethnic differences and blood vendettas while giving the country nothing. The little islands defended by the US Army do nothing to help the populace as a whole.

The Taliban were vicious Islamist fundamentalists; under their rule Afghanistan was a medieval country where girls weren't allowed to go to school. But it was, for seven brief years, a medieval country at peace, in contrast to the 15 years before and the six years since when it has been a general bloodbath.
Posted by xoddam, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 6:26:46 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
Oxddam,
You can call it revenge or escalation of violence if you need to use emotive terms but the invasion of Afghanistan, whilst it met other objectives, was necessary for two reasons. To deny a safe harbour to an enemy who had declared war on the US/west by driving them from the country. This wasn’t tit for tat retaliation but an attempt to make the US and its allies more secure. And two, to show the enemies of the west that military action was the inescapable consequence of attacks of this nature.

The offer by the Taliban to give up Osama Bin Laden came very late and it seems likely to me that that it was a delaying tactic and that it was never intended at all. The Nth Vietnamese and their Communist backers won the war at the negotiating table by practicing the talk and fight strategy. Even Sadam Hussein tried it. Even assuming the surrender of Osama was in good faith this would hardly have dismantled Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Are you really suggesting that the attacks of September 11 2001 were received in the Whitehouse as a great opportunity to finally sign an oil deal.

I also take exception to the claim that Afghanistan has been a bloodbath for the past six years. Casualties in Afghanistan are small when compared with the war in Iraq. Sometimes it is necessary to fight for things which are important. Violence should never be the first option but nor should we shy away from it when circumstances dictate. The possibility of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan seem achievable when held against a similar aim in Iraq.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 8:00:42 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
Benjamin, you said "I believe the war on terror is really a war on fanatical Islam, and rightly so."

I agree with the first part, but I am not too sure about the rest.

Then you said, "Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, all need to be brought into this war."

Whose side do you think they should be on?

Looks like you want to embark on the Fourth Crusade. I might remind you that on the Third Crusade, Richard got to within sight of the walls of Jerusalem and then decided that he didn't have the resources to continue, so he made a pragmatic decision and went home. I suspect that is about the situation where George Bush currently finds himself, and if he has any brains (which is debatable) he and the "Coalition of the Willing" will retire gracefully.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 8:46:33 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
Trying to set up an alibi for the surrender to Al Qaeda and the rest of the terrorists, are you?
The US, UK and Australian media have turned public opinion against the Iraq war from the moment things became difficult....just as they did with Vietnam...not asinine belief, but fact.
Contrary to your assertion, the media have found plenty of opportunity for undermining Iraq..…always emphasizing the negatives always preaching doom hoping it would become fact….never analysing the situation the world would have faced with a nuclear or other WMD-armed medieval mass murderer like Saddam Hussein…always giving only that part of the story that suits their Left wing agenda, to distort the reality.
How about telling the world what your preferred alternative was , in the light of the fact that every major intelligence service in the world , as well as UNSCOM inspectors, Butler and Ekeus and Putin, who knew the situation like no one else, was certain that Saddam had WMD.
Was your alternative to leave Saddam, with definite links to terrorists...….to do his worst……..or was it to put the future of the world in the hands of the corrupt, dysfunctional and useless UN, dominated by dictators and their emissaries, who were never going to clip Saddam’s wings for fear of being next…..the same UN that indulges in the luxuries of New York while people die in their hundreds of thousands in Darfur, Somalia, Zimbabwe, and other parts of the world?
What would be your plan for preventing Iran from making nuclear weapons, monstering the whole Middle East….and thereby holding the whole world to ransom, by halting the supply of oil to the world by blockading the Straits of Hormuz? Maybe that would please you.
And you can’t blame Bush, Howard et al…Iran’s road to nuclear weapons preceded the Iraq war.
Your admiration for the ‘disciplined’ forces of the Viet Cong, who banished so many to the re-education camps…many to die there…is touching and revealing.
Freedom and democracy are obviously not concepts you value.
The real scourge on the world is the toxic Left wing media...the world can't afford them.
Posted by real, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 10:31:11 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
Tom Clifford

So much is being debates about the good and the bad of the invasion into Iraq, but if I have my way then Howard, Bush and Blair will be answering before the Courts.
Now, most people may argue this to be an impossibility, but is it really?
Since 2001, before the purported Federal election, I was fighting in the Courts against the validity of the Federal election and finally on 19 July 2006 after a 5-year legal battle succeeded in Court on all constitutional grounds, UNCHALLENGED.
I maintained successfully that the purported federal election was unconstitutional.
On 19 March 2003, the day of the invasion into Iraq, I was again denied by the High Court of Australia to proceed with my writs against the Federal government to deploy Australian tro0ops into Iraq as I maintained it was unconstitutional, as John Howard has no prerogative rights to declare war as only this can be authorised by the Governor-General in publishing in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR. This never eventuated, hence, I view, by Section 24Aa of the Crimes Act (Cth) John Howard and his cohorts committed TREACHERY.

On 17 March 2007 I published one of my books;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS

For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on DVD.
ISBN 978-0-9580569-4-6 {was ISBN 0-9580569-4-3 (prior to 1-1-2007)}
Dedicated to;
QUOTE
In memory of the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (unconstitutionally executed)
ALI Ismaeel Abbas, 12 severely inured & orphaned by the murderous Coalition of the Willing
And to those who struggle to protect our constitutional and other legal rights against the abuses by the legal profession, Government, and others.
END QUOTE
I may have Jewish blood flowing through my veins and have been baptised Lutheren but do not practice religion because I oppose killings.
It was not for me or for Australians to judge the late President Saddam Hussein, as we were fed garbage about WMD’s, etc, as to me he was Head of State of a country.
See also;
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and/or my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 2:21:24 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
Australians oppose the death sentence and as he was a prisoner of the Coalition of the Willing, he was therefore entitled to be protected against a death sentence as well as he had constitutional immunity while he was in power!
While the judges of the High Court of Australia, albeit unconstitutionally, may have blocked my writs from being heard upon their merits, the fact that subsequently nevertheless I succeeded on all constitutional grounds UNCHALLENGED by the federal government lawyers, on 19 July 2006 means that I am still on track to pursue John Howard and his cohorts to be charged for crimes against humanity, war crimes, treason, treachery, etc.
While George Bush and Tony Blair may have acted within their own position lawfully, having had the consent of their Parliaments, however where they acted in consortium with John Howard then I view they can still be charges as accessories to any crimes John Howard and his cohorts can be charged with.
We, as a society, must ourselves prove that we do not tolerate anyone to TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. This, as otherwise we are no better then any other TERRORIST.

When the (purported) Australian Government declared the WAR AGAINST TERROR, it in fact declared war against unknown individuals. Hence they responded in kind with their murder of 88 Australians in Bali, etc.

We, the people, now must show that we have a “constitutional government” that is bound by constitutional limitations as we do not tolerate anyone to TAKE THE LAWS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS, as John Howard and his cohorts did.
Where then he was not constitutionally validly elected, he neither has the protection of the OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER either and can be held personally accountable for his misdeeds.
It might be a slow process to bring them to justice, but my books details it all, so others can use the material also for this.

See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.co
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 2:35:02 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
Dear Kurdish guy....

Even as I write this.... the Turks are massing on the border with Iraq.... no prizes for guessing 'why' ?

I agree with you about separation of ethnic entities into mini states. No argument there. That in itself is a HUGE difference from Vietnam. (where I spent time in the military).

Those in Iraq fighting the Americans in the name of 'Nationalism' in realty mean "Sunni" nationalism. or "Shia" nationalism, meaning their group as the dominant one, the rest as 2nd class, cowed, humiliated subservient peoples.

Kurdish Guy... does it occur to you, that the punishment dealt to the Kurds, is possibly divine retribution for the Kurdish Massacre of Christians in Urmia around 1917 ?

http://www.christiansofiraq.com/rev.david.html

Kurds cry 'victim' then others attack them, but did they relent, or hold back from the slaughter of innocent peaceful Christian Assyrians then ?

"Histories of other massacres (of Assyrian Christians) too by Kurdish tribal leaders like Bader Khan in 1843-46 committed in Hakkare and by Mehmet Pasha (the infamous Amir Koy) of Rawandoz in 1832-1836 are becoming better known as we open our eyes to the cruelties that have driven us to fear an loath the tribal barbarism from which our people still suffer.

http://www.christiansofiraq.com/Helwa.html

Following the massacres in Nisibin, the Kurds attacked Helwa using information provided by the Kurds whom the Assyrians had employed. Together with Kurds of other villages stirred by Gaddour Beg, they surrounded the village blocking any escape for the inhabitants. Some Assyrians did escape to flee Helwa, but the majority could not. The Kurds rounded up the men, tied them together and marched them up to a hill called Qayro that overlooked the Soplakh.
The Assyrians were given the option of converting to Islam or being killed. A few accepted, and survived, but the majority refused, were shot, and their bodies rolled down the hill and into the river.

COMMENT:
God is not mocked. No one escapes His judgement.. in the end Kurd, Arab, or American.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 8:28:06 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
What makes you crazies think that Al Qaeda will be beaten if the Yanks chase them out of Iraq. How are they going to be beaten anyway. It is no different to the situation that applied in France during the second world war. The German army might have occupied the country, but the citizens supported the underground and it survived. Once the US goes home they will just shift to other countries who are sympathetic to the anti US cause and it will all start over again. Once the US withdraws from Iraq, there is a good chance that the Shias and the Sunnis will eventually come to terms with their situation, particularly if their neighbors lean on them, but that won't happen while the US is trying to crack the whip.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 10:02:44 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
VKAU333

Who's side should they be on you ask? Are you serious?

Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, should all be bombed, preferably at once but certainly in this order if that is beyond the capability of the west.

I'm glad you agree about the first part, about it being a war on radical Islam, although personally I believe what Muslims keep telling us, that to attack Muslims for killing infidels is fundamentally against Islam.

Like I said, and I say it respectfully, you should read more about Islam, read the Koran, but more importantly, the Hadith, and even more importantly, how Muslims interpret it.

There are no schools of Islam that don't see the Taliban as good, for example.

There may be individual Muslims who don't like bashing women or killing apostates, but none could argue that bashing women or killing apostates goes against established Islamic teaching and most importantly, practice.

To reform Islam would take a lot, and sadly, the one or two Muslim groups who are trying, and I've included a link below, are called apostates from even the so-called 'moderates'.

http://www.secularislam.org/blog/SI_Blog.php

Didn't you notice that the 'moderates' didn't even want the courageous Hirsi-Ali to be allowed into the country?

None agreed with the Danish cartoons either. Moderate leaders like the vile bigot Dr. Ali of ACIM or whatever asked our PM if Hezbollah could be taken off the terrorist list!

Think about how insane this is! Most Muslims are what we would describe as the most conservative rednecks!
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 11:28:08 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
Benjamin

You are advocating the bombing of 275 million people. You are as insane as any radical islamist.

What happens when Tel Aviv is vapourised by Pakistani nuclear bombs after your suggested bombing raid?

Your final solution is absurd.
Posted by ruawake, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 1:34:53 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
Yes, war has never solved anything has it?

Except for stopping communism, or totalitarian regimes like Hitler's.

Would you really leave the Iranian version of Hitler in place?

Don't you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best thing that happened to Japan? It changed them from Imperialists into a prosperous, westernised country.

I personally think that it's going to be a nightmare, but when I say bomb I don't mean schools - although you would likely have to given how filthy non-westerners are.

Hezbollah ferrying soldiers and ammo around in ambulances and having command posts in hospitals.

It's a hard ask because the people are so brainwashed they hate us, even though in a heartbeat they would come and live in a western country.

One has to take the decision on this. Iran is a hellhole, the west is not.

I would do anything at all required, sacrifice all the people of Iran even, to ensure their leaders don't get their genocidal hands on western nuclear technology.

Doesn't it make you angry that caveman may get our weapons? Iran wouldn't even have electricity yet if the west didn't give it to them!

Their people have the same potential as any other, but their cultural/religious values hinder this.

Islam is like a lobotomy, the person can't think - not allowed to.

Yes, call me what you want, if I had it my way, the western world would be at war by midnight tonight.

Our enemies are getting bolder by the day, they kill Americans in Iraq. How dare backward filth even be an issue, but because of public opinion we can't do what we need to.

The Russians are smarter. No cameras allowed in Chechyna.

War is ugly. War is neccessary though when we share a world with those who hold outrageous views and values, such as hanging 15yr old girls in public by cranes to a cheering public!

Do you think such people even deserve to live? What do you think should be done? Beyond just attacking those who would actually make a decision that is!
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 3:28:38 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
VK3AUU wrote:

"Once the US withdraws from Iraq, there is a good chance that the Shias and the Sunnis will eventually come to terms with their situation,..."

LOL,

That theory will soon be put to the test.

If there were a bookmaker taking bets my money would be on continued massacre.

Just for the record, I want immediate withdrawal of all coalition forces. A futile mission to stop Iraqi factions killing each other is not worth the life of one more soldier, sailor, airman or marine.

The Iraqi factional leaders chose the path of mutual slaughter. Let them sort it out.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 12 July 2007 7:30:46 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
VK3AUU
“What makes you crazies think that Al Qaeda will be beaten…..”

Al Qaeda won’t be beaten merely by winning in Iraq, is that a good enough reason to stop the fight? NO. Significant damage can be done to Al Qaeda by winning the war in Iraq, the most obvious is to deny them a safe base from which to operate. Look at what happened when they had a safe base in Afghanistan.

“It is no different to the situation that applied in France during the second world war….”

It’s so different. A huge part of French society actively collaborated with the Germans. The resistance caused few problems for the Germans. Finally the Germans weren’t offering anything the French were interested in. In Iraq a large number of people want democracy, just look at the turnouts to the polls under extreme threat.

“Once the US goes home they will just shift to other countries….”

No doubt that the west will have to fight Al Qaeda elsewhere. Are you suggesting we should surrender to them, let them do as they wish? Winning in Iraq, whilst being beneficial to the Iraqis, will strike a blow against Al Qaeda who declared war on us remember.

“…., there is a good chance that the Shias and the Sunnis will eventually come to terms with their situation, particularly if their neighbors lean on them….”

What? Their neighbors aren’t interested in a healthy Iraqi State. The whole Middle East has a vested interest in one or another group being the dominant force in their area. The Kurds will fight for a homeland of their own and are bound to be joined by their brothers in Turkey etc thus bringing turkey into the conflict. Iran is the major patron for Iraq’s shia groups and seeks Shia dominance in Iraq as a means to consolidated their own power in the region. Al Qaeda and the Sunnis are not going to roll over and allow this to occur. The war, which is thus far contained, could draw in most of the middle east if we left precipitately
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 12 July 2007 8:20:50 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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