in a parliamentary society, you can not hold the pm accountable for anything. subjects only get to vote for one choice: which gang should be your master.

so ozzies very sensibly vote for their bank account. if both parties appear equal there, they look at the prospect of environmental disaster. if both parties appear equal there, they look at hospitals, roads and schools.

however morally bankrupt the iraq adventure may be, when you have just one vote you don't waste it on something that doesn't appear to have any personal effect.

if we were citizens in a democracy, citizen initiative referenda would cure this political impotence. direct election of ministers would prevent it.

the swiss were not always a democracy, they got there by patient pressure on parliament to transfer ultimate power to the electorate. we can do it too.

The reason we're not hearing about the war, is beacause we're winning. Violence is down 55% in Iraq. The elite media hate - hate - the fact that Kurds want Bush to stay too. Deal with it.

The first thing history buffs need to do is to look at history in the buff.

55% of anything looks pretty good on the face of it. I'm sure we could spin this all over the place. McNamara tried to run the Vietnam war on percentages. He took the production line approach, using the talents he had acquired in the auto industry.

Production line figures for that enterprise totalled 2 to 3 million Vietnamese dead, 58000 US dead and 520 Australians dead.

I'd call that mission accomplished - wouldn't you?

So to Iraq. Over 1,000,000 dead it would seem:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18765.htm

As for our own oily fascists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O76L4rHX-IA

For them, this mission won't be so easily accomplished.

I hope it will be a trip to the gulag via the Hague this time.

History Buff

You say: "The reason we're not hearing about the war, is beacause we're winning."

If 'we' are winning, wouldn't you expect John Howard and Brendan Nelson to be trumpeting this 'fact' all around the land during an election? They had so little else to talk about, why not take some credit for a war that's going so well? And, if it's going so well, maybe John could have told us what the exit strategy looks like?

By the way, who's 'we' who are winning? Halliburton?

So you reckon we are winning the war in Iraq, History Buff?

Well, it's news to me because after hearing about US gunships protecting the main Sunni enemy from Iraqi government Shiite troops, thought George Bush had surrendered to Saddam's former Baath Party forces, 200,000 of them having been reported four years ago to have taken to terrorism.

Reckon the main reason we haven't heard much, History Buff, is that such news from Iraq would be really hard to fathom during an election.

Could say that Howard has done the same as he did to us fat lamb breeders when George Negus gave the pot away on SBS about a load of foot and mouth suspected Brazilian carcase meat landed in New South Wales, and when we checked with SBS, were told that the news about the carcase meat had been already deliberately suppressed by the Howard Government?

Reckon you'd better take History away and leave the Buff, mate, because you're apparently no dinkum historian.

I've just finished reading "Vietnam: Australia's War" by Paul Ham, an excellent read for anyone interested in Australia's longest war. While reading it I was struck by the eerie similarities with Australian involvement in Iraq. An American force (with massive firepower, but not enough troops) trying to fight a guerilla war. A small Australian force fighting in their own province (though al-Muthanna was a much easier prospect than Phuoc Tuy) liasing more closely with the locals and less inclined to shoot suspicious civilians.

The war of attrition fought by Westmoreland, the infamous "Five O'Clock Follies" and the endless assurances that the war was being won; all of these have parallels in Iraq.

The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a major military defeat for the Viet Cong. They failed to raise a popular movement in the South and were repulsed with heavy losses. But, by striking at Saigon, the Viet Cong showed that the Americans weren't remotely close to winning.

In 1968 the Viet Cong could strike where and when they liked in South Vietnam. In all honesty, is the situation much different in Iraq?

Whose we?

Govt do what THEY do... in our names. Even those of us who didnt vote for them. Cowardice makes for sound politicking.

War?

What war?

Ed Coper is absolutely correct, war is just awful and Western people must never engage in war.

It would have been much better to allow Saddam Hussein to keep Kuwait, thereby solving his financial problems and giving him squillions more to spend on armaments and making war on his neighbours. With the west in appeasment mode, he would have had no trouble grabbing Saudi Arabia and then, with 70% of the worlds proven oil, he could realy hold a gun at the head of the West. So, what's wrong with that?

It was proven in 1939 that appeasing dictators is the best way to prevent war.

As for Afghanistan, the west should never have intervened. The Taliban was a wise and forward thinking political/religious organisation which was only concerned with the human rights of its citizens. It was also concerned with protecting cultural treasures such as the Babiyan Buddhas, which everybody knows the Jews blew up.

If the Taliban allowed Al Qaida to use Afghanistan as a base to launch terrorist attacks on the west, well, that's their right, isn't it? We have no right to tell the Taliban what to do. The sooner NATO pulls out of Afghanistan and allows Al Qaida to go about their business unmolested, the better.

Right On Ed. Peace, Love, and Mung Beans, brother.

The poster 'Redneck' pretends to care about ancient treasures with his/her weak irony:

"The Taliban was a wise and forward thinking political/religious organisation which was only concerned with the human rights of its citizens. It was also concerned with protecting cultural treasures such as the Babiyan Buddhas, which everybody knows the Jews blew up."

The destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan (or 'bamiyaan') that the poster 'Redneck' refers to pales into insignificance compared to the wholesale looting of Baghdad's museums, galleries and libraries following the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

'Surveying the littered glass wreckage of display cases and pottery shards at the Iraqi National Museum on Saturday, deputy director Nabhal Amin wept and told Reuters: "They have looted or destroyed 170,000 items of antiquity dating back thousands of years...They were worth billions of dollars." and:

"The Americans were supposed to protect the museum. If they had just one tank and two soldiers nothing like this would have happened," she said. "I hold the American troops responsible for what happened to this museum."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0412-01.htm

'Baghdad's museums, galleries and libraries are empty shells, destroyed in a wave of looting that erupted as U.S.-led forces ended Saddam Hussein's rule last week, although antiquities experts have said they were given assurances months ago from U.S. military planners that Iraq's historic artifacts and sites would be protected by occupying forces.' and:

'The Iraqi National Museum held rare artifacts documenting the development of mankind in ancient Mesopotamia, one of the world's earliest civilizations. Among the museum collection were more than 80,000 cuneiform tablets, some of which had yet to be translated.'

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0417-14.htm

So much for 'cultural liberation'.

History Buff, no, History Buffoon more like it. As for Redneck at least he is honest and is willing to be judged as a superior white person of high education, as per this example from a previous post about his racist views;

"As such, most of them start on the botom rung and stay there, creating ethnic ghettoes noted for their high levels of welfare dependency and serious crime."

Well I would certainly believe anything these two gentlemen of letters wrote than any of that psuedo academic stuff that gets published in the mainstream media.

My marble went into the barrel for Vietnam but being advised by phone that it was withdrawn because I was married and with a pregnant wife was a great relief to me because i was afraid I would be shot in Vietnam by an American!

Ulysses

I can't work this out.

Why is it totally unacceptable for the west to invade a brutal dictator, who practiced aparthied all the while he murdered his own citizens, yet it was Bob Brown and his ilk (who are utterly against the Iraq war) demanding troops into East Timor (to remove the brutal Indonesians), the Solomon Islands (where the race riots occurred last year - with Chinese businesses attacked, as usual) and West Papua!

Why ok there but not elsewhere?

East Timor is falling apart yet no one is blaming Australia for that like they blame us for Iraq. Why not? Is it alright to help native peoples but not Arabs?

And to the joker who pointed out that winning is Haliburton, yes, you're right! When huge, greedy, multinational (yes that isn't US only, but world...you know...China? Or does the world simply consist of white man for you?) companies flock to warzones, people get jobs, ideas are transferred, economies improve, living standards improve.

THIS PROCEDURE HAS HAPPENED EVERYWHERE THE US AND THE WEST HAS BEEN ABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT UNIMPEDED.

It only didn't work in Vietnam because racist middle-class whites in the west didn't want yellow people to live like white people (i.e. the western left. Just as they act towards genuine humanitarian heroes like Ayaan Hirsi Ali - who tells the truth about Islam as it's practiced in most of the world today, as a lepor; a darling of the right - think about how immoral that is! She is a victim of Islam, yet noone but the 'right' seems to care? The right does what the left thinks it stands for!).

Now in Vietnam, another communist dump, people live poorly. Japan, Germany and South Korea (could there ever be a better example of what "Americanising your economy" means than North and South Korea?!) on the other hand, all show that where the west goes, prosperity and happiness follows.........

"Reckon the main reason we haven't heard much, History Buff, is that such news from Iraq would be really hard to fathom during an election."

Yep - they certainly wouldn't want people to see this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aiRugtbQGA8

Benjamin, your post doesn't make much sense.

You said:

"Why is it totally unacceptable for the west to invade a brutal dictator..?"

I thought nations could be invaded, but not individuals. Did Nazi Germany invade the USSR or did it invade Joseph Stalin?

Chris,

Please provide sources for your "guestimates" on casualties in Iraq. BTW, international socialist is not an unbiased source.
Also, by your logic the west's biggest failure was the second world war.


Bushbred,

You seem to be confused about who we went to fight in Iraq. The “Sunni enemy”. Are you on drugs? The Sunni aren’t the enemy any more than any other sect in Iraq.

The idea that we are joining forces with former militants is surely “realpolitik” in action. Our enemies in Iraq are those who are behind the violence and destabilization of the country. That the Sunnis have now had enough of the despicable tactics of Al Qaeda and joined forces with us is to be commended. We are surely winning in Iraq at this moment in time. You would do well to limit your criticism to the facts because your history is also fairly weak and your composition is appalling. Your “Pollyanna’ "fair go" nonsense clearly outs you as a fantasist.

JohnJ

You have chosen the wrong parallels. Iraq now has similarities to post-Tet Vietnam. The Tet offensive of 1968 was an epic body blow to the COSVN. After 1968 it was four years before the communists could regroup for a major offensive. The fighting was taken up by Northerners after the annihilation of the Viet Cong and their infrastructure. Had the offensive been seen as the massive victory for free world forces that it was, we would have defeated the communist north and Vietnam would have prospered like the rest of the Asian economies. The sad fact is that while we may not have been winning the war before Tet, we most certainly were after Tet, yet this was reversed in the mind of the public. Poor leadership by Johnson and especially Macnamara were fatal.

Iraq is now at that point, we are winning and we need to decide whether we have the fortitude to see it through. The left has a vested interest in seeing us fail in this endeavour as it did during the Vietnam war.

The war in Iraq was barely mentioned, and certainly not debated, because Labor fundamentally agrees with the Coalition on the war. That is, they are not opposed to an illegal agressive war - an imperialist war.

Given that the majority in Australia are opposed to the war, any debate would have exposed the fact that there is no mainstream political party in Australia which opposes the war, and therefore no mainstream political party which acts in the interests of ordinary people. The Greens also do not oppose the war, they just say our troops should be withdrawn to be deployed in colonial conquests in our own region, and that the US should use its own troops in Iraq.

Most ominously, preparations for an attack on Iran are well underway, world war III is openly being discussed, and it was barely mentioned in the election campaign. Both Howard and Rudd met with Bush at APEC and undoubtedly an attack on Iran was discussed - talks were amicable we hear. A few months ago Seymour Hirsh reported that Australia had expressed interest in participating in an attack on Iran.

You will note in Rudd's election night speech he specifically mentioned "our" great ally the US. Meaning - all the way with Bush, Clinton & Co.

Be prepared for Australian participation in an attack on Iran.

Also be prepared for conscription.

Paul.L
"Iraq is now at that point, we are winning and we need to decide whether we have the fortitude to see it through. The left has a vested interest in seeing us fail in this endeavour as it did during the Vietnam war."

What do you mean by "winning"?

1,000,000 dead, 4,000,000 displaced and 8,000,0000 suffering from malnutrition - most of whom are children?

Why did we go to war with Iraq?

Tao,

>> Be prepared for conscription?

You're clearly living in a fantasy land.

Where is your proof that most Australians are opposed to the war? It is such a woolly statement that it is irrelevant anyway. It would be far more instructive to ask who supports the continuing efforts in Iraq to support a stable, democratic gov’t and provide for its reconstruction.

Who declared the war to be illegal? Where is your proof for this? There are plenty of lawyers who will tell you that the dozen or so UN resolutions concerning Iraq allowed for the military intervention which occurred.

The problem with Seymour Hersh is that he is not an objective observer, he is a polemicist of the far left. His work isn’t straight reporting of the facts, it is thoroughly intertwined with his political objectives. Many of his facts are also extremely unreliable.

Hersh>> "Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people... I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say." Of course what he writes is only ever backed up by anonymous sources.

At this point there is no evidence that the US intends to attack Iran in the near future. You’ll have to do better than Seymour Hersh to convince me otherwise.

K£vin

>> What do you mean by "winning"?

What I mean by winning is that we are getting closer to our goal of a peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq and that our enemies are weaker than they have ever been. There is no doubt it has come at great cost, however I reject your figures which are grossly inflated. 1 million dead amounts to over 700 people a day, every day, for the four years we have been in Iraq. This type of deliberate falsification does your cause no good at all.

If you have any understanding of the conflict at all you will remember that sanctions, which was the preferred method of the anti war activists, actually killed hundreds of thousands due to malnutrition, most of whom were children. The regime hardly suffered.

Dr Livingstone,

I am continually amazed at the ridiculous comparisons people make in order to show the US in the worst possible light.

You seem to be suggesting they are as bad, or worse, than the Taliban, one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes of modern times. Yet the comparison is SO POOR as to almost be laughable.

How can you compare the deliberate destruction of the Buddhist statues and monuments by the Taliban, with the looting by Iraqi people of their own national museum? The similarity in the vandalism may be valid; however there is NO VALIDITY at all in the suggestion that the US are cultural vandals because the US are not to blame for the Iraqi people looting their own country. This is so obvious that I am astounded you could bring yourself to suggest it. The responsibility rightly belongs with those who vandalized the museum.

Unfortunately there is a lot of this kind of NON-SENSE floating about on OLO. Posters like Kevin who wish to blame the Americans for the large number of casualties during this conflict seem intent on ignoring the significant role the Iraqis have played in the unfortunate outcome.

For the last three years the overwhelming majority of casualties have been caused by sectarian violence. That is, Iraqis killing other Iraqis. The naïve among the anti-Iraq coalition seem to believe that
1) the Iraqis themselves are not responsible for this
2) That it will all go away if the coalition just left.

The really rabid leftists are actually hoping/working for the defeat of our forces in Iraq to strike a blow against American prestige and influence globally. What they seem blissfully unaware of is that the powers which move into the vacuum left by the withdrawal of the US will, assuredly, be far worse.

The main beneficiaries of a loss in Iraq will be Iran, Russia and China. The biggest losers will obviously be the Iraqi people as their nation will splinter into its constituent parts creating far greater conflict than now exists.

PauLL,

“Where is your proof that most Australians are opposed to the war?”

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4015/ 59% say we shouldn't have a military presence in Iraq.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/394.php?lb=btis&pnt=394&nid=&id=&gclid=CIemprOg_48CFRIUagodQUiLtA

“Who declared the war to be illegal? Where is your proof for this? There are plenty of lawyers who will tell you that the dozen or so UN resolutions concerning Iraq allowed for the military intervention which occurred.”

Well, I’m not a lawyer so I’m going with the International Commission of Jurists http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/ilaw-m26.shtml , Australian legal experts http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/law-f27.shtml and 31 Canadian professors of Law http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/lawy-m22.shtml, to name but a few.

“At this point there is no evidence that the US intends to attack Iran in the near future.”

In August, two British academics released a report which can be found at http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf

The authors, Dr Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher, concluded on the basis of publicly available sources that “US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets within Iran in a few hours. US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.” The targets include not only ‘suspected’ nuclear weapon sites but the infrastructure upon which 65 million Iraqi’s rely. Sounds like another “shock and awe” to me.

According to the British-based Sunday Times in October, Australian special forces have been operating with their US and British counterparts along the Iraqi border, and possibly already inside Iran.

"If you have any understanding of the conflict at all you will remember that sanctions, which was the preferred method of the anti war activists, actually killed hundreds of thousands due to malnutrition, most of whom were children. The regime hardly suffered.
Posted by Paul.L,"

In 2004 The Lancet 's mean figure was 655,000 dead- now add a further 3 years. I suppose 4,000,000 weren't fleeing the violence and cluster bombs and white phosphorous and depleted uranium, they just fancied a holiday in Syria or Jordan? I have no reason to disbelieve the Oxfam statistics. We all know the first thing that were secured were the oil fields, and not the lives of children.

The United Nations was created because of the WWII - where Nuremberg concluded aggressive war was the biggest crime against humanity. 193 countries signed up to the UN representing billions of people and people like Bush, Blair and Howard have trashed the hard work of thousands of people over the last 60 years.

I will remain ashamed of my country's actions in this travesty for the rest of my life. Virtually the whole world was against this action - but some people believe they are so powerful they can do what they like. Such a pathology is generally known as megalomania.

TAO,

Don’t send me links to socialist organizations and I won’t send you links to Fox news and Geraldo Rivera. A majority supported the original intervention and if the gov’t reacted to every poll our foreign policy would be a joke. The average person hasn’t got a clue what the best thing to do for Iraq is. Many are so ignorant they think that if we just left everything would be OK. But to leave Iraq now would condemn the country to becoming a failed state with warlords in control and far more bloodshed than we have seen so far.

I am sure there are some who believe the war is illegal but the UN and the international courts don’t seem to have seen it that way.

Your understanding of military matters is poor. There is little doubt the US has moved significant military assets to the region however this does not presage a military strike. There are a number of reasons special-forces could be operating inside Iran. The most obvious is that IRGC forces are directly involved in the war in Iraq, in particular supplying the explosively formed projectiles which are doing so much damage. These fanatics are using safe havens just over the border to hide up and rearm before they return to Iraq. It is a very long bow to draw to suggest that special-forces operating in Iran means that a strike is imminent.

I have no doubt the US has fully planned for such a strike on Iran but one of the military’s jobs is to be prepared for any eventuality and that includes planning and war gaming strikes on many countries. Iran is certainly not alone in this respect, plans exist for interventions all across the world.

Kevin,

The Lancet is significantly out of step with other monitoring organizations on this issue. Check out the Iraq Body count. Their figures are not extrapolations of small group samples, they count actual reported deaths. Their MAXIMUM is 74,000 deaths. Quibbling over casualties is loathsome, but the ridiculous numbers you are spouting demands a response. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/

PauLL,

“Don’t send me links to socialist organizations and I won’t send you links to Fox news and Geraldo Rivera.”

You don’t need to send me links, I can tell where you get your rationale from.

As to the content of the links on the illegality of the war, there is no doubt that many prominent lawyers in Australia and worldwide consider that the war was illegal. There was no immanent threat from Iraq – the US cabal and its allies manufactured “intelligence” (oh, sorry, it got ‘bad’ advice as JH claimed). In my judgement, and the judgement of many others, they are guilty of war crimes.

“I am sure there are some who believe the war is illegal but the UN and the international courts don’t seem to have seen it that way.”

That the UN den of thieves has done nothing to restrain it’s most powerful member is hardly surprising. The US doesn’t submit itself to the authority of the international courts, don’t you know?

“A majority supported the original intervention ….. The average person hasn’t got a clue what the best thing to do for Iraq is.”

On the contrary, I’d suggest that the average person is no longer taken in by Howard’s fear campaigns – e.g. the Haneef affair, and has seen through the lies and deception about the war. That is why the Iraq war could barely be mentioned, let alone debated, in this election. They would figure out that Labor isn’t really intending to get out of Iraq. As I said originally, neither major party represents the interests of ordinary people.

As to your assessment of the possibility of a strike on Iran, I suppose we will see what we shall see. It is being openly discussed in the US and worldwide – but not in Australia during the election. I wonder why that is? If you recall, leading up to the invasion of Iraq, John Howard was saying he hadn’t committed. We found out later that Australian troops had begun the attack before the official announcement that the invasion had begun.

With regard the exchange between PauLL and Kevin about deaths since the invasion of Iraq, in September, ORB, a British polling company, released a poll indicating 1.2 million deaths since the invasion, see http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78 . This supports the findings of the Lancet study.

As to the Lancet Study itself, its methodology is sound and both the United Nations and the US government have used the method in determining mortality, including after the Kosovo and Afghan wars, Darfur and the Congo.

Iraq Body Count itself has noted on its web site, “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.” Difficult then to obtain an accurate number from media reports, one would imagine.

PauLL, I know you’re not interested in links from socialist organisations so for you the post ends here.

Kevin

You might be interested in the following exchange between the World Socialist Web Site and the IBC people on the accuracy of both the Lancet study and the IBC.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/ibc-a06.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/ibc-m17.shtml

They include the following response from one of the Lancet study’s authors to an IBC critique:

“The basic problem is the body counters are not epidemiologists or demographers, and do not grasp the central principle that in very few situations can comprehensive national estimates be derived from reports of deaths, whether in the newspapers or even through reports from hospitals, and Iraq is not one of the countries where these estimates can be made (along with much or the world). Almost everything we know about mortality, disease prevalence, causes of deaths in probably 80 percent of the world’s population is derived from surveys—usually cluster surveys such as the one we carried out in Iraq. How many people died in Darfur? In Kosovo? In Congo? What is the death rate in Uganda, or Cambodia, or Angola? The answer almost without exception comes from cluster surveys.

“When there is such vigorous denial of a standard demographic and epidemiological tool as the cluster survey, one needs to look for other reasons why the results are not acceptable.”

Tao

>> You don’t need to send me links, I can tell where you get your rationale from.

You don’t have a clue where I get my rationale from Tao. And it seems either you didn’t understand that for me the socialist organisations are not unbiased observers, or you didn’t like the comparison with Geraldo. My point is that relying on the socialist websites for your information is exactly the same mistake that Fox viewers make on the opposite side of the spectrum.

I am struggling to work out how you can argue that the invasion is illegal if you don’t believe in the integrity of the UN. Who else would decide an invasion was illegal.

If the average person is so clued up with respect to Iraq why wasn’t a bigger deal made about our involvement there? Your argument that both parties didn’t want to talk about it not really the issue. The majority of people wanted to get rid of “work choices” and so Rudd campaigned on this issue. If there was widespread feeling about the Iraq issue Rudd would have had to listen. But there isn’t. The lefties would like to pretend that Australians are strongly opposed to the war, but where is the evidence? Where are the moratorium marches?

I don’t see how you think the casualty figures help your case. The fact that very large numbers of Iraqis died merely highlights the fact that the current casualty rates are the lowest they have been in a long time and that they are part of a significant downward turn in recent months. We are moving closer to the goal of a safe, democratic, stable Iraq. That is, we are winning. This scares the leftists absolutely rigid. They don’t give a toss about the future of the Iraqi people they just want to make sure the Americans get taught a lesson

con't

con't

Do you honestly think the Iraqis would be better off if the coalition packed up and left? Do you deny that the country would almost immediately break into full scale civil war? Please don’t even suggest that the current level of conflict is a civil war, it is nothing compared to what will happen if the three major groups were let loose at one another. Do you deny that with the Kurdish groups given free hand the Turks will feel they have to invade Iraqi Kurdistan to protect themselves. Do you deny that the Iranians will not stand idly by and watch the shia population attacked. Do you deny that the Sunni Arab countries equally won’t stand by and watch as Sunnis are driven from their homes?

Your focus on the legalities and justifications for the original invasion unfortunately diverts your attention from the correct approach to take now. What I notice about your posts is that you don’t talk about what’s best for the Iraqis. How can the immediate withdrawl of coalition forces help the Iraqi people? Keep in mind that the vast majority of violence over the last three years has been sectarian in nature.

There is so much resistance to the figures because
1) the estimates vary over such a wide range.
2) there is political gain to be had by both inflating and underestimating the actual figures.

PauLL,

I have no doubt that a socialist website has a particular bias. However, you seem to be implying that the rationale which underlies your thinking is not biased, and the places you get your information from are not biased.

“If the average person is so clued up with respect to Iraq why wasn’t a bigger deal made about our involvement there?... The lefties would like to pretend that Australians are strongly opposed to the war, but where is the evidence? Where are the moratorium marches?”

Actually, millions of people in Australia, and all over the world demonstrated against the war. The problem is, merely protesting against the powers that be will not work – as they found out. What they are going to find out is that voting won’t work either.

“I don’t see how you think the casualty figures help your case.”

I didn’t refer to them to help my case, I simply made a comment about your exchange with Kevin. You said the Lancet study was out of step with “other” monitoring bodies. I pointed out a poll that supported the Lancet study, that the study was methodologically sound, that there are problems with the IBC, and gave Kevin some additional information.

Regarding what you call “resistance” to the figures produced by the Lancet study, given that the methodology used was that used by the UN and US government itself, why do you think those in favour of the war are disputing only these particular figures? It can’t just be coincidence. There wouldn’t be a ‘bias’ would there?

The fact is that the massive death toll, and destruction of a society is a war crime of mass proportions

As I and many others have said, there was no immanent threat. Regardless of the lack of integrity of the UN, after WWII it was established by international consensus that waging an aggressive war was illegal. Regardless of what the UN does now, DO YOU now think that consensus was wrong? Perhaps you think the Nazis shouldn’t have been tried?

“Your focus on the legalities and justifications for the original invasion unfortunately diverts your attention from the correct approach to take now. What I notice about your posts is that you don’t talk about what’s best for the Iraqis. How can the immediate withdrawl of coalition forces help the Iraqi people? Keep in mind that the vast majority of violence over the last three years has been sectarian in nature.”

Prior to the invasion, and the first gulf war, Iraq was secular, and one of the most advanced countries in the middle east. The “insurgency” and sectarian violence, and the rise of religious intolerance is a consequence of the invasion – everything which has occurred in Iraq since the invasion, and under the occupation, flows from the initial illegal aggressive act. It was the invasion and occupation which caused the mess, what makes you think that those who orchestrated “shock and awe” with such callous disregard for Iraqi people know what is best for the Iraqi people now? What makes you think continuing a brutal occupation will make it any better?

What is best for the Iraqis is that their country is not occupied by a brutal military force whose sole purpose is to control their oil resources. Billions of dollars of compensation should be paid to them and civilian assistance given to rebuild their physical and social infrastructure.

Don’t even try to pretend that the US ruling class, and its allies, have the best interests of Iraqis at heart.

Tao,

>> You seem to be implying that the rationale which underlies your thinking is not biased

What I was pointing out to you was that a socialist website has just as much bias as Fox news and Geraldo Rivera. That’s why you will not find me quoting rabid right wing groups even if their material supported my arguments. I was suggesting the bias of your sources not your arguments.

As for the demonstrations; populist politicians can always detect such strong community sentiment and they ALWAYS jump the band wagon. The depth of sentiment you suggest doesn’t exist.

>> After WWII it was established … that waging an aggressive war was illegal. Perhaps you think the Nazis shouldn’t have been tried?

Do I think the Nazi’s shouldn’t have been tried? And I was beginning to think you actually might be intelligent. There is no resolution which considers the Iraq war an “aggressive war”. The legal opinion given to all the gov’ts which participated in the intervention stated that the previous DOZEN UN resolutions regarding Iraq gave the coalition the legal authority under the UN. For me this is secondary anyway, to the question of what we do now.

>> Prior to the invasion, and the first gulf war, Iraq was secular, and one of the most advanced countries in the Middle East.

Iraq was only secular because the ruling dictator and his regime made sure of it, violently. Religious leaders would have been a direct threat to Saddam’s rule and he would not have stood for that. Iraq was a nation bankrupted by Saddam and was not remotely technologically advanced. Saddam is the major cause of the religious intolerance which now exists by ensuring the power of the ruling Sunni elite and the oppression and punishment of the Shia and Kurds. Al Qaeda’s destabilisation attempts, which were centred around sparking a civil war between Sunni and Shia, is also responsible. Are you suggesting Iraq would have been better off under Saddam?

Cont'

Cont'

>> What makes you think that those who orchestrated “shock and awe” with such callous disregard for Iraqi people know what is best for the Iraqi people now?

Shock and awe actually killed VERY FEW Iraqis. It was a very well executed plan which decapitated the regime very effectively whilst minimising Iraqi civilian casualties. It was the piss poor planning for the aftermath which was appallingly neglected. So there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a callous disregard for the Iraqi people in planning shock and awe, quite the contrary.

What makes me think the coalition presence will make thing better is the realisation that

1) Iraq is day by day getting closer to becoming the free, democratic and peaceful country which is our goal
2) The country will otherwise break up into its sectarian and ethnic parts creating far greater violence, instability and suffering.

The nonsense that the sole purpose of the coalition is to control Iraq’s oil is naïve. Regime change was the primary motive initially. And besides their intention to foster a democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East, the coalition is also putting pressure on Iran, sandwiching them between Iraq and Afghanistan. They are also ensuring that America doesn’t lose prestige, and therefore deterrence capability, by being defeated by a rag tag army once again. There are many reasons, some are humanitarian, some not. Without the humanitarian reasons however, there would be no support at all for the coalition to remain. The best compensation for Iraqis would be a peaceful, democratic, stable country with substantial reconstruction assistance. Whilst we can still deliver that I believe we have a duty to do so.

BTW You didn’t address whatsoever my argument that Iraq would be worse off if the coalition just pulled out. You didn’t bother to deny any of my points about the likely results for the Iraqi people of such a decision. This says to me that you and the leftists don’t care much about what happens to the Iraqis as long as America is punished.

What I was pointing out to you, PauLL, is that the views you espouse quite obviously have a right wing capitalist bias. It is very obvious to me because you use all the arguments which the proponents of the war use. Whether you get them from FoxNews or somewhere else, I can guarantee you this – your views are not unbiased. The fact that you don’t cite your sources, or pretend you are impartial, does not make you any less biased. We all have a standpoint or perspective from which we view the world – to deny it would be ridiculous, and dangerous.

The ‘bias’ of the World Socialist Web Site is what is called an international socialist perspective – it takes the standpoint of what is in the interests of the international working class, of which the Iraqi working class forms a part. Its standpoint is that the interests of the Iraqi, American, Australian and every other working class are same – an end to war and militarism and exploitation of man by man, and the application of technology to the betterment of all of humanity, which necessitates the reorganisation of society on the basis of human needs instead of profit. This means that the capitalist ruling class, including its lackeys in the UN, must be overthrown by the working class. The WSWS is therefore dedicated to exposing the machinations of the ruling classes of all countries, and their consequences for ordinary people, and to unify the international working class in opposition to them.

The ‘leftists’ have been opposed to the inevitable destruction of Iraq, and the humanitarian-disaster which has eventuated, since before the war began. So your comment that “This says to me that you and the leftists don’t care much about what happens to the Iraqis as long as America is punished” is patently false.

However, you obviously believe that those whose planning for the aftermath was so “piss-poor” now miraculously know what is in the best interests of the Iraqis, while the ‘leftists’ who predicted and opposed the devastation which would ensue have no idea.

Continued…

The very fact that there was “piss poor” planning merely demonstrates a callous disregard for the Iraqi people. After the invasion the general secretary of Amnesty International said “There seems to have been more preparation to protect the oil wells than to protect hospitals, water systems or civilians.” In fact the refusal of the US-Government to count Iraqi deaths resulting from its actions loudly bespeaks its disregard for Iraqi lives - and where your claim that VERY FEW Iraqis died as a result of “shock and awe” came from, I don’t know. And how many is the VERY FEW which you obviously believe is OK because you care so much for the Iraqis? One is too many in my opinion, but according to you, I don’t care.

“You didn’t address whatsoever my argument that Iraq would be worse off if the coalition just pulled out.”

I don’t think they could be any worse off than they are now. 1.2 million dead, 4 million displaced, basic infrastructure destroyed. An Oxfam report released in July indicated that 8 million Iraqis urgently require water, sanitation, food and shelter. According to Oxfam, Iraq’s civilians are “suffering from a denial of fundamental human rights in the form of chronic poverty, malnutrition, illness, lack of access to basic services, and destruction of homes, vital facilities, and infrastructure, as well as injury and death. Basic indicators of humanitarian need in Iraq show that the slide into poverty and deprivation since the coalition forces entered the country in 2003 has been dramatic, and a deep trauma for the Iraqi people.”

As I said, don’t even try to pretend that the US-ruling-class, and its allies, have the best interests of Iraqis at heart. Their actions have created the humanitarian disaster – precisely because the war had nothing to do with the interests of ordinary Iraqis and everything to do with gaining strategic control of the region, and particularly of the oil resources. Any continuation of the occupation is solely about maintaining control of the oil and will never be about the interests of the Iraqi people.

Tao,

I was never debating that we all have a specific frame of reference for our understanding of events. Merely that your use of WSW to support your argument is no more persuasive to me than if I quoted you Geraldo Rivera. What I was suggesting was that you might do better to find a more independent or objective source.

WSW is by its very nature anti-capitalist and therefore America, being the spiritual home of Capitalism, is its number one enemy. Socialism is an outdated and patently flawed political system. This has been demonstrated a hundred times over in the last century. Where it still exists, usually in bastardised form, it is maintained by dictators and strongmen.

It is so patently false that there is anything more than a passing commonality between the “working classes” of the world. The division of the world into bourgeois and proletariat has been superseded and it’s simplicity, which was the basis of its appeal, was also its fatal flaw.

>> This means that the capitalist ruling class, including its lackeys in the UN, must be overthrown by the working class.

How can you suggest with a straight face that the UN is a body which should be respected and adhered to, and then talk about destroying it? How can you ask anyone to believe that you and the socialists are in ANY WAY objective when your criticisms of the coalition dovetail so nicely with your aims of overthrowing them? How can you honestly believe all that rubbish in light of the EXTRODINARY damage international socialism has visited upon the world. The biggest mass murderer on the planet was a socialist, remember Stalin. Pol Pot and Mao Zedong’s revolutions for the working class were only marginally less catastrophic.

>> The ‘leftists’ have been opposed to the inevitable destruction of Iraq … since before the war began.

This is utter rubbish, the ‘leftists’ have been opposed to everything the US does, including the humanitarian interventions in Bosnia/Kosovo and Somalia. For the socialists, America is enemy number one. If you were honest you would acknowledge this.

Cont’

>> I don’t think they could be any worse off than they are now. 1.2 million dead, 4 million displaced.

Oh no you did not say that, did you? Your obvious naivety is now beginning to assert itself. They could not be any worse off? Really? The Rwanda genocide left nearly one million people dead in a period of just over 100 days. And they were mostly only armed with machetes. Things could get a lot worse for the Iraqis and for the region. The breakup of Iraq would very likely tip the region into full scale conflict. Already there are serious tensions between the Arabs and the Iranians and neither would stand by while their coreligionists were massacred.

Do you deny Iraq would fall into full-scale civil war if the coalition left before the country was secured? Please no platitudes about it already being a civil war - If the various sects were turned loose on one another the bloodshed would be far, far greater than we see today and Iraq would end up a failed state like Somalia.

I don’t deny the difficulties the Iraqi people face, although I do debate your figures.
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre estimates the number of people currently displaced within the country at 1.9 million although 46,000 refugees returned to Iraq in October alone due to the significant downturn in violence.

What I am suggesting is that your solution is not a solution to the Iraqis problems, it’s a solution to yours and the socialists. The socialist don’t have a plan for how to help Iraq, because their primary goal is to defeat the capitalists. This is best achieved by lobbying for America to get out of Iraq, thus striking a blow against American prestige.

Personally I would prefer that the UN moved into Iraq and the coalition left but this won’t happen, for two reasons.

1) The good govt’s of the UN would never be prepared to provide the necessary number of peacekeepers.
2) The willpower to face down the terrorists especially in the face of significant casualties, is lacking.

PauLL,

As to your comment “What I was suggesting was that you might do better to find a more independent or objective source”. The point is that there are no truly independent or objective sources – if you believe you have one, you are deluding yourself. There are facts, then there is the reporting of them, or not, according to a perspective.

You failed to explain how many were the VERY FEW who you claim died in the initial attack, which, considering how much you seem to think you alone care for the Iraqis, and your approval of the invasion, is obviously an acceptable amount of deaths to you – no doubt “collateral damage”. Nor did you explain where you got such a claim from since the US Government does not bother to count deaths.

I see you also failed to address my comments that the poor planning for the aftermath demonstrates how little the coalition cared for Iraqi lives, and how they will now miraculously know what is best for Iraqis.

It is a despicable twist to suggest that others don’t care about the Iraqis when you quite clearly dismiss the significance of, and apparently approve of, their deaths. Enough really, to indicate that any argument you make about what is in their best interests is a pretence.

continued....

Also this habit you have of disputing figures – you don’t seem to care that they might actually be true – just that they might make the war look bad. You cited the internally displaced figure of 1.9 million, but there are about 4 million displaced BOTH internally and externally – 15% of the population. You seem to be trying to distort the truth. And even if it were only 1.9 million, isn’t that horrific enough?

As to your comments that in Rwanda nearly a million people were killed – at 1.2million, the death toll from the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has now surpassed that. Where is the outrage in the media? I notice that the ORB report was barely mentioned in what you presumably believe are “independent or objective” sources. You yourself don’t seem disturbed about what has actually happened, you are more interested in hysterically speculating about what might happen should the US not continue the occupation – it’s the same thing they did to justify the invasion in the first place – and it turned out to be lies.

It is pointless continuing this discussion with you.

Tao

OK, maybe there are no truly independent or objective sources in the postmodern sense, if you really want to be anal about it. But the WSW and socialists in general, as followers of a specific dogma, have no objectivity at all. There are many sources available which do their very best to remain unbiased and objective. But the WSW take on the coalition is like sourcing a Liberal politician for opinion on Labour policy. The chances of any objectivity are nil.

For analysis of shock and awe campaign see John Keegan, the worlds pre eminent military historian; or John Simpson’s “The Wars against Saddam”. Simpson especially is a BBC journalist and is highly critical of the American planning for the peace. I am ambivalent about the original invasion. For me the question of what to do now is of much greater importance.

Your sanctimonious pap about an acceptable number of deaths is sad but predictable. I don’t dismiss the suffering of the Iraqis, in fact I have specifically acknowledged it in my recent posts. Just remember that the socialists did nothing to stop Hussein torture, oppress and murder hundreds of thousands of his citizens. And the socialists were the ones who wanted to give sanctions time to work. Those were the sanctions which caused the starvation and malnutrition of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as impoverishing the country and allowing its infrastructure to wither and die.

The Iraqis have a democratically elected gov’t which is responsible for the rebuilding of the country. The coalition are only in Iraq to provide the necessary military muscle to stabilize the country and allow the gov’t to get on with the task of reconstruction.

You deliberately missed the point with respect to Rwanda. I was pointing out for you what a country mostly only armed with machetes could do in 100 days. Most Iraqis have guns so the possibilities are far worse. Iraq is not even remotely near to the worst it could get, even at the height of the violence.

cont'

cont'

>> you don’t seem to care that they might actually be true – just that they might make the war look bad.

You really are beginning to reach aren’t you. You can’t seem to accept that your figures might be significantly inflated because it suits your purposes. I can acknowledge, as I have already done, that the Iraqis have suffered significantly. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that the Iraqis were very badly off in the first place and that sanctions caused a significant amount of suffering.

>> the death toll from the invasion of Iraq has now surpassed that Where is the outrage in the media?

Most of the outrage generated by the Rwandan conflict was directed at the UN and NATO, because there was enough forewarning to have prevented, or at least significantly mitigated, the genocide. That the acts were genocidal was also particularly horrifying. The UN deserved a significant amount of blame for allowing the events to occur, yet I’m sure you didn’t complain that those incompetents were the ones sent in to clean up the mess.

The socialist alliance doesn’t care about UN mandates and resolutions This is obvious when you look at the first gulf war, which the “leftists” hysterically opposed. Never mind that it was supported by specific UN resolutions. Even arab countries fought alongside the west in ousting Saddam from Kuwait.

It was no lie to suggest that Saddam developed significant chemical and biological weapons. It is no lie to suggest that had he stared the west down in 2003, he would have again pursued these weapons. Perhaps the imminence of the threat was overstated but its inevitability was clear.

You have consistently refused to comment on what you thought would happen if the coalition security presence were to simply pack up and go. I can only take this as a sign that you are in general agreement that a real civil war would be inevitable, and that would quite likely pull in other countries in the region. BTW, Would you have returned Saddam to the presidency if you had the chance?

Oooooh,

Vicious.

A couple of points:

1. As to your comments: “And the socialists were the ones who wanted to give sanctions time to work. Those were the sanctions which caused the starvation and malnutrition of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as impoverishing the country and allowing its infrastructure to wither and die.”

WSWS opposed the sanctions. Here is a selection of articles on them.

Another vote to starve Iraq: http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/may1998/iraq-m1.shtml,
The people of Iraq are dying: http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/july1998/iraq-j01.shtml , http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/iraq-j29.shtml,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/dem2-a21.shtml,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/iraq-j05.shtml & http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/iraq-j06.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/aug1999/iraq-a14.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jan2000/iraq-j05.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/iraq-f25.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/iraq-m11.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/iraq-a13.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/iraq-m29.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/iraq-a10.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/gulf-j19.shtml

Rather comprehensive, don’t you think? Perhaps you ought to take back your untruthful comment, and reassess the rest.

I would also ask you oh wise one, who were the main drivers of the sanctions regime? Oh, was that the US and the UK? Gee, I wonder why they would want to cause “starvation and malnutrition of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as impoverishing the country and allowing its infrastructure to wither and die”. Same reason they bombed the crap out of Iraq I suppose, just out of the goodness of their hearts.

2. The WSWS is not the Socialist Alliance, and is completely opposed to the SA’s perspective. But you wouldn’t want to know anything about that would you? No need to be accurate or “objective” during your tirades, it would spoil a good story.

As I said, it is pointless continuing this discussion with you. You’re obviously too busy spewing bile at everyone you disagree with to get your facts right. Why would anyone take you seriously?

Tao,

Grow a pair. Talk about changing the subject. I didn’t claim that WSWS supported sanctions as you could see if you looked. I said the ‘socialists’ preferred option was to give sanctions and inspections time to work. So all your pointless reseach means nothing, comprehensive though it may be.

The main opponents of the sanctions regime, China Russia and France all had Iraqi oil contracts in their sights and so their opposition was self serving and therefore irrelevant. Saddam refused to co operate with the inspectors for 12 years and attempted to subvert what work they did achieve. You forget that the sanctions were a direct result of Husseins’ invasion of Kuwait. You also neglect the fact that it was Saddam who starved the people of Iraq, not the Coalition. He had the money and the food to prevent the suffering of his people. Yet he decided that he would get the sanctions removed faster if his people were obviously suffering. So he withheld the help and spent the money on his palaces and his armed forces and Mukhabarat.

All this is irrelevant to what we should do now. And you don’t have an answer beyond bringing the troops home.

You still won’t comment on what you think might happen were the troops to just pull out. This is because you are very shaky ground there and you know it. One of the responsibilities of advocating policy is having regard for the consequences. That you have no idea of the consequences merely reinforces the idea that you aren’t interested in helping Iraq; you are only interested in punishing the US, your self declared enemy.

You also avoided the question” Would you have reinstated Saddam if you were given the chance”. I’ll bet you don’t answer it again. Too scared?

PauLL,

“I didn’t claim that WSWS supported sanctions as you could see if you looked. I said the ‘socialists’ preferred option was to give sanctions and inspections time to work. So all your pointless reseach means nothing, comprehensive though it may be.”

The point is that you portray all supposed “socialists” including WSWS and me as having a certain position on something which you either don’t even know is true, or know the truth but lie about it. Either way, your credibility is an issue, and any discussion with someone who argues blindly without accuracy is pointless.

“You also avoided the question” Would you have reinstated Saddam if you were given the chance”.”

This question is underscored by a simplistic and incorrect logic, used by all proponents of the war, which says that those who oppose the US invasion of Iraq support Saddam Hussein. It is a fallacious argument.

Similarly, it is a logical fallacy to say that opposition to Saddam’s regime means support for the coalition’s actions. One can be opposed to Saddam’s regime, and opposed to the coalition’s course of action.

In answer to your question ” Would you have reinstated Saddam if you were given the chance”. Clearly not, but again, that doesn’t mean that I agree with the invasion, or the way he was deposed.

Your attempt to paint the world in black and white demonstrates a childish logic.

“You still won’t comment on what you think might happen were the troops to just pull out. This is because you are very shaky ground there and you know it.”

Again, you engage in a logical fallacy.

I don’t know exactly what might happen, just as you can have now way of knowing. Just because you believe you know, doesn’t mean it will happen and doesn’t mean your “solution” is right.

As I have said, a full withdrawal of troops would be accompanied by billions of dollars of compensation and civilian support in rebuilding the physical and social infrastructure of Iraq.

Cont….

...cont

This will not eventuate without the mobilisation of the US working class on a socialist program in opposition to the entire political system. The US working class will then provide economic and practical assistance to the working class in the Middle East who will decide their own fate – their lives will not be dictated to by a foreign capitalist power and its stooges. Under the capitalist framework, the US simply will not pull out and not stop meddling in the Middle East. Its reasons for being there are economic and have nothing to do with terrorists. If the US working class is mobilised against the ruling class, then the world political situation will have undergone a fundamental shift, including in the Middle East, and conditions will be quite different to what they are now.

“One of the responsibilities of advocating policy is having regard for the consequences. That you have no idea of the consequences merely reinforces the idea that you aren’t interested in helping Iraq;

If as you say, one of the responsibilities of advocating policy is having regard for the consequences, and that having no idea of the consequences for Iraq merely reinforces that someone isn’t interested in helping Iraq, then clearly the “piss-poor planning” on the part of the coalition for the consequences of the invasion reinforces the fact that the US ruling class and its allies were and are not interested in helping Iraq.

“you are only interested in punishing the US, your self declared enemy.”

Another falsehood. You are the one trying to portray the US as my self declared enemy. However, that you say it, doesn’t make it true.

Nowhere have I declared the US my enemy. I oppose the US ruling class, and that of every country in the world. I don’t want the US working class punished, I want them to overthrow the US ruling class and take political power into their own hands. How the working class choose to punish their former oppressors for their crimes against humanity will be up to them.

Tao,

>> Your attempt to paint the world in black and white demonstrates a childish logic.

This from the person who believes the world can be divided into two groups, working class and ruling class. Its clear that words like irony and hypocricy aren’t a part of your lexicon. The whole logic of Marxism is childish and has demonstrably failed everywhere it has raised its ugly head.

>> a simplistic and incorrect logic, used by all proponents of the war, which says that those who oppose the US invasion of Iraq support Saddam Hussein.

What is clear from your answer is that you accept that the regime change was a positive outcome, irrespective of how it was achieved.

>> I don’t know exactly what might happen, just as you can have now way of knowing. Just because you believe you know, doesn’t mean it will happen and doesn’t mean your “solution” is right.

You just can’t bring yourself to deny that Iraq will fall into civil war if the coalition were to leave immediately. Your dancing around the issue suggests either

1) you haven’t done any research on the probable outcome of such a security vacuumn, or
2) you’re aware of what will likely happen but you are prepared to pretend it might not happen in order to further your cause.

Clearly the military analysis is beyond your understanding however the political ramifications aren’t all that hard to work out. The Sunni and Shia are fighting each other now, why would the early exit of the coalition help solve that problem. The kurds are the Turks are very close to open conflict. How will leaving help that?

cont'

cont'

>> This will not eventuate without the mobilisation of the US working class on a socialist program in opposition to the entire political system. The US working class will then provide economic and practical assistance to the working class in the Middle East who will decide their own fate

Just because you say it doesn’t make it true Tao, This is utter rubbish. The US will leave when Iraq is strong enough and stable enough to stand on her own. Talk about childish logic, Pollyanna? Will we all hold hands and have puppies and be NICE to one another?

>> Under the capitalist framework, the US simply will not pull out and not stop meddling in the Middle East. Its reasons for being there are economic and have nothing to do with terrorists.

Under the capitalist framework? You’re predicting the outcome of events based upon an outdated, outmoded and demonstrably flawed political and sociological theory that divides the world into two groups with mutually atagonistic aims. Based upon the US gov’t membership of the latter group you think you can predict their behaviour? Tell me then, how the US involvement in Bosnia/Kososvo fits into your fairy story. How about explaining the intervention in Somalia with your theory?

>> Nowhere have I declared the US my enemy. I oppose the US ruling class, and that of every country in the world.

The US isn’t your enemy but you want the working class to overthrow their democratically elected gov’t. It’s a logical fallacy anyway to separate the US gov’t from the US people since the gov’t is democratically elected and therefore represents the people.

PauLL,

“Clearly the military analysis is beyond your understanding however the political ramifications aren’t all that hard to work out. The Sunni and Shia are fighting each other now, why would the early exit of the coalition help solve that problem.”

What do you think of the fact that the US is funding Sunni tribal groups to put militiamen onto the streets of Iraq’s cities– about 70,000 of them, hostile to Shiites, and outside of the control of the Iraqi government and security forces?

See http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/22767.html

& http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071129/wl_mcclatchy/20071129bcusiraqsunnis_attn_national_foreign_editors

“The Baghdad neighborhood of Saidiyah is becoming the focal point of a growing battle between the U.S. military and the U.S.-backed Iraqi government over the burgeoning number of U.S.-financed armed groups known as "concerned local citizens."
“U.S. officers in the neighborhood said that the Shiite Muslim-led government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is undermining American efforts to bolster the volunteers, who are predominantly Sunni Muslims. At the same time, U.S. soldiers acknowledged that some of the volunteers could be sympathizers of al Qaida in Iraq and other anti-government organizations.”
“[Capt. Sean] Chase, however, isn't certain that the new volunteers can be trusted, either…."The Iraqi security volunteers are borderline between al Qaida and the coalition," he said. "Right now they're more pro-coalition because we're paying the bill. As soon as you stop paying them, why should they help us? Why won't they go work for al Qaida?"

Al Qaida sympathisers!! Apparently, some of them were Saddam loyalists!!

Given your apparent concern for the sectarian violence already occuring in Iraq, and the supposed potential for civil war if the coalition left, I’d be interested in your military and political analysis of why the US would fund armed militia groups of potential sympathisers of its supposed enemies, outside the government security forces.