I feel somewhat compelled to respond to the points made in this article, but since that would involve demonstrating the fallacies, mischaracterisations and generally stupid remarks I would be required to write a paragraph for almost every sentence. There is no sense in wasting half a weeks worth of posts refuting an article that is more likely to be mistaken as satire, than be considered a serious work. However, some of the underlying issues are worth looking at.

We don't know how informed particular artists are, and it is not necessarily true that their opinions are invalid simply because they are informed; much of politics relies on gut feelings. Different people are aware of different things, and we aren't always able to present the basis of their opinions in a complete and succinct manner, so sound bites and the article's pejorative slices don't tell us much. It is an elitist view that only those who devote their time to politics, journalism, etc. or are personally affected can speak out against perceived injustice. There is an argument that celebrities exploit their position to promote their views, but we (broad sense) are the ones who give them that position and are willing to listen. And while they use that position, they do not do it maliciously and so only those that are willfully ignorant about the topic deserve to be criticised.

Because of the no-fly zones the Kurds became semi-independent and Saddam couldn't do much; the War in Iraq was certainly not done to protect the Kurds.

‘They’re only as open-minded as the newspapers and books they read.’
Uh huh, as opposed to the well-informed, well-read American public who support Bush, right? Polar opposites, aren’t they.

‘Meanwhile, discerning fans are wondering what the material girl thinks of America’s annihilation of Hitler’s Third Reich.’
Maybe Vietnam is more fresh on their mind, as it is a much more sensible comparison.

‘In Iraq, for example, the Kurds are experiencing a revival of their music traditions. To be sure, that’s good news!’
Yep, just not quite as important a report as the civilian death toll which now stands over 200,000. Unfortunately, people tend to not care whether they’re liberated or not when they’re dead. But yay, music!

‘Not all celebrities, of course, spit on soldiers.’
True, in fact I can’t even think of one. Well spotted!

‘A foreign policy based upon Madonna’s feelings? Now, that’s scary.’
But a foreign policy based on George’s brain, yeah, much better.

Phew. Deuc was right, I question every single sentence. What I would like to ask the author is why do you think celebrities aren’t allowed an opinion? I know if I had the opportunity to say something to that many people, I would take it, no matter what my occupation.

Is it perhaps you simply disagree with what they say? Would you still criticise if they said things that were just as dumb but on your side? I can’t work out whether you’re criticising their opinion, or simply the fact that they express it. Or maybe it’s just a vague rant about things you don’t like?

Ok, so maybe not all celebrities the brightest bulb in the…light bulb shop. But they aren’t exactly alone when they speak out against Bush’s disastrous foreign policy. On their side, for example, is…the vast majority of the western world! Fancy that.

This article barely contains a coherent argument, it is mostly personal attacks and mockery. The only point I'm going to bother taking issue with is this:

"Thousands of Kurds are not alive because destructive weapons killed their pregnant mothers. And for some unfathomable reason, Hollywood was silent. The lesson of Iraq?"

Not only was Hollywood silent, all nations were silent. Great Britain, the United States, France, Germany, etc, continued to sell weapons to Iraq for years after the 1998 gas attack on Halabja, at least until the end of the Iran-Iraq war, and even in some cases right up to the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. The US even tried to shift the blame onto Iran the aftermath of the attack. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/11/29/edjoost_ed3_.php)

Dan,

We might not like Michael More pushy documentaries but here are the war facts as presented to us:

1. Iraq possess WMD
Oops!
2. Harbours terrorism
Only now we are find out that most terrorism organisations started operating in Iraq after Saddams fall partially under insurgency / resistance cover.
3. Protect Iraqi civilians
100,000 deads (add 600,000 babies since the sanctions) in the last 2 years. Larger unemployment and less basic services: food, water, electricity. Daily bombings in streets, schools and even mosques.
4. Protect Iraq from Civil war
I let you comment on this one.
5. Stop Iran from control the GCC region
Iraq was handed over on a golden plate to Iran.
6. A quick shock and awe and exit
Yeah right!
7. Foundation to democracy:
Became a foundation for government ethnicity, division and call for separatism which will take you back to point 4.

Who supported all military coup that brought dictators in the Middle East? Who actually wiped out some democracies in the Middle East since the 1950s “favouring stability over democracy”

Nice article. Very entertaining.

I dont care if 'celebrities' have an opinion and even if they voice it. I do however object to politicians that take the grievances of entertainers seriously. Nobs like Bob Geldof and Bono telling us all about the wonders of debt relief and sending millions to Africa to relieve their collective suffering. Lets not worry about all the other endemic problems they face, just have a sing along, send some money, prop up some dictators, and feel good about yourself.

People spend their entire lives analysisng the complexities of world politics and frankly i'll take their advice and opinion anyday over the ill thought out rantings and ravings of rock stars, actors and over weight "documentary" makers with a bloated sense of self worth who pipe up every few years because they dont like the current state of affairs.

"Ok, so maybe not all celebrities the brightest bulb in the…light bulb shop. But they aren’t exactly alone when they speak out against Bush’s disastrous foreign policy. On their side, for example, is…the vast majority of the western world! Fancy that."

Would that be the vast majority including the US, Australia, Britain and Japan. All countries that voted to keep the governments that had previously sent soldiers to fight in Iraq?

Sorry everybody. I spent an hour putting together a post, but it contained some exclamation marks, hence.

Edit Comment was.

"Repeated use of "-" characters is unnecessary. Please remove them to continue."

After I removed all the exclamation marks it still wasn't permitted.

Funny I can put this through.

My nephew served in Iraq for seven months in the initial stage and lived in Saddam Hussein's Palaces. There was no shortage of baby food and medicine it was just that Saddam kept it from the needs of people so he could propagate his lie that the sanction enforced by the West caused their problems of starvation and death by disease. The present death toll is caused by radical Islam that Fellow_ human supports as the justifiable rejection of the Wests attempt to teach democracy.

I have copies of UN suvelliance intelligence reports showing Saddam removed factories and industrial areas only months before the entry of the coalition. They hads factories producing WOMD as maintained by UN weapons inspecters, it is they were removed completely. They had the capacity to produce gas and dirty bombs which they had previously used.

Whao! This was bound to be a controversial but interesting one.

I am heartened to see the number of people displaying some sense and concern here, great to see!

Duec, good points.

spendocrat - Great Stuff! This is bloody hilarious, you should be writing articles!

Regarding the 'was it worth it to invade Iraq' question on all our lips, its a hard one.

O, and about celebrities - the 'actual' topic.
I think anyone can say whatever the hell they want, why not. Free speech etc etc.

And the other thing, is this author is pretty sort on arguments, he basically resorts to the lamest and most immature form of debate - personal attack. Just like some of our respondants here....:)

Sure, there was massive repression and suffering under Saddam, and getting rid of him is a noble goal. But clearly, what it has been replaced with is no better. Is it? I dont know, who knows?

It's a really hard question to answer and Frankly who can tell? I mean if you were there now and lost your family to a terrorist's bomb, or dare I say, to a US soldier's bullet (as happens), you would be pretty damn unhappy to say the least.

By the same token if you had your family members locked up, tortured and killed under Saddam you would not be too pleased either!

So which situation is worse? I dont think you can start resorting to numbers, X hundred thousand killed here, X hunderd there. I dont think you can measure human suffering in numbers.

All I can say is it was a bloody mess before, and it sure is now.

O, and regarding the 'actual' topic - celebs:

I think anyone can say whatever the hell they want, why not, free speech etc etc..

This author sure presents a weak argument, resorting to the lamest and most immature form of 'debate' - personal attack. Just like some of our respondants here.... :)

It would be interesting to know whether Ben or those supporting him, have ever been involved in combat. Poor Ben, surely has lost the plot and is totally blinded by his ideology, which is common with ideologists and a negative problem that we face.

Most posters have covered the article very well, what amazes me is that Ben, a supporter of the religious rights actions, never mentions the other places that are being destroyed by despots in African countries and around the world, that Bush and Co have failed to take any action on,.

Bush said, in June 2003, “I am driven with a mission from god. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan”. And I did, and then god would tell me, “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq”. And I did. “ And now, again I feel gods words coming to me. Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the middle east”. And by god, I'm gonna do it”.

Doesn't that tell you of the mental capacity of the man.

If the invaders left Iraq, sure there would be civil strife, but I doubt that it would involve as much destruction and murder, compared to what has been heaped upon them by Bush and Co,.

One thing we can be sure of, is that the coalition will not only spread the terrorists around the world, but they cannot win in Iraq until they have at least 85% of the people on their side. That won't happen as long as the US continues to bomb everything in sight, to try and flush out a few people.

Another case of religious mayhem heaped upon the world.

Oh good to see the facts still coming......the facts….

100 000 dead..... Hmmmm latest UN report has 24,000, still tragic... How many are terrorist victims?

600 000 babies since sanctions...lets not mention that after Gulf war 2 it was found that Saddam had deny Iraqis the medicines.
What I do know another mass grave of 300 000 found just recently. What number does that come to now?

GXB saying “god told me” Of course someone remembering a translation from someone with English not as the main language and now the BBC start to back away from this. Plastic turkey anyone?

Oh the US furiously arming the Iraqis? If I remember correctly SBS (yes that left wing TV station) showed a program showing the French and Germanys mainly provided the biological and chemical support and the Russians the main military hardware. US provided some light helicopters for agriculture but they were converted …Mmmmm yep must be the US fault?

Blah blah....

Again Plastic Turkey anyone…..

The Big Fish,
It is easy to recognise those that support the lies propogated by the opponents of our free society. One only wonders if the anti-involvement propagandist in Afganistan and Iraq are really secret agents for the radical elements of Islam. They speak more highly of Islam that the equal right to life of other people in those countries. Islamic hatred of the free peoples is their agenda.

No one would now be killed in Iraq if radical Sunni Muslims stopped their slaughter of the new democratic Iraqi Government.

Philio,

I dont know if you count me as one "those that support the lies propogated by the opponents of our free society".
But its pretty likely that Im a secret agent for radical Islam. Hmmm, yeah, yeah, that's probably likely! Yeah definitely!
Given I have red hair, born and bread Aussie, never been in a Mosque, belong to another religion.

Yep, I hope that the radical Islamists take over the world, that would really personally help me alot!!

May I just comment on this thinking that anyone who criticises anything that our government or military does is somehow opposed to "our free society" or is unpatriotic.
I am deeply patriotic about our country, my loyalty is to my country and not to Jonny W Howard or any leader. I dont see a contradiction between disagreement with leaders ON BEHALF OF MY COUNTRY because I care about it, and feeling patriotic about my country. That's actually what democracy is about - loyalty to your country rather than one party or leader.

Philo / Big Fish,

What a logic!

So it is OK to kill civilians because Saddam was killing them anyway?
Number of casualties in the western media is different than the local estimates when you read other news in other languages. The truth is always in between.

The US is the only super power in control of the Middle East since British and French colonialism moved out of the region.

Let me give you an example of history I lived (not 60 minutes on the ABC, BBC or XYZ): Until 1952 Egypt was a British colony with a monarshy. There was seven different parties and government elections. Nasser came to power with the support of the Americans and eliminated all sorts of democracy. They even supported the nationalisation of the Suez Canal in 1956.
You need to know or understand the facts as people who lived there see it not as you would like to interpret it.

It does not matter whether you are right or left wing of the politics 'chicken' as long as you investigate multiple sources.

Some very relevant quotes by world leaders - how silly do celebrities look now?

Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. ~Donald Rumsfeld

Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. ~George W. Bush

Our nation is somewhat sad, but we’re angry. There’s a certain level of blood lust, but we won’t let it drive our reaction. We’re steady, clear-eyed and patient, but pretty soon we’ll have to start displaying scalps. ~George W. Bush

Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich. ~Sir Peter Ustinov (the late celebrity)

I don't see a problem with those quotes planetgenet.

"Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. ~Donald Rumsfeld"

Stating the obvious. The carnage that is an inevitable result of military action in itself inspires horror. This can detract from the greater good that can result from the use of military force.

"Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we ~George W. Bush"

Unintentionally poorly phrased. Their enemies are always inventing new ways to harm them, they do not let this fact escape them.

"Our nation is somewhat sad, but we’re angry. There’s a certain level of blood lust, but we won’t let it drive our reaction. We’re steady, clear-eyed and patient, but pretty soon we’ll have to start displaying scalps. ~George W. Bush"

Post S11 Americans were angry and keen to avenge their attackers, as you'd expect. Despite this he was intent to deal with the crisis in a level headed manner. Eventually though the attackers would need to be brought to justice.

As for Ustinov comparing the intentional slaughtering of civilians with war which can be purely in defence of your territory, what was that clown smoking?

OLT is losing its credibility through the posting of journals such as this

Radical Islam is using Iraq to defeat the West, as civillians drive cars laden with explosives into the new Iraqi police and armed forces. Yes radical Islamic civillians are the enemy of democracy in Iraq. They do not operate as an identified army, they operate as civillians. They are the enemy of a free Iraq.

Oh boy here we go again. The lack of clarity in this world…

Fellow_Human. I will respond.

OK to kill civilians. Mmmmm. Please point to where that was said? And please point to where US military philosophy have deliberately aimed to kill civilians. In fact in Fallujah (spelling?) I believe that the US warned the civilians to get out despite some terrorists obviously slipping away in the people leaving. War is not pretty but sometimes there is no other way? Article I think is trying to say that some people should realize this.

Number of casualties. People take what can be easily obtained and the UN seemed reasonable source. How many again are by the terrorists? Can never get that number?

US - in control of the Middle East? Well they are controlling it very well as we can see, Syria, Palestine, Iran etc obviously bow to the US. And if you do think the “locals” do not control their own destiny that is, well, almost racist thinking. They are as capable as anyone and can make informed decisions. Unless you think they cannot. Why is that?

History lesson. Knew that. So, Even Ms C. Rice has admitted that mistake? Cannot change history only learn from it. And where was the interpreting anyway? Back to the present and the article. Some people just do not think logically enough about this. Listen to what people say not what you think they say.

"OLT is losing its credibility through the posting of journals such as this"

what credibility? How does an online forum that doesnt even require people to put their name to their comments have any credibility whatsoever. And anyway, what's particularly wrong or incredible about this particular journal?

I'm always surprised how hyper-sensitive many OLO posters have been about the tightening of anti-terror laws (which I support) - they strongly oppose the government line.

However concerning the coalition killing many thousands of Iraqi civilians they support the government line. The numbers of Iraqi's killing Iraqi's are even worse. Yes Saddam was far better than Mao (who the West began to back in the 1970's). However is the escalating civil war in Iraq worse than Saddam? - no studies are permitted.

As many intelligence insiders (and even celebrities) have said about Iraq "its was about oil not WMD or terror."

Now that many Muslims have been killed in Iraq, the West has nurtured the terror industry in Iraq, in Madrid and in London - perhaps in Bali. And next?

We'll hear more about 4 Aussies murdered by terrorists in Bali than 18,000 Pakistanis dead from the earthquake. Should the media airtime be based on nationality and nature of political murders alone or should we look at the foundations of these murders more fundamentally.

Every death is sad - and acutely felt - whereever it is.

Politicians justify death (by tough talk) in someone else's country.

Many celebrities like Peter Ustinov, were or are, deep. They're aware how politicians manipulate the media.

plantagenet,
You are part of the double speak industry. You either support the diversity of the West or the self defence line of the Muslim propaganda. With statements like: Quote, "intelligence insiders.. have said about Iraq "its was about oil not WMD or terror."..."the West has nurtured the terror industry in Iraq, in Madrid and in London - perhaps in Bali. And next?"

We are at war against terror, so reveal your allegiance!

The Muslim terrorist agression is hitting Australian families so get real, Quote, "We'll hear more about 4 Aussies murdered by terrorists in Bali than 18,000 Pakistanis dead from the earthquake." One is a natural disaster that we can do little about except offer personal and material support; the other is a deliberate criminal act against families who are our relatives.

Yes, Philo, I think you summed it up rather well with the comment

"No one would now be killed in Iraq if radical Sunni Muslims stopped their slaughter of the new democratic Iraqi Government"

I hope that all critics of the Iraq situation would take this to heart.

If there is obvious evidence to the contrary, please state it ?

But as I observe, the only impediment to a future for Iraq, is the above mentioned statement.

One thing is clear though, human nature being what it is, the previously 'privileged' Sunni's would more likely feel 'oppressed' if they had to live on the same level as every other Iraqi, without the benefit of selective prosperity which was bestowed on them by Sadaam for reasons of political support and at the expense of all other majority segments of the country such as the Shia, along with minority Christian and Kurd.

Can someone contradict this view ?

Philo:

- "We are at war against terror, so reveal your allegiance!"

I hate to be impolite, but honestly, grow up!

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!

You suggest that you have to either 100% blindly support the government line, or you are 100% in support of terrorism. The world was not made to be a linear, fixed system. It is possible to support NEITHER of these positions!

- The Big Fish:

I cant belive that some of us think that the policies and actions of GWB are worth defending. The man is quite obviously a complete idiot! There is no need to try and justify him, every person with at least half a brain and a little independence can see the man is stupid.

- "No one would now be killed in Iraq if radical Sunni Muslims stopped their slaughter of the new democratic Iraqi Government"

Um, actually, yes, there would still be the 100 odd thousand people who were killed during "shock and awe".
Even that 'ligitmate' opening round of the war was a useless slaughter.

Most of those soldiers in the Iraqi army were conscripts who were forced there by a totally brutal system against their will. Im sure many of them hated Saddam as much as the next guy. Then the US military comes and slaughters them in there tens of thousands for being a part of a military in which they had no choice.
Is that fair? - Its a brutal disgrace.

The situation before the war was terrible and needed to be changed.

But is the situation now any better?
Probably not. THe question is then, was it worth it to go and sacrifice thousands of US soldiers (among others) to get us to a position that is no better than when Saddam was in? Im sure many parents in the US would think not...

Funkster,

I hate to be impolite, please pull your head in. I have not defended the actions of anyone, please tell me where I have done that? Just stated some facts. Unlike you. Using that 100 Thousand. That number has been discredited a while ago now. So either you are ignorant or being dishonest.

And as to if Iraq is better now versus Saddam. Best people to tell us that are the Iraqis. I wonder if you have looked at the polls being done in Iraq lately?

So I will repeat carefully. Listen to what people say not what you think they say. It help in discussions on this forum.

Philo

My allegiance is to Australia. Hence I've gone out on a limb on OLO to support the drafting of anti terrorism laws that may well prevent Australians from being killed.

My point is that Australia is much more of a terrorist target BECAUSE Howard decided to include Australians in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This inclusion is part of the "premium" Australia pays on the ANZUS treaty but I think the "premium" we are paying is too high.

Australia's involvement in Afghanistan was justified from the beginning and still is - because, in this case, terrorists are the target.

Note that my grandfather fought at Gallipoli and WW11, Dad fought in Vietnam, I served some of my career in the army and the foreign policy apparatus. Having questioned several members of terrorist groups they are a combination, of evil, misplaced religious and political faith and have a desire to die for glory.

That said - if you invade their country they fight for their country even if it is fundamentally for their particular ethnic group.

Big Fish - to believe that Opinion Polls can be accurate, when sponsored by the occupiers, during an occupation, is somewhat naive. I'd be wary of pollsters with connections to the US.

Hi Weapon,
"OLT is losing its credibility through the posting of journals such as this"
"what credibility? How does an online forum that doesnt even require people to put their name to their comments have any credibility whatsoever. And anyway, what's particularly wrong or incredible about this particular journal?"
I'm aiming at the admission of journals (which are titled) that set a poor argument & appear to have been published primarily to generate a large response from we plebians. This one's particulary inconcise & poorly written. Less journals & more quality please..

I havent been as driven to respond to something in years! WHO IS THIS PERSON, and WHY ON EARTH IS HE BEING PUBLISHED? This is just crap, absolute crap. One or two small grains, and a ton and half of purest manure. This was more slanted than almost anything I've read in years. He rants on about celebs..who admitedly arent generally as cluey as they'd like to think.....but methinks he's jealous of the fact that they rate column centimetres....and this fellow doesnt. Can see why.

Personally, I think this article is a wonderous example of freedom of speech. Irrespective of how uninformed, silly, logically & factually ignorant one is, one can still have their say on important global matters.

1. Why *aren't* celebrities entitled to an opinion, and express it, such as you have yours?

2. Why does being a "fat man with a cap & camera" immediately disqualify Michael Moore from having a meaningful opinion, based on observable facts?

3. As for Kurdish freedoms, you are partially correct. They have been vilified and persecuted for decades. They now enjoy the same level of freedom as other Iraqis. The primary change is that the average Iraqi now is also being vilified and persecuted.

4. Gene Simmons comment appears to have accidently been pasted from another article, as it bears no relevance at all to the current topic.

5. Bush & Blair could have pressured the UN further, they could have came up with *actual* evidence, as opposed to manufactered evidence, or they could have minded their own business.

6. Poor logic ensues with fantastic pace with:
"...rights of Rwandans (around two million dead), former Yugoslavians (half a million) or even Kurds (still counting the gassed corpses), one thing remains clear: their beloved organisation fails to halt the deaths of millions."
6a - Alternately, where was the beloved US?
6b - If the UN is broken, fix it. Its cheaper than war.
6c By acting pre-emptively, the basic tenet of defense-only attacks have been blown out of the water, opening the way for further despotic acts under the name of 'Defense'.

7. The Professor IS right. Abandoning a stupid decision will actually make things worse. However, the Professor wouldn't be able to make the statement if no stupid decision to invade was made in the first place.
The stupid decision to invade has been made, now the US taxpayer must bear the cost of seeing it out lest risk all-out civil war.

=my2cworth

Of all the previous Posts, not one word about the black stuff, which one could guess by the tone of some of the contributors, they would agree that GW Bush and his crew deserve such a prize.

But what about this democracy the White-House neo-cons are always gabbing about? The bet is that it will be the same as the freedom offered to TE Lawrence's gallant Iraqi irregulars in 1917, to be thrown out in 1919 when the British discussions were much more about oil than democracy. To be sure a kind of democracy was set up, called in those days the India-style Dyarky Democracy entailing a Commisar or Comissioner and small garrison set up to watch over every ersatz Iraqi government department.

Not nice to tell the rest of that period's history in Iraq, but the fear is that it could happen again. Haven't most of you noticed that all the Yanks seem to be doing in the Middle East these days is aping the Brits, Tony Blair and our Johnny Howard just dancing to the same old colonial tune. You can betcha life.

I don't understand why people get upset when a celebrity, or any one, expresses opinions on these matters; Bens article was no more than a hissy fit - which, as is often the way when this issue it gives rise to more hissy fits.

A lot of people think the war was - is - stupid; I am one of them. Some of our reasons are based on logic and some are less cogent. Get used to it.

Most of the arguments in favour of the war are that post factum kind of justification; It is well known it was based on wrong assumptions and poor intelligence; It has been conducted in an amaturish manner.

The war has established what its proponents alleged was there - a ferment for anti western, pro radical Islamic sentiment - What a surpise.

If this article was to deliver a spray at celebrities who have a view at odds with Mr Terspstra it was a weak attempt. And if it tried in any way to justify the debacle it failed on that front as well.

International terrorism is a big deal becasue we have made it so. It will persist because we do not realy understand the motives and the military intelligence associated with the problem represents an oxymoron.

If those supporting the war and all the associated anti terror hoopla together with the hollow and inneffective legislation that accompanies it think it will make a difference - to quote the father in The Castle " Tell them they're dreamin'" - this exercise was not a humanitarian one. It was rooted in economics, revenge and confusion - still is.

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are some what infantile as well; The terrorists are a new breed, disparate, faction ridden and opportunistic. COnventional methods will always fail in the face of this assymetrical assault on a few iconic western sites and people.

This whole terrorist debate is receiving far too much attention - as yet I am unclear how to respond to that fact but I will give it some thought over the next few days.

Bish Fish: The 100 thousand (much higher now) you dispute is an established figure, the quarm is that it includes deaths 'indirectly' related to the invasion. But the fact remains, were it not for the invasion, those deaths would not have occured.

Another indisputable and obvious fact is that the USA is directly responsible for more civilian deaths on foreign soil than any other country ever. Yet not many Americans realise it. Considering this, I think it's not just reasonable, but absolutely necessary to try to increase awareness any way you can - if I was a celebrity, I would definitely say something.

This is getting to be a fairly tired subject. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, yah yah yah. I was saying the same stuff two years ago. I also said: 'You watch, there'll be no weapons, they'll get stuck in a quagmire, and the public will gradually turn against it.' The person I had debated with at the beginning of the war has now long since conceded I was right on every point I made. Not to blow my own horn or anything, but...

I was right this time, I'll be right next time. But everyone will have forgotten about this one by then.

Spendocrat,

As I am open to being proven incorrect (I am only in it for facts) If you can direct me to the information that gives this 100,000+ dead I would no mind seeing this to judge for myself.

Thanks for your help.

Eek! That was harder to find than I thought.

Now. Obviously I don't stake my reputation on this study - in fact to be honest, since I had a look around, I'm significantly less convinced than I was (The article I originally read glossed over the part which says: 'excess deaths from all causes', whatever that means).

I guess the point is it's nearly impossible to get an accurate gauge on what qualifies as an 'indirectly' related death - not to mention, the USA has a policy (which they make no secret of) of NOT keeping count of civilian deaths, leaving it up to independent sources, none of which can be assumed to be 100% accurate. To say the least.

http://theage.com.au/news/iraq/new-study-raises-iraq-death-toll/2005/07/12/1120934238541.html?oneclick=true

Ok, so maybe it's not as established a figure as I thought - I guess I'm guilty of not enough research. On the same token though, it certainly is not a discredited figure as you said - that much I stand by.

Here was my passage of rationalisation:

Those deaths occured. Whether they were an indirect cause of the occupation or not, there certainly has been a massive surge of violence and death since the occupation...so I can't deny I put 2 + 2 together and got 5. It doesn't change the core of my argument though, that the USA is still the biggest killer of civilians off their own soil by a very convincing margin.

Let this be a lesson to the rest of you posters - you are allowed to be wrong once in a while! And if you are big enough to admit it, we can all make progress.

Spendocrat

"Another indisputable and obvious fact is that the USA is directly responsible for more civilian deaths on foreign soil than any other country ever."

Ive never done any research into how many civilian deaths the US has been responsible for, however, i've read figures that puts the number of civilians killed as a result of the German invasion of Russia during WWII as high as 17million. Are you claiming that the US has been responsible for more civilian deaths than Germany was responsible for during WWI and WWII. If so, please point me in the direction of evidence.

What's your point? So the US is responsible for causing x amount of deaths, what does this lead you to conclude? What are the lessons to be learnt? No war, ever, there is no justification?

"This is getting to be a fairly tired subject. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, yah yah yah. I was saying the same stuff two years ago. I also said: 'You watch, there'll be no weapons, they'll get stuck in a quagmire, and the public will gradually turn against it.' The person I had debated with at the beginning of the war has now long since conceded I was right on every point I made. Not to blow my own horn or anything, but..."

Ha ha. Gloating anonymously on the internet, i hope it does something for you.

Yawn, I already admitted mistake, it’s a little petty (not to mention predictable) to be pointing it out. At least I don’t stubbornly cling to selective statistics no matter what, like most posters here. And I’m aware of the irony of the gloat in the previous post (as I, like most, have a tendency to get carried away, and that was particularly bad timing), but what I was gloating about wasn’t particularly closely related to the mistake I made. Anyway, laugh it up. I can take a little self deprecating humour.

And I don't think I need to mention it was only one statistic I messed up on.

The point of it, of course, was related to the article (remember the article? Ahhh, yeah!). I was using it as a reason as to why certain people may be compelled to speak out. Make sense?

Anyway not my best moment on the forum so I’m gonna bail before I dig a deeper hole. As you were, everyone…

Really does not matter what a lot of us say, or the celebrities, or any reporter, the final say about Iraq will be told by the Iraqis themselves in the future.

Weapon:".... Nobs like Bob Geldof and Bono telling us all about the wonders of debt relief and sending millions to Africa to relieve their collective suffering. Lets not worry about all the other endemic problems they face, just have a sing along, send some money, prop up some dictators, and feel good about yourself."

- Very harsh. If nothing else, the nobs like Bob Geldof have highlighted to the younger not-so-socially-aware what's going on in the rest of the world.

Where in hell are the positive stories, Ben, or aren't you writing about the Middle East since 1919-20 when good old Brittania did the dirty on TE Lawrence, culminating in the Iraqis revolting and over 10, 000 knocked off by the RAF under orders from Winston Churchill?

From that time on its been the same with the Yanks joining in, first using Saddam as a convenient puppet to knock out naughty treacherous Iran, not caring a hoot about Saddam's use of poison gas, etc. etc - Henry Kissinger hoping like Christ, both Iran and Iraq would totally knock out each other.

There is much more, Ben, in fact a hellava lot more. Sometimes one could wish we could trust the Americans, Ben, but we can't trust them anymore than we can trust these damned terrorists, who have come out of the social woodwork, similar to the way our Germanic cousins came out of the social woodwork with Hitler, Ben. None of us are much better when it comes to greed, Ben, in this case with the Yanks, mostly contraband and hegemon.

This Post is being pushed out by an oldie with not much more time, left Ben. One could only pray you do have the remedy to fix up this rotten world with a tiny little Israel allowed to have a nuclear free go, Ben, while Iran knows she has to have such capacity to even things up, Ben.

If you've got that one worked out, matey, just give us a ping back. Reckon this one could handle you any time. Written three long historical novels in my time, too.

George C, WA, Bushbred

Lisamaree,

I dont know what you mean by the not-so-socially-aware. Is that a polite way of referring to people who dont know jack or care about the world they live in. The fact that Geldof saw the need to have Live-aid 2 should give you a fair indication that his first attempt failed miserably at achieving any change whatsoever either in Africa or at influencing the way anyone, let alone the not-so-socially-aware, think. If Geldof wants to get involved in changing the way the world works he can start by reading some books on economics and history in an attempt to try and understand why Africa is in the state it's in and then perhaps he could go about encouraging the not-so-socially-aware to do likewise. Perhaps Bono could set up a school for the not-so-socially-aware with the money he so succesfully avoids having to pay tax on (no judgement here, good luck to him, i'd do all i could to avoid paying tax at 50c in the dollar as well ).

Handing out money, little or large, to individuals or nations doesnt build self sufficieny. Australia knows that all to well.

Good post, weapon.
I'd like to know why, when it comes to Iraq and its human rights abuses, that many people seem to take an isolationist stance. I agree that there were no WMD but surely the vicious regime there justifies intervention?

As for the Un, is it not rife with sectional interests of it own? Had it not been dealing with Iraq for about 10 years through various resolutions with no change in outcomes?

Whether the war was justifed or not, it's too late to bail. We can't leave now and allow civil war to ensue.

Gee Weapon, and I'm sure Bob thinks quite highly of you.

No, I do not mean people who "don't care jack", to use your vernacular. I meant people who would remain otherwise unaware if not for a celebrity speaking out. Unlike some, I don't think keeping abreast of political issues warrants a superiority complex. Some people consider art, meditation and possibly other introspective pursuits to define themselves as worthwhile people. They may not read the paper and be aware of what's going on in the rest of the world until a celebrity, with which they feel some affinity, brings it to the fore.

Whether his (or any other celebrity's) appeal was/has been mis-placed or mis-informed or whatever, my point is that it has contributed towards awareness of an issue.

Alternatively, we could all condemn him for getting it wrong and sneer at any efforts that has been made towards increasing awareness. If that's makes you feel better, go hard!

Noos, there is already civil war in Iraq, just turn on your TV. As long as the invaders stay there and continue to bomb, it will get worse not better.

Why has not the US invaded Saudi Arabia, where all the 9/11 perpetrators came from, as well as those that carried out the attacks on the US warships and other terrorist actions. Simple, politics and economics. Saudi, is one of the most repressive religious regimes in the world, they kill on the spot those that dissent, and chop of hands for stealing. Foreigners have to live within locked heavily guarded compounds to survive.

As Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and is thousands of klms from the US, with no missiles or WMD's, what threat were they. Those that support this action, are either religious, and or programmed puppets of the current duopoly dictatorship here in Aus.

The US hasn't changed since Vietnam, their method is to flatten everything to flush out their opponents. It didn't work then, and isn't working now. it is the same in Afghanistan, they just bomb in the hope that they get someone and they always do. Sadly 80% of the time, they flatten the civilian population, 19% of the time, they hit their own or allied troops. 1% of the time, they actually get an enemy combatant

alchemist, you beat me to it.

Noos:

"Whether the war was justifed or not, it's too late to bail. We can't leave now and allow civil war to ensue.'

As oppossed to the peaceful Utopia that flourishes there now?

Maybe the pro war people are right, maybe if we leave Iraq will become a base for radical terrorism, frankly I think that the war has created a 'damned if we do, damned if we dont situation'. I might even support staying there were it not for Bush's statements on the issue.
We should never give that maniac any more credibility or support, he'll be the death of all of us unless some radical shift happens.

On that basis I say we should get out quick, at least save some of our lives that would be sacrificed for naught anyway.

We never learn. We should listen to our WW1 diggers. They have always told us that war is a complete and utter waste - and men are sacrificed for the powers that be, not for 'glory' or their country.
(Maybe, ww2 was an exception,but there are plenty of examples of wasteful and useless slaughter there too).

Every new generation seems to fail to learn the lessons of the past though.

Violence just breeds more violence. Hate just breeds more hate. Its plain as day to see.

I have no doubt that the removal of Hussein from power has resulted in greater freedoms regarding expression of all kinds & has allowed for a reduction of “state racism” in Iraq & surrounds. In its present fractured political climate, no one domestic organisation dominates. The dominant role is held by the US & ’UN’ but this is agreed as transitory – even the US knows it cannot occupy Iraq forever.
The question is what plans do the US have for their eventual withdrawl? What do they wish to establish & with whom? The US obviously intend to promote a sympathetic institution to power (for clean, cheap access to oil reserves), but appear to be unable to find their way around the quite tribal & dominantly Moslem nature of Iraq.
My informed guess is that the US will not pull out of the Middle East completely until International oil reserves have become scarce enough to force large scale investment in alternative energy, including the automotive fuel cell. What oil that remains in the middle east will then become irrelevant, & so will the presence of vested interests.
Do not ignore the historically interventionist nature of the US. The United States of America has intervened (covertly or with lies) on average, with the politics of one foreign nation per year for the last fifty years – it has no ‘morals’ regarding the sovereignty of nations other than itself.
The invasion of Iraq was overt, with lies. No power without responsibility, I say

All those that want to pull out of Iraq, have not counted the cost of lives that will occurr to ordinary Iraqi people who want freedom from the repressive religion of Sunni Muslims assisted by Saudi Arabia etc. The war is a religious war against democratic freedoms as found in decadent Western democracies [as they see the West]. You will have to accept a repressive religious totalitarian State in Iraq if the USA pull out. Well perhaps you prefer this! The Muslim agenda is a Muslim State under shari'ah law stretching from Spain to South East Asia includes Australia in this century. Are you flying the white flag of surrender?

Philo, get a grip on yourself. Saudi Arabia is the closet muslim ally of the US in the middle east. All their weaponry is provided by the US, they get preferred treatment in all things they want. They are ruled by one family who are despots in their treatment of others. Their citizens are the majority of terrorist bombers. Why is that Philo, considering you support the US destruction of the people of Iraq and the demolition of other countries economies with their biased, bullying and standover self centered trade agreements.

Sure the muslims have an agenda to islamise the world, but so do you christians. The US is desperately trying to control the world with whatever methods they can, and they class it as democracy, globalisation and free will.

When Saddam was in power, sure he killed and fought wars. But in the last few years the country was stable, had rid itself of it WMD and was a secular state, even though it was controlled by a minor islamic faction. Brutal sure, but then whats the difference between how the US treats its own blacks and poor, nothing. The US just uses other methods. What about the saturation bombing carried out by the US on cities through out Europe during WW2, against the wishes of other allies. They killed more than 160000 people in one raid on Dresden. My uncle was a Lancaster pilot and told me of the indiscriminate bombing practises of the Yanks. How, if they couldn't reach their target, they would find a town and drop their bombs on that, just for the fun of it. Whilst the allied pilots either used secondary targets or dropped their unused loads over the channel and north sea

Philo your religious paranoia and confusion are getting the better of you. Are you another Pentecost, I can understand if you are, flying with the fairies.

As to flying the white flag, just look through history to see what class of people fly the white flag the most and those that advocate it.

Alchemist,
You are a one eyed extremist, you can only see what you want to see. I have never sanctioned indiscriminate bombing, or violence against civillians, which you want to read into my posts.

Christians are not targeting stable open nations with terrorist activities. You portray the secular USA armed forces dressed in their military gear as terrorists. They are identifiable and do not deliberately target civillians with the sanction of their commanders.

Philio (excuse incorrect spelling),

Im sure many would say that prisoners in Abu Grave were terrorised.

Many would also say that the village in the Vietnam War where US soldiers went in and deliberately killed all the civilians were terrorised too. The USA aint entirely perfect...

I like to think of the good ol' US of A as a cancer on the backside of humanity.
Anybody else out there find the 'WorkChoices' ad at the top of this page insulting?

Swilkie,
When Australia is overun by extremists or suffers a natural catastrophe I'll remind the USA you do not want their cancerous AID.

Can I ask who is going to help you? I suppose Iran?

funkster,
So you ignore the torture and beheadings of USA aid workers and do not condemn people who do such acts and still not brought to justice, above the stupid behaviour of a few prison guards, since brought to justice.

One can only see your lack of allegiance to democracy while ignoring acts of terror against innocent civillians. You said, "Im sure many would say that prisoners in Abu Grave were terrorised."

The prisoners of Abu Grave are not innocent civillians they were weapon carrying combatants. Your hatred of the Greatest Charitable Nation on this Planet you despise. Indicates where your view of democracy lies. You are the enemy! You prefer a totalitarian society where only those that believe and behave like yourself have absolute control. USA is not as any group would like it because it is a democracy society laden with decadent morality; but it represents Western diversity.

Philo, Remember John Walker Lindh, Americans first heard of him in 2001 as the treacherous California-reared face of the Taliban who'd had a hand in the murder of a CIA man in northern Afghanistan. Months later, when the case went to court, the only charge was that he had carried a gun for the Taliban.

Mohammed Atta, he was the 9/11 ringleader who secretly met with Iraqi agents in Prague, Atta was the man who piloted a plane into the World Trade Centre in New York City. But he was never in Prague cutting deals with Saddam. And all that anthrax, the only leads that US investigators have come up with are home grown, not the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda.

Recently, Bush vowed to 'prevent Al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban'. But it's too late, the CIA and the UN have assessed Iraq after the US-led invasion, to be even more effective as an Islamic terrorist training centre than Afghanistan ever was. They bus them in from Afghanistan now for training and Osama Bin laden is still at large!

After his absurd 'mission accomplished' claim in May 2003, George Bush handed America's highest civil honour, the Presidential medal of Freedom, to some of the key wrong-doers on his side.

CIA director George Tenet who assured the White House that the WMD case for war against Iraq was 'a slam dunk'

Paul Bremer, his Baghdad proconsul, who made the most short-sighted decisions of the occupation, disbanding the Iraqi military and marginalising all the Baathists.

Tommy Franks the general whose failed military planning for the occupation, spawned an insurgency that has killed very close to 2000 young Americans and ten or more times that many Iraqis.

The US has not met its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to move towards nuclear disarmament, but is instead developing the next generation of nuclear weapons. How many pages would you like of the same, but worse.

Philo, Ok, I'll bite- What makes you think the US would supply significant aid in the event of a catastrophe in Australia (unless, of course, it did benefit the US)?

Wow, that caused quite a storm, and rightly so.

- The article was trivial rubbish as many people have already pointed out. I just found this site today and was initially pleased to have done so, it's hard to find commentary online that isn't US focused. The content better pick up though or I'm off.

- I'm not offended by the invasion of Iraq. I'm offended by being blatantly and repeatedly lied to about the reasons for it. If you're going to kill thousands of people at least be up front and tell people why.

- The fact that all three leaders; Tony Blair, John Howard and George Bush, were re-elected absolutely horrifies me. It implies that the populations of their nations are quite happy to have their leaders ignore international law, not to mention basic human rights, so long as their wallets are lined appropriately. This is beyond appalling; I simply cannot find the words, and it bodes ill for the future of the human race.

There were lots of other stupid things in the article and the comments I hate to let pass, but I've said my piece - going to check out the rest of the site now.

Ben, you go man! Anyone that is not willing to take up arms to assure peace, does not deserve to live in peace. It is certain that there are those that will and do take advantage of those that do not believe in fighting to insure freedom. Islam is one of those that teaches, lie, cheat, steal, deceive, do whatever it takes to win. Read the Quran and the commentaries of the teachers of Islam if you don't believe me.
However, I tend to think that black gold is the real and underlying reason that the U.S. is in Iraq. It seems that China and a few others are out to grab as much of that rapidly dwindling resource as they can before it runs out in about a hundred years or less according to those who keep track of it. Whoever gets in position to control the worlds' remaining oil reserves will rule the planet and would naturally gain control of new resources that are currently being explored and developed such as hydrogen. Personally, I think China is getting prepared to risk, or even start, a nuclear confrontation with the United States in a bid for the control of Middle Eastern oil reserves where about ninty percent of the remaining accessible oil reserves are located. Taiwan is just an excuse to get it started. Ten, nine, eight,.........ignition!

My name is Brian and I am from Louisiana. I will not waste my time commenting on this ridiculus article (just kidding), so why don't you email me at my new address: brian6173@hushmail.com since I lost your email address and have no way of finding it.