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.