There are several segments of the population worse off under US occupation than under Saddam Hussein. Women under Hussein could be professors, in the government or fill any other roles they could qualify for. Under US occupation Muslim reactionary clerics have had a resurge of power and can encourage harassment of women who do 'men's jobs' and shut down girls' schools. Christians and even some Jews lived in Iraq under Hussein. Many non-Muslims have left. 50 fundamentalist Christian accompanied the US troops into Iraq according to TIME magazine. This has fueled resentment against indigenous non-Muslims. The US has a graduated income tax. However, reactionary US theorists have managed to get a 15% flat tax on the Iraqi people. Nobody, no matter how poor, is exempt from it.

Hussein, like Tito, was a tyrant. However, Hussein, like Tito, kept a lid on ethnic and religious conflicts in his country. They are now boiling over in Iraq the way they did in the former Yugoslavia. It is nonsense to talk of democracy where political parties form on ethnic and religious lines. Voters can shift from Labor to Lib to Green to whatever. That is the way governments are replaced by new governments.

That process is not possible where one's connection with a political party is due to one;s identity as a Shiite, Kurd or other entity. The party divisions are fixed.

Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein is dead.

Except for Paull, well said mates, even though Paull' will again call me a crazy left-winger.

Might say, in fact, that most historians are taught to try to be straight down the centre, like I was told by my tutors when I wrote my history of Westralia called "A Land Need".

Yet, even so I was shocked to find how many non-students told me I was too kind to our Aborigines.

Certainly I was very kind to Yagan and certainly to Yagan's father, Midgericoo, who was shot by the military as they declared in the Perth Gazette - 'outside the town barracks, at twenty paces because of his being a nuisance and his thieving of white possessions'.

Just wonder if our whitey superior attitudes will ever change?

Regards, BB, Buntine, WA.

Ozandy,

After being banned for a week for attempting to point out your BLATANT ignorance and inability to stick to the point, i’ll take this one a little more slowly.

No matter what your contention about Saddam, the fact is that George W Bush was NOT responsible for him. Even if I conceded that the US were responsible for Saddam, it doesn’t detract from Bush’s success in Iraq. ( And if you really want to learn how Saddam came to power we can discuss it, but it is clearly beyond the scope of this discussion paper, the title of which is “The weight of the Bush legacy on his shoulders”)

Neither is BUSH responsible for the Taliban NOR Bin Laden. ( Nor is the US, by the way, if you knew anything about the history of the Afghan conflict you would know that as well. ) We can discuss that too if you want, but again, ITS OFF TOPIC.

Sancho,

I’m all for intervention in North Korea. The problem there is that they have nukes and they WILL nuke Japan and South Korea if they are ever attacked. There is no real way of overthrowing the Stalinist, Jong Il, without massive and immediate loss of life.

Saudi Arabia, whilst home of the 9/11 suicide bombers, isn’t actually a threat to the west, and its people are generally happy enough. There is no comparison with Iraq.

I am disgusted by the Junta in Burma and firmly believe that they need to be overthrown. For the same reasons I supported the intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia, although they were hamstrung by ridiculous constraints of Chapter 6, UN Charter. But Burma is NOT worse than Saddams Iraq, not even close. Nor is Saudi, Nor Iran.

Almost none can claim to have attacked their own citizens using chemical weapons, killing thousands. Have a read up on Uday and Qusay Hussein, once Iraqs future dictators.

CONT,

You say >> “The neo-con vision that PaulL subscribes to requires us to view pre-invasion Iraq as a sort of Middle Eastern Mordor, where the screams of the innocent cut through the dense haze of burning flesh, and everyone lived each day in mortal terror. In reality, Iraq used to function fine”

You clearly know very little about Saddams Iraq. In fact your naivety is rather astounding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq#Documented_human_rights_violations_1979-2003

You say >> “It's part and parcel of conservative political correctness: never acknowledge the past and never question Right-wing authority figures.

Frankly this is just plain silly. You provide no evidence for it at all. I’m fully aware of Bush’s shortcomings as president. On the Contrary, it is you who cannot see ANY good to come from the Bush administration.

finally you say >> “. It will take a proper frame-up and a good deal of propaganda from a far Right politician before Paul becomes an instant expert on another country.

This is just unadulterated nonsense. Just because you can regurgitate Alternet and Green Left Weekly doesn’t make you an expert on anything. Your knowledge of the history of Iraq is obviously seriously lacking. Anyone who suggests that a country is OK because “The buses ran, people lived their lives, went to school and got medical treatment “ is either joking or has had a brain bypass. You are totally missing the point. You’ve just described half the totalitarian states in history. Wake UP.

Or is totalitarianism somehow acceptable if its only foreigners who are doing it?