The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Winning the war in Iraq

Winning the war in Iraq

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All
For some time now the only news out of Iraq has been good. The Mahdi Army has effectively disbanded as a military force, oil production has returned to pre-war levels, attacks on the coalition forces are back to their lows. In today's Oz Christopher Hitchens prosecutes the case some more http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24171171-7583,00.html.

The article reveals that Iraq should have a surpluse of $79 billion by the end of this year as a result of sales of oil (so much for Naomi Klein and the "no blood for oil" crowd who asserted that the war was all about the US taking the oil from the Iraqis).

I find this mildly challenging. While I supported our involvement in the coalition as the only sensible strategic thing to do, it was based on the belief that you were better off being inside the tent than outside. I was skeptical as to whether invading was a sensible thing to do and thought our chances of constructing a functioning country out of the mess no better than 50/50.

I still think that the cost benefit ratio is probably in favour of out-waiting the Saddam regime and letting it implode.

However, if the current state of affairs is challenging for me it has to be very challenging to those who actively argued against the war. Not only have the more extreme claims against the US proven to be mirages, but "dumb" George Bush appears to have pulled off something which has alluded colonialists in Mesopotamia for centuries.

I'd be interested to see how they justify themselves and their complaints, particularly as those complaints can now arguably be said to have had the effect of weakening the resolve of the west and making what now seems likely to be a satisfactory resolution of the conflict less likely. I'm looking for articles to publish as well.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 12:43:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes the lies about Iraq and the lives of the Iraqis obvviously mean nothing to you. Nice one, Graham. I hope you remember that next time you cry about a nation you disagree with killing thousands of people and spreading lies about invasion. I think other countries can take away from all this that the West is completely empty on it's professed morality and any moral concerns are irrelevent and that all such appeals can be ignored in the future and future conflicts.
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 1:09:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
$79 Billion HUH?

With an estimate of 95,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the US invasion, that works out to be $831,578.95 per death. Enough to compensate the victims' families?

Bargain.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 2:46:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's actually closer to one million Fractelle, with a further one million or more wounded or sick. Then there are the millions of displaced Iraqis whose homes lie in ruins and whose lives are shattered as their family members are now dead. It's a tragedy. None of these people can speak out against writers like Hitchens and tell their story of death, wherein once they would be living today without an invasion. Hitchens is taking advantage of their silence as they lie dead in the mass graves of Iraq.
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 4:09:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY

Asking people with such hate in their hearts to admit they are wrong just does not work. Before the war in Iraq Mr Rudd himself was talking about weapons of mass destruction (a fact often conveniently ignored). I would hate to see where we would be if we were still waiting for the UN to make a decision.

The Bush, Howard and to a less extent Blair haters ignore Mr Howard's speech just before the invasion. He said

'It is too easy to limit, it’s too easy for some people to limit the humanitarian considerations to the consequences of military conflict. In truth there’s nothing easy or reassuring or comfortable about the problem of Iraq. Surely it is undeniable that if all the humanitarian considerations are put into the balance there is a very powerful case to the effect that the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime would produce a better life and less suffering for the people of Iraq than its continuation.'

Howard's knockers have egg all over their face but don't expect an apology to soon. The left are not known for their honesty or humility.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 5:13:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's an interesting point there Graham - I must admit, I've pondered the issue more than once. I was among those who was exceedingly skeptical about the outcome in Iraq and I still don't quite believe success is indeed on the way, but you can chalk that up to a certain level of pessimism I have in relation to most matters political.

Regardless of whether a successful outcome is on the way, I do find it interesting to pose the question to those in the anti-war camp (and I count myself part of that) how they would react if a stable, democratic Iraq was achieved.
I guess you also need to consider how many people died under Saddam's regime, and what the toll of the war was. Determining how many people died in the invasion and it's aftermath is a difficult task and goes right to the heart of whether it was a worthwhile endeavor.
It's also difficult to determine how many Saddam was really responsible for killing.

I hate to simplify political views into a single camp (take note here runner, you're comment re the 'left' falls into the category of pointless simplistic jibes) though I'd say that many of those on the extreme right who support the invasion seek to select high figures for Saddam's brutality and low figures for the invasion, while those on the extreme Left tend to do the opposite.

Cont'd.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 7:47:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont'd.

I still don't think it was worth it - not only for the loss of life, but for the flow on effects this invasion has had on the international economy, as well as the flow on damage that has been done to American credibility. Saddam was many things, but a close friend to Al-Qaeda he was not - if indeed the 'War on Terror' is as serious a threat as we've been told, it seems to me that there were other priorities in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that could have benefited from the incredible resources that were poured into Iraq.

That being said, if Iraq does manage to become a stable democracy I may have to reconsider, however I really can't see it happening. Aside from Jordan perhaps, which is scarcely a power to be reckoned with, what are the stable governments in that region?
Pakistan, with its lawless northern borders, acting as havens for Al-Qaeda? Saudi Arabia, which outwardly supports the west but finances violent acts under the table and flouts human rights?
What, really, are we expecting from Iraq, and can it really be done?

Perhaps I'd be less skeptical if I could see a genuine example of what we have in mind for Iraq...
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 7:48:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether Iraq becomes a democratic country or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Inevitably, conditions will improve in a war zone... DUH. None of the million Iraqis are going to come out of their mass graves in Iraq. Same with Afghanistan. I can't really believe Western countries and some people in them are seriously measuring themselves against Saddam Hussein's regime to claim they are better (the facts say otherwise btw). Really that is very repulsive to any honest person.

Don't forget TLTR, that playing the moderate and centrist is an often an apologists way out. The only question is what are the facts and what is the truth of the situation. It's not hard, just do some research before giving your opinion. http://www.google.com/search?q=1+million+dead+in+iraq
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 8:17:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi, what was this all about?

Right, Iraq was said to have weapons of mass destruction. 100% guaranteed and proven by our best mate. And besides a Saddam, who for his last couple of years wasn’t in line with US interests. Very unfortunate, and on top of that a Muslim country as well. Hmm.

To my knowledge, after WW2 until this day Germany has paid over 200 Billion Euros to various nations not only for reparations, but aware of its undoubted guilt trying to restore trust and healing its consciousness over time.

I wonder, how much we (and our Allies) have to pay to the Iraqi people one day, and for how long?

Of course, that can only happen if we admit to have got it wrong. That would mean that John Howard would have to face a court, to justify his actions, why he made Australia a nation of invaders, co responsible for the death of tenth of thousands of people, if not in excess of 100.000 murdered with our help. And that without checking on our allies claim, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

But who would take him on in Australia? A judge, a lawyer, or someone with enough guts? Na, the truth or justice is not really what we are after in this context. We wouldn’t want him to stand trial, wouldn’t we? He is still our mate and we all cover for one each other. At the end we all did like him, and what was it all about? Ah, Iraq, where or when was that again?

But maybe one day, as justice is not our vocabulary, the World Court in The Hague might call for John H. extradition and what would we do then? Yes Kevin Rudd, ever thought about this? It would be very embarrassing that we are denying the truth and justice over so many years now and still no signs on the horizons to sort our ill fated alliance with our best friend out.

Have another beer mate…

Cheers m2catte
Posted by m2catter, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 9:36:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY
1. USA ignored the UN, the International law, used lies repeatedly, and opened the door for similar invadion in other parts of the World. THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
2. Hundrends of thousands Iraqis killed or suffered hard. Why USA brought so much pain in so many Iraqis ?
3. The total cost from Iraq war will be about 3 trillion dolars for American taxpayers, why american people have to pay all these money for Iraq and not for a better Health System for them?
4. They devided the country in three parts, shiites, Suni, Kurds. With the new system it will be very easy for their neighbors to involve in the internal affairs of Iraq and create huge problem to it.
5. In the new constitution the Sharia law play a major role, they converted a secular state to a theocratic one with bad consiquenses on women rights.
6. Iran was the ONLY country in the region, which benefited from the invandion and the real boss from Iraq, as the majority from Iraqis are Shiites and their leaders have closed ties with Iran, most of them was in Iran. The democracy from Iraq could not be better from the system in Iran. If Iran become a nuclear power, with huge risks for the region and our planet, this can happen ONLY because Americans have no way to press them without huge problems in their personel in Iraq.
7. Of cause the war in Iraq and USA's lies they have lost their credibility and their friends woldwide.
8. In Iraq war it have wasted huge resorces which could be used with more creative and usefull way, especially for American people. Do not forget what happened to people of New Orlean.
9. As the Iraq depends on Iran and Iran is in huge conflict with USA for its nuclear program, ANY TIME IN IRAQ CAN START A CIVIL WAR, OR A WAR AGAINST AMERICANS. FROM NOW AND ON THE IRAQ WILL BE A HUGE FROZEN PROBLEM and a permanent sourse of distabilation in the region.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 10:08:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Don't forget TLTR, that playing the moderate and centrist is an often an apologists way out."

I reject that utterly Steel, sure, sometimes it can be, but more often than not, that's the catchcry of those on the fringe.
I wasn't saying that anyone in particular here had exaggerated the information, I was saying it's difficult to determine what's accurate. As for the condescending 'research' remark, I don't know of the Lancet's assessment is correct, ultimately, we can'd be certain and we should all be aware that what we believe is likely to be coloured by our own preconceptions.

There are various definitions of centrism - some view it as an attempt to mimic the 'he said, she said' style of analysis and expression that defines much of modern journalism, instead of selecting an accurate outcome.

On the other hand, I see the situation differently. I don't embrace any of that postmodernist crap that there is no ultimate truth, because I think there is - I know that in any given controversial situation, there is truth hidden somewhere.

I also know, that it won't be at the very edge of either view. Regardless of what the truth is, there are those with such passionate views on both sides, who will latch on to the information that supports their case, regardless of its accuracy.

FTR, as I stated above, I've been firmly opposed to the war and still am, but I'd be willing to reassess that depending on the outcome, which I still believe is very questionable.

A question remains however, as to whether you'd condone the war if there had been fewer fatalities and Saddam had been successfully removed. At what point would you say it's an 'acceptable' number of fatalities? Can you answer that, or wouldn't you try?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 11:39:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why wasn't Saddam removed after Kuwait? This war wasn't about removing a tyrant or bringing democracy to Iraq. If this was sole 'altruistic' motivation wouldn't allied forces be in North Korea and Zimbabwe?

The premise of invading Iraq was based on a falsehood.

Given the absence of any other possible motivation we are left with oil. Millions of Iraqi lives is a huge cost for greed and incompetent diplomacy.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/oil-not-reason-for-iraq-war-insists-howard/2007/07/05/1183351373135.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 14 August 2008 10:42:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican

I have been thinking exactly the same thing.

Graham's post is nothing more than an elaborate piece of sophistry in Neo-con speak for:

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 14 August 2008 10:54:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, there was a good reason that Saddam wasn't removed after Kuwait - different administration with different ideas. They believed, as I believed, that removing him would create more problems than leaving him there.

Then came Kosovo and another "illegal" operation to remove a government actually appeared to work. That opened the possibility of moving on Iraq, and 9/11 provided the spark.

The reason no-one has moved on those other regimes, but moved on Iraq, is because it was possible to move on Iraq, and not possible to move on the others. Saddam had no friends left. Of course resource security would have been another part of the equation, but to say it was the only part is wrong. Hussein was happy to sell oil to anyone.

What I find interesting about these posts is that many of you aren't prepared to deal with the world as it is - you want to go back to the world as you imagined it before the war. Well, that isn't going to happen, so you have to deal with reality, which is what I am trying to do. Neocon? I don't think so. Realistic? Absolutely.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 14 August 2008 11:03:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,
I think Saddam shaould have been removed after Kuwiat, but that is history. Why people keep referring to the 'war' in Iraq is beyond me. The war ended when Saddam's statue came down, remember the euphoria of the Iraqi people. Since then the coalition forces have been used to stop the stupid Iraqis from killing each other over religous differences. Each faction trying to be top of the pecking order. They have been too stupid to take the opportunity that was available to them.

I supported the removal of Saddam's regime but I wonder if it was worth it for the cost of allied lives. The Iraqis don't appear to appreciate their freedom from oppression.

I would support UN entry to remove Magarbe but the UN is too weak to do anything worthwhile. Meanwhile thousands die.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 14 August 2008 11:12:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree Graham.

The internal political climate and potential difficulties in Iraq was the same post-Kuwait as it was when the US invaded Iraq.

In such a politically fragmented and divided nation like Iraq deposing Saddam was never going to be easy either post-Kuwait or later.

Some argue that the only road to peace in Iraq without Saddam was to divide Iraq into three areas - Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish. So the question of why did the US make the decision to invade Iraq when it did still stands.

The fact is the premise of invasion was flawed even when there was mounting evidence that Saddam had ceased research and development into WMDs in 1991 (according to the CIA report).

This does not mean that Saddam had no intentions of resuming WMD manufacture once sanctions were lifted but one does not start a war based on what someone might do.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 14 August 2008 11:35:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham

Your sarcasm detracts from what little cred you have on this topic:

"... you want to go back to the world as you imagined it before the warWell, that isn't going to happen, so you have to deal with reality, which is what I am trying to do. Neocon? I don't think so. Realistic? Absolutely."

You are making assumptions about what I believe - because I disagree with the methods used, you assume that I prefer that the situation in Iraq was acceptable. It never was. Nor are the situations Pelican mentioned, anymore than the 'democracy' in Zimbabwe is acceptable. Please enlighten your OLO readers on how money could be made by invading these blighted nations.

Your head is still in the sand regarding the thousands of innocent lives lost in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Go tell an Iraqi mother who's lost her husband and children, go tell the people who have had limbs blown off.

Tell them that $79 billion is worth it all.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 14 August 2008 11:45:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, I don't the the $79 billion is worth it, when you phrase it in those terms.

But living in a stable country, after decades of oppression and genocide? Well, maybe that is worth it, and that's what a stable revenue base for the foreseeable future can buy.
- Maybe it's worth it - Maybe.
I'm undecided, and I still don't think a stable Iraq actually is on the horizon.

But I do believe we all need to consider at what point it actually 'would' become worth it. Hypothetically speaking, if out of the bloodshed in Iraq came a place where people could live their lives peacefully and pursue happiness, couldn't a case be made that it has been a worthwhile result?

Consider what living another decade or two under Saddam would be like.

I agree that many of the motivations for invading Iraq weren't mentioned and yes, oil played a very large part. That being said, while I still would never condone launching a war for oil, we do need to accept that our current economic reality is that the world market is based around oil, and leaving much of that power in the hands of Saddam effectively meant that Saddam had leverage over America. Whilst I don't generally trust American intervention, even attacking for oil has its practical reasons, and I wouldn't have liked to have seen Saddam's influence increase either.

So while I am opposed, I think Graham's right in saying we need to consider the world as it is - I don't actually think a stable Iraq is achievable, but if I am wrong, then I would honestly need to sit down and think about the situation, and the results for the people no longer living under a dictatorship as well as how many more may have faced ethnic cleansing were he still in power.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 14 August 2008 12:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel-Fractelle-Pelican,

So, It was a terrible thing to go to Iraq and wage war.

But what would you have us do? Would you return Saddam to his throne if he was still alive?
http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2293569,00.html

Or turn it over to Uday or Qusay if they were?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegoldenberg

The Americans independence cost them as did their civil war, but what they achieved was important. Many other countries independence has come at similar cost. It is almost always the way that dictators must be forced from power.

Fractelle >> " Your head is still in the sand regarding the ... lives lost in pursuit of the almighty dollar."

I really don't understand how you can still cling to this idea that the war was for profit. The Americans haven't made a profit at all. In fact the conflict has had a role in pushing America into recession. You are the one with your head in the sand on this point.

The left does a lot of hand wringing to show how much it cares about the people living under brutal dictators, but when it comes to alleviating that suffering the left is ideologically bankrupt. All they have is crocodile tears. If it hadn’t been for the coalition Saddam would have died an old man in his bed and he would have passed Iraq on to his sons. Iraq would have remained a brutal dictatorship.

Pelican,

The difference between 2003 and 1991 was that George Bush snr built a coalition that included a number of Arab countries. Those countries would NEVER have OK’d the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam. The coalition would have split.

Your attempt to reduce the conflict to a single cause, OIL, is simplistic, inane, and intellectually dishonest. And the suggestion that if regime change was a motivating factor then the US would also invade North Korea is stunningly naïve. North Korea has nukes, remember.

There were undoubtedly a number of motivating factors which by themselves were insufficent, but when looked at together helped make the case for the Bush administration. To believe otherwise is simply unrealistic.
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 14 August 2008 12:45:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY>"What I find interesting about these posts is that many of you aren't prepared to deal with the world as it is - you want to go back to the world as you imagined it before the war. Well, that isn't going to happen, so you have to deal with reality, which is what I am trying to do. Neocon? I don't think so. Realistic? Absolutely."

What is this world? How about you describe it rather than make vague allusions? I'm guessing you mean that I am partly correct in my initial post, about the hollowness of western rhetoric? Terrorism has always existed. It's nothing new. So it can't be that. Are you saying that our governments have been lying to all of us about things like the Geneva Conventions and Habeus Corpus? That the West truly does not believe in them and that countries from now on can simply ignore the Western protestations? If I am "imagining" that post-German efforts to establish international law were for a reason (the "imagining" of which is a preposterous notion, but necessary for your "imagining" accusation to be correct), then why is everyone going into tailspins and crying about terrorism and adopting the moral highground? You have just admitted that you hold all these efforts to be meaningless in the face of an ever more sensitive (-ly defined) 'national security'. Why do you wonder that people in the middle east were pissed off enough to resort to terrorism: With the West saying one thing about 'peace and harmony' while deposing their democratic leaders and installing military bases on their lands. So you admit then that all western rhetoric is bull!@#$, do you not, and propaganda? I just want to hear you say it.
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 14 August 2008 1:14:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So you don't think ignoring the deaths of Iraqis entirely, not even mentioning them, is "Neocon"? I think that is a perfect description of neoconservatism or even worse, considering repressive regimes across the world never count or mention victims. You think Neoconservatism is "realistic"? I would call it criminal, foolish and 'asking for more' (and deserving it). It's a cowardly response. By compromising your 'professed' standards, you can "realistically" join a dicatorship for self-preservation, or "realistically" murder a village of people so that your life is spared.

Banjo>"The Iraqis don't appear to appreciate their freedom from oppression."

It's hard to appreciate it from the vantage point of a mass grave.
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 14 August 2008 1:16:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TLTR

I appreciate the thought with which you approach this issue.

I agree we have to deal with the situation as it is now - but I find Graham's justification completely disingenuous. To fail to acknowledge the lies that were used to invade Iraq, plus deliberately ignoring the high costs in death, is nothing less than reprehensible and more than a little hypocritical.

To be told I am unrealistic when I am, in fact, looking at the complete picture rather an idealised view is not cogent debate - just insulting.

Like you, I am uncertain as to how well Iraq will stand on its own two feet - whether true democracy will ever be established, it is too soon to tell. Even so, does that justify war?

Once it was believed that war was the final choice, when all others had been exhausted, now it is used preemptively. Kind of like sneaking up behind the school bully and beating the crap out of them before they even realise what is happening. Tempting, but solves nothing.

In addition had we weaned ourselves off the over-reliance on oil and had viable alternatives in place, Iraq would never have been invaded. Yes spilt milk now, but there is nothing preventing western democracy from still achieving sustainable sources of energy. All that is lacking is the will. While pieces of window-dressing like Graham's thread and Hitchens' article gloss over reality more effectively than any amount of wishfulness on my part.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 14 August 2008 1:58:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So you don't think ignoring the deaths of Iraqis entirely, not even mentioning them, is "Neocon"?"

Some 700,000 Iraqi corpses were unearthed by the Coalition - and all those murders were commited by an Islamic Regime, ascended via the cloak and dagger mode 22 years ago. What's more, all this occured under the UN watch, and while the EU was calling Sadaam a friend, and comitting the exposed oil scandal - the real reason many EU states stayed clear of taking the Iraqi Regime to task.

The far more relevent question becomes, rather than neocons, where were the so-called Jihadists and Freedom Fighters all that time - don't freedom fighters start at home - instead of schools and market places in non-Islamic countries around the world?

The answer becomes, that humanity cannot progress as long as such Regimes are allowed to stand. This syndrome has nothing to do with anyone or anything else. The Iraq war was legit and it was won - the terror seen there now is a generic global syndrome - and it won't go away as long as a single Islamist Regime stands and boasts against Democrasy and free multi-party elections. The rejection of democrasy is a front against 'LAW', hidden behind religion, to protect Regime Thrones.

Bush's error was he went to Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia - a regime far wrse than all the Bin Ladens, stained with the blood of millions of innocent folk around the world. Australia will do well to cease it obsession with the climate - no one can be impressed about fixing the environment via a nation which has 10% of the population it aught to have, and one which cannot even solve is water problems despite being surrounded with H2O. Better, Australians focus on the removing of murderous Regimes - that's where the marchers and protesters should be seen. Think about it - what's causing the worst pollution to humanity today - and there is no hope of expecting Europe to confront the regimes? Thus Australia is a fulcrum factor here.
Posted by IamJoseph, Thursday, 14 August 2008 2:11:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel,

Steel >> “I'm guessing you mean that I am partly correct in my initial post, about the hollowness of western rhetoric? Terrorism has always existed. It's nothing new”

What?? Prolific and costly terrorism aimed at western gov’ts is NEW. Totally new to us. Among the 3000 people who died on 9/11 I doubt you would have found ANYONE who had serious fears of a catastrophic terrorist attack on the US mainland.

Steel >> “. Are you saying that our governments have been lying to all of us about things like the Geneva Conventions and Habeus Corpus?

Haebeus Corpus is a principal that applies to civilian matters. Soldiers on a battlefield have NO such rights. They NEVER have. In war, if you are captured you are held until the war is over. Just because many of these terrorists and insurgents aren’t wearing uniforms doesn’t mean they should receive the same rights as civilians. If anything, the precedent is for fighters who aren’t wearing uniforms to be shot if captured. That’s the historical punishment.

Those who have breached the Geneva conventions should be punished, but again, our breaches are fairly innocuous compared to our enemies. That’s not to say we should judge ourselves by lower standards, but lets not get carried away with self flagellation.

Steel >> “Why do you wonder that people in the middle east were pissed off enough to resort to terrorism: With the West saying one thing about 'peace and harmony' while deposing their democratic leaders and installing military bases on their lands”

Which democratic leaders are you referring to? The Shah was 40 years ago. The Arabs and the Persians are pissed off because the Israelis have refused to be ethnically cleansed once again. They’re pissed off because they can’t impose their religious fundamentalism on everyone. Theres a hundred other reasons but the deposing of democratic Arab leaders by the West is NOT one of them
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 14 August 2008 2:14:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul
"Your attempt to reduce the conflict to a single cause, OIL, is simplistic, inane, and intellectually dishonest. And the suggestion that if regime change was a motivating factor then the US would also invade North Korea is stunningly naïve. North Korea has nukes, remember."

Well I am a simplistic girl Paul. If it smells like oil and looks like oil it probably is oil. AND my point about North Korea and Zimbabwe was that a regime change for the sake of the Iraqi people was not the prime motivating factor but it was good self-serving spin. You can nitpick all you like and avoid the real issues that is up to you.

No-one is disputing that Saddam was a despot but obviously not enough of a despot post-Kuwait to result in his removal. I don't believe that the removal of Saddam would have fractured the alliance as you claim. The alliance was concerned about potential civil war in Iraq after Kuwait but you are missing the point. This concern did not suddenly vapourise to allow the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There were other factors at play.

Why do you think the war was necessary then Paul?
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 14 August 2008 4:02:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what I am to make of this good news? Compared to a year or two ago, it is unbelievably good news of course. The best thing I have heard in ages, in fact. Up until now it appears the US was spending 100's of billions a year, immobilising 100,000 troops on a war with no end. Finally they have managed to pacify the Iraqi population. Thank God. Compared to what we had a while ago that is indeed a remarkable success.

GrahamY: "challenging to those who actively argued against the war"

If the war is to be a success, where we end up must be an improvement on not fighting it at all. A huge improvement, given the trillion dollars spent and the lives lost. It isn't obvious that will be the case. It isn't obvious the country won't descend into civil war once the US leaves. It isn't obvious the US hasn't just given Iraq to Iran. It isn't obvious that destroying Iraq's oil production capabilities will lead to greater production of oil in the long term. It isn't even obvious the US troops will be able to leave any time soon.

Perhaps I can put it the other way. Lets assume it all turns out for the best. The US leaves Iraq soon without completely bankrupting themselves, and Iraq manages to hold itself together without a blood bath. So what has been achieved over doing nothing? Looking ahead - Sadam's regime was rotting from the inside out, it would be gone soon enough with us doing nothing. As it turned out it was threat to no one. He was exporting his oil as quickly as he could. He was killing his populace slower than we have done, and he was keeping Iran in check.

So how will any outcome be an improvement on that? Let alone trillions of dollars better, and thousands of dead US troops better. It seems all the US got for their money was a childish pleasure in killing a man they despised. Unsurprisingly, it appears they now think it wasn't worth it.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 14 August 2008 7:48:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We're not interested in regime change. We don't want to get rid of Saddam - we just want to disarm him".

Sure.

That must be why the US vetoed UN actions against their buddy Saddam when he used poison gas on the Kurds and then ended up selling him even more of the same helicopters he used to deploy it.

This article is from September 2002, 6 months before the invasion when Bush started making the first noises about the possibility of military action -

http://www.fpif.org/cgaa/talkingpoints/0209oil.html

It was considered the most significant factor then and nothing has happened to change that opinion since.
Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 14 August 2008 7:56:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only war that has been won in Iraq is by the big oil companies,
such as Hunt Oil of the US. Irrespective of all the arguments over the purpose of the war, we all knew it was about oil in the long-term and the continued economic vandalism by the USA. How can these oil companies sign off agreements with the Kurds when they are not recognised as a nation state, nor recognised by the current Iraqi Government. The inherent nature of the conflict is now open for all to see: "BIG OIL WINS AGAIN"
Posted by sillyfilly, Friday, 15 August 2008 11:25:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,

I think the war was fought for a number of reasons

To ensure Saddam never restarted his programs the moment sanctions were abandoned
To remove Saddam’s regime which was a danger to the region
To demonstrate to other despots that the US and its allies had the strength of will to END them.
To demonstrate to “friends” the danger of being an enemy to the US and its allies
To install a democracy in the Middle East to challenge the dictators of that region.
To free the Iraqi people and give them democracy
To hem in Iran with military bases from both sides (Afghanistan and Iraq).
The 12 UN resolutions
Energy security
To ensure Saddam really had disarmed.
To avenge Saddams attempt on Bush snr’s life

None of these reasons was enough by themselves and I have little doubt there were other reasons as well that I have not listed. But together they made a cogent argument for action.

You say>> “ if it smells like oil and looks like oil it probably is oil.”

Yeah Pelican, real scientific.

You don’t believe that the alliance would have fractured by an invasion and occupation of Iraq in 1991? Really? On what do you base that assumption? The involvement of Syria, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Turkey, Oman, Pakistan and France was highly unlikely to have continued if the coalition had been tasked to overthrow Saddam.

Tell me what exactly you think made the difference between 1991 and 2003? What are these OTHER factors at play?
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 15 August 2008 12:05:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The last time I can recall a just reason for war was Australia's participation in WW2. Since then Australia’s contribution has been to shore up America’s pursuit of political and financial gains.

As has been pointed out – Saddam would’ve self imploded.

As a warning to other despots, I am not aware of Mugabe et al confessing to seeing the error of their ways and handing over their power to the people. Somehow I can’t see that happening ever, let alone soon.

The only gains have gone to the contractors and oil monopolies:
Consider:

“There are now almost 200,000 private "contractors" deployed in Iraq by Washington. This means that U.S. military forces in Iraq are now outsized by a coalition of billing corporations whose actions go largely unmonitored and whose crimes are virtually unpunished.
In essence, the Bush administration has created a shadow army that can be used to wage wars unpopular with the American public but extremely profitable for a few unaccountable private companies.

Since the launch of the "global war on terror," the administration has systematically funneled billions of dollars in public money to corporations like Blackwater USA , DynCorp, Triple Canopy, Erinys and ArmorGroup. They have in turn used their lucrative government pay-outs to build up the infrastructure and reach of private armies so powerful that they rival or outgun some nation's militaries”

From- http://littlurl.com/n45tq

The gulf in communication between Western democracy and Middle Eastern ogliarchy has widened further.

What I find particularly disturbing is the justification for all the death, the destruction of a nation - plundering museums, long term fragmentation of families to name just two. Lying to others is one thing, but lying to oneself?

Those who are in favour can try and dress it up anyway they like. The truth is that the invasion was NEVER for the betterment of the Iraqi people nor the advancement of humans as a decent and peaceful species.

Same as it ever was…. Money and Power.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 15 August 2008 1:10:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Never forget that Saddam was America's own man in the Middle East.

He was helped into power by them and kept in power for as long as they needed him to do their will, particularly with regard to Iran.

His problem - like that of all long term despots - is that he eventually believed he was bullet-proof and could stand alone. He was suckered into taking the bait on Kuwait and that marked the beginning of his end.

Also recall that it was Bush Senior that wanted a military overthrow of Saddam so he could be replaced with another more compliant accomplice and thus helped prevent the popular uprising that followed the first Gulf War.

These two factors alone make all the traditional media representations no more than fanciful claptrap. You may as well as add the notions that invading Iraq makes you lose weight and improves your sex life.
Posted by rache, Friday, 15 August 2008 1:45:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,

You say >> “As has been pointed out – Saddam would’ve self imploded.”

OH according to who? There is NO evidence to suggest that Saddam would have imploded. And he had been grooming Uday and Qusay for the leadership after he died. There are a myriad of examples of dictatorships not imploding.

This is typical loony left apologism. No one needed to act because the problem would have gone away by itself, all very convenient. Rubbish.

Just look at Cuba, North Korea, China, Burma to name a few. They aren’t in any danger of imploding; at least not before they squeeze a few more decades of suffering out of their people. What evidence do you have for this blanket assertion? ANY AT ALL?

Fractelle >> “The last time I can recall a just reason for war was Australia's participation in WW2”

Did you forget that the UN authorized the defence of South Korea and the attempt to reunify the country under the leadership of the south? Are you really suggesting that the North Koreans are better off? Should the South Koreans have been left to the fate of their northern relations?

What about our humanitarian intervention in Somalia and East Timor?

How about the first gulf war, which had almost universal support, including the participation of a half dozen Arab nations and full UN support?

You say >> “In essence, the Bush administration has created a shadow army that can be used to wage wars unpopular with the American”

This is utter garbage. It is clear you have no understanding of the jobs undertaken by the contractors. Warfighting is definitely NOT one of those jobs. Private contractors in the main have been tasked to protect people who work in Iraq who are targets of the insurgents. They are basically bodyguards. Other contractors drive trucks ferrying supplies. But there is NO WAY that this is a shadow army that could operate independently of the US military.

>> “The gulf in communication between Western democracy and Middle Eastern ogliarchy”

Oligarchy? Can’t even bring yourself to say dictatorship?
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 15 August 2008 2:22:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel sounds like a closeted Sunni Muslim, who's tribe has lost the privilege of being on top.. and now is blaming the Liberator and calling him a liar... sour grapes Steel....

Don't worry.. at least Uncle Ahmad will not have to worry about his childrens eyes being gouged out in front of him by Saddaams secret police when his neighbour suggests in an anonymous phone call that your dear Uncle has 'said things' which threaten the regime.

Confess.. ur a disgruntled Sunni.. who just wants to see oppression of the Shia continue...right?

Too late mate... ur out of luck.

Fractelle.. she can do MUCH better than simply throwing emotive numbers around.. after all..she damn well knows that most of the deaths were and are still, being caused by Insurgents murdering and bombing the place to bits.

Those killed by the Americans.. include many insurgents..and it's patently rediculous to throw 'total' numbers around like skittles without discecting it into the various categories.

Naughty Fractelle...naugggghty
Posted by Polycarp, Saturday, 16 August 2008 10:22:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Never forget that Saddam was America's own man in the Middle East."

This is a common premise held, as with the US assisting Afganistan. Fact is, the US should be applauded for confronting communism, which was its prime reasoning. The terrorism which resulted has no bearing with the US, which is also the case with the Iraq war. Terrorism is a global syndrome stalking all countries today, and vested in enritrely different premises than America's commercial interest with oil.

It would have been a grotesque crime against freedoms if America did not confront communism, and Europe should be ashamed for not entering these wars, even in Vietnam: both communism and Nazism emerged in Europe's backyards, with the prime onus being on Europe, not America, to confront these issues. The world owes America here, and presenting only terrorism as being an American result ignores the truth.
Posted by IamJoseph, Saturday, 16 August 2008 2:38:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul I think you should read the link Fractelle posted a little more slowly and carefully. And don't twist things by including peacekeeping roles. Fractelle's comment was probably exagerrated but generally correct. Your comments might be more technically accurate, but you ignore and omit a lot or the critical parts because of your bias which makes your overall position weakest.

PolyBOAZ, as you are a Christian I am surprised you do not care about the hundreds of thousands of people of all ages and genders who have been killed in this war. The Pope spoke against the Iraq war. I wonder if you read the violent, murderous parts of the Old Testament, or are simply a bad Christian who is destined for a long stay in Hell.
Posted by Steel, Sunday, 17 August 2008 12:22:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IamJoseph the world owes America nothing. your servitude to them reveals your bias and untrustworthiness. We are all trading and peacefully with a Communist country right now which is hosting the Olympics. When the USA lost in Vietnam, did Communism spread as they screamed it would? Not at all. Even now, many companies are doing business in Vietnam and tourists are visiting this Communist nation. It's definitely hypocritical that you think invading other nations is acceptable for political systems you approve of, but an opposing political system is "unacceptable" when it has similar aims.
Posted by Steel, Sunday, 17 August 2008 12:30:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IamJoseph,
Surely you can't be saying that there is no relationship between US foreign policy and terrorist attacks against that country.

Terrorism is a response, not an independent phenomenon.There's a saying that "terrorism is the war of the poor while war is the terrorism of the rich."

The US was "helping" arm Afghanistan several months before the Russians even arrived, just as they (and the Israelis) have had military advisers in Georgia for some time.

The rise of militant Islam as a political movement began in Iran as a result of their sponsorship of the Shah, not to mention their forays into several South American regimes.

They actively trained and promoted today's terrorists for their own purposes until they no longer needed them and are now reaping the result.

If they really want to eliminate that threat then their support of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan seem at odds with that notion.
Posted by rache, Sunday, 17 August 2008 1:00:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Pope spoke against the Iraq war. I wonder if you read the violent, murderous parts of the Old Testament, or are simply a bad Christian who is destined for a long stay in Hell."

Since when is the Pope or Vatican a good example of caring for lives - have you read its history? The Pope should have spoken about Sadaam Hussein, and the vile nazi like villifications parading Islamic teachings - specially so when those villifications come from the vatican's backyards. The last two Popes were relatively good guys, but we've yet to see it cleanse the mildew like the Blood Libels and Protocols - European falsehoods which have thus far claimed millions of innocent lives. One must not choose what they like and discard what they don't.

"IamJoseph the world owes America nothing. your servitude to them reveals your bias and untrustworthiness. We are all trading and peacefully with a Communist country right now which is hosting the Olympics. "

True the games are a spectacular display - but what's behind it? We saw what was behind the 1936 Olympics - and we saw many chant, VE VERE NOT AVARE too. I put it to you, if America did not confront communism, the world would be different today, and one reason we don't see communist states wanting to encroach the world. We do owe heaps to America, and Europe has let humanity down - as always - in the Iraq war which it alone established, condoned and fostered those Regimes, and in the Vietnam war it stayed behind from, when it was primarily its war. America is not a ve Vere Not Avare nation - consider it well.
Posted by IamJoseph, Sunday, 17 August 2008 10:39:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joseph,
you are absolutely right, but we in Australia don't really differanciate that much in good or bad causes for going into war.
Since WW2 there is not a lot to be proud of, is there?
If tomorrow Big Brother takes on Iran, we will be most happy to join them again in their fight against evil, as we are an easy going nation, and not asking all those inconvinient questions.
If we would start and develop our own opinion, the world would have an additional new nation, as at the moment we are only rated as the US deputy sheriff anyway. And that for a very good reason. But that would mean that we need to come clear about our wrong doing in the past, and that would most definetly hurt. Anzac day, a very important day for us, which has become even more important after the reign of John Howard, might need to be seen and celebrated in a different way, so who would want this? With our given mindset at this stage not us Aussies anyway...
cheers m2catter
Posted by m2catter, Sunday, 17 August 2008 10:55:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This topic has become extremely muddied - particularly by those who describe themselves as christians. The height of their hypocrisy is that they actually try to justify this war - beyond sense.

Fact: the situation in Iraq could've been managed without invasion.

Has no-one heard of negotiation? It is how we are expected to live our everyday lives. We may not agree with what happens to us, but last time I checked taking out an Uzi and blasting the boss into bloody fragments was still illegal.

War is the legalisation of actions that in normal day to day living, are beyond justification. In war you are free to rape, torture and murder other people with whom you have no personal grudge. War is the exemption clause for the criminal behaviour of government and big business.

Why is it only nations with energy resources that warrant USA interest?

Rhetorical question.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 17 August 2008 11:03:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"IamJoseph,
Surely you can't be saying that there is no relationship between US foreign policy and terrorist attacks"

Yes, and further, it is Europe which caused all terrorism, by its fostering and legitimising of Arab regimes. Terrorism is global and occuring with any and every reason, usually requiring no legitimate reason, and embedded in innocent muslim's via European fostered Regimes who appoint poisonous clerics.

Consider that India was the most generous nation, giving away a third of her lands, thanks to Briton's corruption with Regimes - and what has India to show for it? - daily massacres and demands for a third state in Kashmir? I say, Europe should have considered states for the Kurds, Coptics and Druse - who predate both Islam and the Arab race in this region; instead, Europe adopted the most corrupt deeds for oil.

Indians cannot obtain citizenship in Islamic states, but gives this facility to Muslims. Result: a one-way traffic of loosing lands. This doctrine is embedded in bad nterpretations of religion, and reciprocity is never demanded, because Europe is silent and condones this at the UN, overwhlming that office with Islamic states majorities. Today you have more mosques than churches in Europe - because no reciprocity is saught of Muslim states - because of oil corruptions - yet you blame America?

Consider why Europe is calling a deathly 3-state in Palestine as a 2-state - when it was Europe who created the first 2-state with Jordan, which was a corruption of her word before the world, and when the Jews were at their most helpless following W.W.11? Today, Europe is accusing Israel of occupying 12% of the land allocated her in the Balfour - when it was Europe which robbed this land, then barred the jews from returning. Why is Europe calling Muslims as Palestinains - when it was Europe who dumped this name on Jews - it is a politcal corruption?

Connect the dots and all terrorism was caused by Europe - including 9/11. And there is none to take those states to task.
Posted by IamJoseph, Sunday, 17 August 2008 11:03:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Hi Joseph,
you are absolutely right, but we in Australia don't really differanciate that much in good or bad causes for going into war."

Australia and India would be among the best nations and peoples today - predominantly by swinging awat from European falsehoods; Australia has evolved to that status the last few decades. I don't think Australians go to war unless for the noblest of reasons, while I see the reverse with Europe's abstainence when she should be in the forefront.

It is ubsurd that the world has not yet confronted Iran - let no one claim merits when their resume against such nazi like regimes is blank! Left to Europe, we can be assured of great calamities ahead, and of course - bad America will save Europe.

IMHO, the cause of all today's terror and conflicts is that no recipricity is demanded of islamic states. They get away with every wrong attitude and behaviour - because of Europe. The EU & UN have become Madarasas: why is there no demand for reciprocity, and what are its consequences: one-way traffic and great wars ahead? Why is Europe fostering the most distorted and dis-historical claims as history? When was the last time we saw Europe admit any truths the last few decades? - so today history itself has beome confusing - like we are in a different planet.

Who is the cause of the Kurdish, Coptics and Christian problems in the middle-east today:America or Europe? What are the rights of non-muslims in that region - where are their lands? Why was a Saudi Regime given Jordan - as his personal and private property, as with all the Arab states? Why is a Saudi family boasting each of its family members own $50 Billion - and causing millions of deaths around the world by deflecting on soccer-sized israel - do the Arabs need a new golf course?Who caused both world wars and what will cause a third: I say, a third W.W. can only be avoided or prevailed upon, by reversing Europe's deeds, and thank God for America here.
Posted by IamJoseph, Sunday, 17 August 2008 11:33:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IamJoseph i can barely make sense of your comments. They are rambling and random...For example:

IamJoseph>"Connect the dots and all terrorism was caused by Europe - including 9/11."
And later,
IamJoseph>"thank God for America"

This is why I accurately described you in this way prior to these two comments:

"your servitude to the USA reveals your bias and untrustworthiness. "
Posted by Steel, Sunday, 17 August 2008 1:30:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's also some discussion on this at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7710&page=0#121008
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7710&page=0#121089

Paul.L, if you intended to respond to those posts subsequent to your last post on that thread, you are welcome to do so here. Either way, I don't mind.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 17 August 2008 3:01:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In regard to Iraq's $79 billion surplus, I assume that this has a lot to do with the fact that, whilst practically everything else was privatised during Paul Bremmer's dictatorship following the invasion, oil was not (see "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein from page 362 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974#108120 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7710#120255) I expect that they calculated that international public opinion would not have tolerated privatisation on top of all the other outrages committed against Iraq at that point. However, they have since moved to privatise oil. For further information about the latest developments and the international and domestic campaign against privatisation, visit http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org

It's interesting that in spite of GrahamY's dismissal of the Naomi Klein's view of the invasion of Iraq that Christopher Hitchens, himself made no reference to her. (In fact, you will have to look very hard to find any serious attempt to rebut Naomi Klein. If anyone finds one, please let me know.)

If anyone wishes to be obtain a deeper understanding of Iraq and the rest of the world than what Hitchens could possibly provide, I suggest you buy "The Shock Doctrine". Here is one commendation for the book:

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/03/20/weekend-reflections-rudd-edition-2-2-2-3/#comment-208523
"I’ve just finished reading Naomi Klein’s ‘Shock Doctrine’, which Dagget has been ceaselessly recommending on this blog lately. Now I remember being somewhat underwhelmed by the heavily-hyped ‘No Logo’ circa 2000, but this new book is of a totally different calibre. Get it and read it, it will knock you flat." 20 March 2008
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 17 August 2008 8:19:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
daggett,
I for one have read Klein's book and her views on the concept of "Disaster Capitalism" seem to prove themselves over again and again.

I think most people dismiss alternative views - no matter how profound, informed and convincing they may be - that challenge their own prejudices. A few selective mouse clicks and newspaper headlines is all some people need to consider themselves fully informed.

Anything - particulaly hard indisputable facts - that don't follow "the script" are summarily dismissed or ignored as though they simply doesn't exist.

As for the privatisation of Iraqi oil, I find it a little ironic that the reason Saddam Hussein was sponsored into power by the Americans was when President Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr nationalised Iraqi oil and invested heavily in building new infrastructure and modernising the country.

Apparently BP, Shell and Standard Oil had other plans for "their" oil revenues.
Posted by wobbles, Sunday, 17 August 2008 9:31:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wobbles, I am sure you will find lots of rebuttals of various points that Klein makes, if they are all on a par with the article that I rebutted here http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000036.html.

The post also pretty comprehensively answers the charge that somehow the US was trying to privatise Iraqi oil.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 18 August 2008 10:56:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"IamJoseph>"Connect the dots and all terrorism was caused by Europe - including 9/11."
And later,
IamJoseph>"thank God for America"

This is why I accurately described you in this way prior to these two comments:

"your servitude to the USA reveals your bias and untrustworthiness. "

What you are saying, or agreeing with, is that the establishment of pharoahic Regimes throughout the middle-east, and granting them ownership of lands as their 'private and personal property', where no reciprocating laws apply, and the fostering and supporting of those regimes at the UN, allowing them to appoint whatever clerics can infuse into millions of muslims - has no consequences on the world today. I disagree, and point that all the conflicts stem from that point.

When the dots are connected we find that massacres such as 9/11, the Bali, Madrid, London, India, China Bombings do not point to America but to the Regies; the bombings in Israel is but a syntomatic effect of that syndrome. Europe was silent of the bombings and massacres in Israel - the first time it used the word TERRORISM is when it struck their homes. The issue of islamic grieviences do not apply here: the arabs are not short of lands, nor are their grievines moral or legitimate - this peoples have been granted lands and conditions which are terrible obscene, and these peoples have never been displaced from those lands in all their history - but they have displaced the original inhabitants and want all lands.

Europe is 100% guilty of fostering this situation and thus far they have not been subjected to any enquiries, even as they continue supporting such criminal activities. The terrorism will continue - unless the regimes are put in Gotmo. Europe's boasting of free speech and democrasy must be judged how they respond to its very antithesis - which they established and support today.
Posted by IamJoseph, Monday, 18 August 2008 11:03:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"As for the privatisation of Iraqi oil, I find it a little ironic that the reason Saddam Hussein was sponsored into power by the Americans was when President Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr nationalised Iraqi oil and invested heavily in building new infrastructure and modernising the country."

There is nothing ironic about securing oil - its like securing a water supply. America did not rob oil - she in fact built the Arab infrustructure, without which the Arabs would not have any billionaires today in their Regimes. The arabs cannot even grow date plants today, thus oil has been terrible for the arab peoples, as opposed to their regimes. And the regimes are not addressed by the UN and EU Madarasas, two organisations which would go belly up without oil payola used to protect only the Regimes, as opposed the citizens in that region. This results in terrorism via regime annointed poisonous clerics and media - they get their hands chopped off for any disobedience to the Regimes. Therein is the real issue.

Before the demand for oil from countries such as China and India today, the oil could not be sold and 'paid for' without America. The issue is what the Arab states want to achieve - and this does not have anything to do with America; the issue is non-muslim rights in half the earth's region - aka infidels such as non-muslim Kashmiri Indians and non-muslim Jews, Christians, Kurds, Coptics in the Middle-east, who predate the Arabs. Oil is a by-product here, but used as an issue of deflection. Remove the regimes and the oil issue becomes invisable.
Posted by IamJoseph, Monday, 18 August 2008 11:27:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY,

It seems to me that you have not read "The Shock Doctrine". Nothing here or in the article at http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000036.html seems to address Naomi Klein's core claims. If you haven't, you only need read pages 323 to 382 of "The Shock Doctrine" to understand Klein's case. I have also quoted some of it at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7710&page=0#121008

The case is essentially that the neo-liberal agenda of stealing publicly owned wealth by corporations cannot be achieved without bypassing democratic processes.

The theft of publicly owned assets against the will of the public can happen in formal democracies such as Australia. Look at how Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, QANTAS et al were privatised with disastrous results for the public interest. Now in NSW, the Labor government is attempting to privatise the state owned electricity assets even though this policy is opposed by at least 79% of the population, was not put to the NSW public in the 2007 elections and was emphatically repudiated by the NSW electorate in the 1999 elections.

What happened in Iraq following the 2003 invasion is, in principle, no different, except that it was on a much larger scale and, obviously, in a much more violent context. The privatisation of Iraq's oil wealth may similarly be achieved with the rubber stamp of an elected parliament, but as with Australia, it almost certainly won't happen with the consent of the Iraqi people.
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 12:46:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget,

You don't seem to be able to comprehend modern economic theory. State assets are NOT stolen if they are sold off to the private sector for fair market price. How is it that you do not understand this?

For a long time economists have understood that organisations do best when they concentrate on their core strengths. Gov't is NOT equipped to be the owner/manager of large businesses. Private companies will almost always do better at providing products and services than gov't. And if they don't there is always competition around the corner.

In the end a gov't will make far more money in taxes and royalties from a private venture than if they ran the venture themselves. So how THEFT comes into it, I have no idea. Certainly Iraq seems to be running a fairly healthy surplus now.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 1:14:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also, I forgot to point out that Iraq was under the rule of a dicatorship throughout 2003, and, unlike NSW, not under the rule of anything that could be technically considered a democracy. Paul Bremer prevented the democratic election of national Government and local Governments, because he understood that any democratically elected Iraqi Government would not have tolerated Halliburton, Blackwater, Bechtel et al plundering the wealth of the Iraqi people as well as the US Treasury. Bremer anticipated this in 2001:

Free trade, he wrote ... "has immediate negative consequences
for many." It "requires laying off workers. And opening markets
to foreign trade puts enormous pressure on traditional retailers
and trade monopolies. All these changes led to "growing income
gaps and social tensions," which in turn can led to a range of
attack on U.S. firms, including terrorist attacks. (Klein pp360-361)

So, as a direct and predictable consequence of Bremer's decisions, as I have pointed out elsewhere, support for an "islamic state" went from only 21% in Feb 2004 to over 70% in August 2004. IN\n Feb 2004, a majority still favoured secular democracy. (see Klein p350) The bloody conflict since 2003 could have been avoided had the U.S. been sincere in its claims of wanting to introduce democracy into Iraq.
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 1:16:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe the only thing that Graham et al, can comprehend are numbers.

Try the following:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/iraq-casualties-iraq-cos_n_92303.html

Cost of Funding the War in Iraq

$50-60 Billion: Bush Administration's pre-war estimates of the cost of the war. [New York Times, 12/31/02]

$12 Billion: Direct cost per month of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]

$526 Billion: Amount of money already appropriated by Congress for the War in Iraq. [CRS, 2/22/08]

$3 Trillion: Total estimated cost of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]

$5 Trillion - $7 Trillion: Total cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounting for continued military operations, growing debt and interest payments and continuing health care and counseling costs for veterans. [McClatchy, 2/27/08]

160: Percent that the cost of the Iraq War has increased from 2004 to 2008. [CRS Report, 2/22/08]

Cost to Iraqis and Journalists

8,000: Number of Iraqi military and police killed since June 2003. [Brookings Institute, Iraq Index, March 13, 2008]

82,000-89,000: Estimate of Iraqi civilians casualties from violence since the beginning of the Iraq War. [Iraq Body Count]

4.5 Million: Number of Iraqi refugees both inside and outside the country. [Washington Post, 3/17/08]

61: Percent of Iraqis that believe the U.S. military presence makes the security situation in Iraq worse. [Agence France-Presse, 3/17/08]
127: Number of journalists killed in Iraq since March 2003. [Committee to Protect Journalists]

Economic-Costs-of-War-in-Iraq

$33.51: Cost of a barrel of oil in March 2003. [Energy Information Administration]

$105.68: Cost of a barrel of oil on March 17, 2008. [NYMEX]
U.S. Troops and Contractors in Iraq

132,000: Number of U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2007, before President Bush's escalation. [Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, 3/13/08]

155,000: Number of U.S. troops currently in Iraq. [Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, 3/13/08]

140,000: Number of U.S. troops projected to be in Iraq in July 2008. [Associated Press, 2/26/08]

35,000: Number of private security contractors operating in Iraq. [Human Rights First, Private Security Contractors at War]

180,000: Number of private contractors operating in Iraq. [Human Rights First, Private Security Contractors at War]

Cont’d
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 1:27:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’d

Bush-Republican Intransigence on Staying the Course in Iraq

8: Number of times a majority of the Senate has voted to change course in Iraq.

7: Number of times Bush Republicans in Congress have blocked changing course in Iraq.

1: Number of vetoes issued by the White House over changing course in Iraq.

The Cost to Our Forces in Iraq

3,990: American troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. [icasualties.org, 3/17/08]

29,395: Number of U.S. service members that have been wounded in hostile action since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq. [AP, 3/11/08]

60,000: Number of troops that have been subjected to controversial stop-loss measures--meaning those who have completed service commitments but are forbidden to leave the military until their units return from war. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

5: Number of times the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment has been sent to Iraq. They are the first Marine Corps unit to be sent to Iraq for a fifth time. [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/27/08]

2,100: Number of troops who tried to commit suicide or injure themselves increased from 350 in 2002 to 2,100 last year. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

11.9: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their first Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

27.2: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their third or fourth Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

All of which is served by a whopping side effect of:

Abu Ghraib
Guatanamo

Leading to a water-board of:

TORTURE

In contravention of Article-4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 1:28:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One must seperate commercial exploitations, with murderous regimes and murerous doctrines - else both become inseperable and confused. Usually, humans have no options but to secure wealth and chase it, because one cannot function or exist without it, and usually those accusing others will do the same if in that situation. We must confront commercial exploitation with commercially viable counter measures, not by confusing it with despots and murderous regimes.

A company such as telstra employ accountants and spin doctors to serve themselves, not the general public - it is upto the Government to make provisions which safeguards the people. Naomi Klein's resume against terrorism is thus blank, and not a good example of listing democrats to tell us how to confront mass murderers. The assumed premise the bali Bombings were caused by examples of Telstra is based on deflection and avoidance of the problems facing the world today.

The regimes are hardly swayed by Telstra types, and 'guess what' applies here when the reality is not foresaken. Every nation and situation have grieviences - and bombing non-political assets like teenagers and parents is not a legitimate response, nor the reasons you site the causation factor. In fact, the regimes have for decades employed murderous clerics and media to brain-storm its citizens to murder anyone who does not follow their religious beliefs, a front to protect only their thrones.

First the regimes be dealt with - then confront the discrepencies in the commercial sectors of democratic states. The Democrats have not yet even acknowledged the real problems.
Posted by IamJoseph, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 1:29:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IamJoseph, I think you have forgotten the purpose of international laws about war and invasion. I think you have no understanding of what a sovereign nation means.
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 1:59:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I think you have no understanding of what a sovereign nation means."

I do. How about - a sovereign nation has the right to pursue its own beliefs, and the recrutiing of clerics to teach the destruction of another nation, its peoples and beliefs - is a violation of another sovereign country's rights?

How about the premise of reciprocity between sovereign nations, like allowing freedom of religion when you are allowed this facility in other nations and when you demand this of them - else the other nation's sovereignty is abused? And that when a person accepts citizenship in anther country - they honor that country's sovereign rights also - as opposed conspiring to destroy it?

How about the notion of it being a blessing to kill infidels be confronted before any discussion about sovereign nations - else you end up with only ONE nation? Or how about not confusing an evil aspiration and only the lack of ability to action it? I see the Iraq question best answered how the world must deal with Iran's nazi-style regime: what's your take on how Iran stands towards other UN established states which are not Islamic?

I found the resumes of those against the war in Iraq as BLANK when it comes to the relevent, transcendent and predating issues. The Iraq war is the effect, not the cause, of what has been ignored. The good part of the Iraq war is it exposed 700,000 Iraqi corpses from Sadaam Huessein's reign the last 22 years - and not a whimper from the Iraq War bashers; and that great terrorism was and is seen there today - this is a vindication the war was legitimate and long due.

When one uncovers a nest of killer bees it means the correct lair was confronted - it is not the fault of the lair locator but the poisonous bees. And to prempt, that lair is a syndrome - they are not limited to one spot, but a global syndrome not associated with America's actions.
Posted by IamJoseph, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 2:32:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again you do not strike me as knowing what international law and sovereignty means. Your figures about Saddam Hussein are also dubious, though it matters little in this debate as the Iraq War has caused approximately one million deaths in a fraction of the time. you seem to be asserting that all these crimes do not matter in the pursuit of your agenda, which is extremely grotesque.
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 2:38:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Again you do not strike me as knowing what international law and sovereignty means."

The factors I pointed out are related to international law: mass murder via proxy [such as spreading venomous doctrines of death about others] is a crime against humanity, and results in the deaths of millions of innocent people. 'Reciprocity' and one granted citizenship, requires abiding that nation's laws - these are embedded in international law torts. Sadaam was engaged in WMD of the Jurds, and handing out large rewards to anyone who blew up a school or bus in Israel - ignored, and much prior to the war on Iraq.

"Your figures about Saddam Hussein are also dubious, though it matters little in this debate as the Iraq War has caused approximately one million deaths in a fraction of the time."

It is not dubious but under-rated; nor does it matter little if international laws are examined.

" you seem to be asserting that all these crimes do not matter in the pursuit of your agenda, which is extremely grotesque."

Then I should qualify: the deaths in Iraq are 99% by terrorists, upon citizens, as opposed in a military action. And those deaths will be multiplied and encroaching well outside Iraq - save only for ability to action themselves.

As I said, better you give an opinion how Iran's regime must be addressed, and clearly list what that regime's aspirations are? Imagine being next door to that regime - as opposed a safe hemisphere away?
Posted by IamJoseph, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 2:50:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L,

By my definition taking an asset from someone without his/her consent is theft, whether it is U.S. corporations taking government owned assets off the Iraqi people or investment bankers taking the electricity assets which belong to the people of NSW.

Whether or not a 'fair market price' is paid to Iemma and Costa to piss up against the wall is irrelevant if the rightful owners have not given their consent to the sale.

Please explain which 'economists' 'understand' that "Private companies will almost always do better at providing products and services than gov't."

This unsubstantiated dogma of economic neoliberalism is hotly contested within the economics profession and as I have shown has been consistently rejected by public opinion both in Australia and in Iraq.

I think we can rightly judge a political philosophy by the methods used by its practitioners. As Klein has shown, neoliberals have consistently failed to win support through democratic processes, so have resorted to bypassing democratic process to achieve their goals.
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 11:07:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Off-topic but regarding the privatisation of Telstra - I recall the debate on the sale of the first tranche where the Government said something to the effect that "The Government recognises that Private Enterprise is always more efficient that Public Enterprise".
The rebuttal was that "the Government is actually legislating that it illegal for Public Enterprise to be more efficient than Private Enterprise".

The key work here is effective - not efficient. To date, no privatised corporation has been able to provide the same level of service to the public at the same price, not to mention the river of money that now flows out of the country as dividends to overseas owners. These are public profits lost forever. It's just public asset-stripping and selling people what they already own and have paid for over generations.

I think IamJoseph completely misses the point on nationalised Iraqi Oil. Overseas Corporations weren't paying the Iraqis a fair amount for their oil so they took control of it back and used the money for the public good. That's why they brought in Saddam - to guarantee their supply and one of the reasons they got rid of him was because in retaliation for the sanctions, he tied his oil prices to the Euro and not the US dollar.
It was also the Dutch and British as well as the Americans who have been there from the beginning, not just the Americans and they have all been maneuvering over it ever since.

Oil is bad for the Middle East?

This is victory?
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 1:39:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rache,

In the 1970's Telstra had plans to give everyone in the country fibre-optic cable before the turn of the century. This is one of a number of examples of how Telstra was a world leader in telecommunications. That fantastic edge was lost thanks to the corporatisation of Telstra by the Hawke/Keating Labor governments, which was the first step along the path to privatisation.

One of many examples of how money obtained from us over many years through charges and taxes was squandered in the process of privatisation can be found in the story "How Telstra Jetsetters blew millions" of 25 June 2008 at
http://business.smh.com.au/how-telstra-jetsetters-blew-millions-20080624-2w7i.html

THE national auditor has lifted the lid on the cost
of the Government's third sale of Telstra shares,
revealing uncompetitive tenders, inflated hotel
bills and shoddy account keeping.

Investment banks, stockbrokers and corporate advisers
were the main beneficiaries of a $204 million windfall
from the $15.4 billion T3 sale.

But Telstra executives - led by the chief executive
officer, Sol Trujillo, and his chief financial officer,
John Stanhope - also benefited from a lavish trail of
expenses on an overseas tour to tout Telstra shares,
a report by the Australian National Audit Office shows.

Telstra management on the tour demanded to stay at
exclusive hotels - in New York, the St Regis; in
London, the Berkeley - at a cost of more than $1300
a night per person.

The taxpayer footed the bill for Telstra management,
representatives from investment banks, and officials
from the Department of Finance.
...

Could any third world dictatorship have managed the privatisation as badly as this?

---

I would less charitable in regard to Saddam Hussein. The people who deserve credit for lifting Iraq out of Third world poverty were Hussein's predecessors. Nevertheless, in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" John Perkins shows that it appears likely that the U.S. moved on Hussein in the first Gulf War because he had shown himself not to be as compliant as other middle east dictators, in particular, the rulers of Saudi Arabia.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 9:47:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
daggett,

I agree with your post, except that I don't think rache was being any more charitable to Saddam Hussein than you were. I think you need to read what rache wrote again more carefully:

"That's why they brought in Saddam - to guarantee their supply and one of the reasons they got rid of him was because in retaliation for the sanctions, he tied his oil prices to the Euro and not the US dollar."
Posted by cacofonix, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 10:01:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""That's why they brought in Saddam - to guarantee their supply and one of the reasons they got rid of him was because in retaliation for the sanctions, he tied his oil prices to the Euro and not the US dollar."

This appears bad, but second thoughts are in order. It is not possible to deal coherently with savage dictators - one ends up dealing in their own language with no options. America must thus be judged how she deals with other states which operate normally.

The fault lies in the tolerating of Regimes acscended via the cloak and dagger mode, and have assumed control of humanity's assets to exploit their own illegal thrones. Its not how Amerrica deals with these regimes, but how is one supposed to?

This situation is inflamed by two other factors: EU/UN fostering of these regimes - even ignoring mass murders under their noses; and the absolute vacuum of the so-called juhadists and freedom fighters - which should start at home. Australia can be applauded for rejecting the abuse of democrasy in Fiji recently - while the EU & UN must be accused of fostering terrorism: Italy recently acknowledged it had made deals with terror cells, allowing them safe cells in Europe, conditional to not being targeted themselves.

Such deeds are causes for terrorist attacks such as 9/11 and the Bali bombings - while America's only crime was securing her commercial and sustainence interests - possibly the reason Saudi Arabia & Egypt were not confronted with 9/11, while Europe is responsble for making terror as a legit art form. Terrorism does not happen of itself - it is a result of abstainence and spins. The UN must be taken to task - and another body must be made transcendent of it - no one should be above the law.
Posted by IamJoseph, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 10:27:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett,

We live in a representative democracy where we elect politicians to make day to day decisions for us. That’s the way it works. We don’t do a referendum every time a difficult or contentious decision needs to be made. So to even suggest THEFT is a complete and utter nonsense. If the majority of people are opposed to a decision they can let their anger be known at the ballot box the next time an election is due. That’s the nature of representative democracy. I only know of only one wing nut who favours full participatory democracy (ie direct democracy) on every decision of consequence made by the gov’t. Surely you are not suggesting that??

There is a whole school of economics called economic liberalism which believes in the privatization of State Owned Enterprises. There is much evidence to back up their claims that such privatization almost always benefits the consumer.

Th[is] paper reviews recent evidence on the impact of privatization. It focuses on traditional privatization efforts involving firms in competitive markets. It shows that privatization improves firms' financial and operating performance, yields positive fiscal and macroeconomic benefits (proceeds are saved rather than spent, transfers decline, and governments start collecting taxes from privatized firms), and improves overall welfare. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=636224

Research now supports the proposition that privately owned firms are more efficient and more profitable than otherwise-comparable state-owned firms
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/M/William.L.Megginson-1/prvsvpapJLE.pdf

Where is it that you have shown the public rejection of the sale of state owned enterprises? What do you base it on? Opinion polls? Poll figures change every day and to make policy based upon such a method would be insane.

Gov’t are elected to represent but also to LEAD. This requires that occasionally the gov’t will make unpopular decisions for the overall benefit of the electorate. Our system is set up in such a way that if the electorate isn’t satisfied with the gov’t it can boot them out.

It is a shallow analysis indeed to suggest that privatization equals theft. This is why Naomi Klein is NOT considered worthy of rebuttal. The whole proposition is just ridiculous.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 11:18:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett,

You post >> “Nevertheless, in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" John Perkins shows that it appears likely that the U.S. moved on Hussein in the first Gulf War because he had shown himself not to be as compliant as other middle east dictators, in particular, the rulers of Saudi Arabia.”

WTF??

The coalition (of thirty odd nations) moved on Iraq when it refused to leave Kuwait (in spite of direct instructions from the UN) and made threatening gestures towards Saudi Arabia. To suggest that the invasion of Kuwait and defence of Saudi were not the main motivating factors for the First Gulf War is not only simply wrong, it is a perfect example of molding the facts to meet your theory. You really need to learn to be a bit more discerning in the material you chose to believe. Just because Alternet or some other “Alternative media” site loudly proclaims something as true doesn’t make it so.

Whilst I would agree that the same is true of the mainstream media, there is far more attention paid to them and their reputations are on the line. This has the effect of ensuring far more accountability than the equivalent “alternative media”.

Discussion of Telstra executive’s hotel bills is CHURLISH in the extreme. This type of corporate excess is hardly limited to Telstra.

Rache,

I think you miss the point over nationalized oil. After seeing its oil revenues quadruple in the period 1970/71 the Arab socialist gov’t decided to nationalize the Iraqi Petroleum Company. At that stage the Iraqi regime was receiving a 50% tax on oil profits. Funnily enough Iraq signed a 15 year treaty with the Soviet Union that same year. What a coincidence. The full nationalization of Iraq’s oil in 1973/4/5 was motivated by a desire to not sell oil to countries which supported Israel. Finally, AlBakr might have been the man credited with the nationalization, but even in 1972-3 Saddam was the man behind the scenes.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 1:45:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont,

You say >> “To date, no privatised corporation has been able to provide the same level of service to the public at the same price, not to mention the river of money that now flows out of the country as dividends to overseas owners. These are public profits lost forever. It's just public asset-stripping and selling people what they already own and have paid for over generations.”

What utter rubbish.

Professor Alan Fels of the ACC

“ Privatisation of electricity assets in Victoria and the accompanying structural and regulatory reforms is, by and large, a good example of a success story. The structural changes promote competition in generation. Electricity transmission and distribution services were separated from the contestable electricity generation market in Victoria allowing for new entry and the threat of entry. Then Generators were sold as separate competing entities. This makes for competition between generators. It also allows for inter-state competition.”

For starters Electricity production, distribution in Victoria etc was heavily subsidised by the gov't so even though electricity prices were lower, the consumer was actually paying much higher rates through their taxes to prop up innefficient bsuiness practices and provide poorly targeted social engineering outcomes. There was NO river of profit coming from Victorian electricity. It was a river of loss. That is not an uncommon situation for a state run enterprise.

Secondly it is not asset stripping, it is building competition into sectors which previously had none and therefore had stagnated. Good prices were received for many of the public enterprises which allowed the gov't to pay down debt which was costing far more in servicing than they would ever receive in profit from the assets while they were running them.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 1:53:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cacofonix, you are correct. In these circumstances, people often have an understandable, but ultimately counterproductive, inclination to view the targets of US aggression through rose-tinted glasses. My apologies for carelessly implying that rache had done so.

---

Regarding Paul.L's diatribes in defence of privatisation:

It is not surprising that bodies like the World Bank, which was notoriously captured by free market ideologues in the service of globalised corporations some decades ago, have been able to produce reports which 'prove' that privatised enterprises are more efficient than government owned enterprises. What these reports usually do is ignore cost-shifting that is nearly always employed when a utilities are privatised.

An example of cost-shifting is where training programs are scrapped. Prior to corporatisation/privatisation, it was accepted that these publicly owned utilities, should bear the costs of training in the interests of the broader community. Whether the trained people remained with the publicly owned utility, or subsequently was employed by a private company was not a great concern to utilities whose charter was to serve the public, rather than just look after its own bottom line. After privatisation/corporatisation, the business's bottom line could easily be improved by shifting the costs of training onto the broader community. Telstra closed down its world-class training schools in the early 1990's after it became corporatised, and more recently, closed down its linesman's schools. It now uses the skilled immigration program to obtain workers it previously trained itself. Other corporations have similarly closed down their on-the-job training programs.

Since then the community has borne this and many other costs previously borne by the utilities, most spectacularly with the huge skills shortage, suddenly discovered towards the end of John Howard's reign.

However, even with the unfair advantage of cost-shifting, the overwhelming experience of privatisation has been massive increases in the costs of services. That is why there was a social upheaval in the early part of this decade in Bolivia which led to the election of the popular socialist President Evo Morales pleadged to take pack the country's energy and water resources previously stolen under World Bank dictates. (more later)
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 21 August 2008 8:39:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget,

You seem unable to stick to the point. I pointedly asked you how you could justify your 'privatization equals theft' "theory". This is another example of getting carried away by the hyperbole. Privatisation, is almost universally acknowledged as good policy. The suggestion that it is tantamount to theft is not only intellectually vacuous it is patently incorrect. The dominant school of economic thought of the last 20 years has been economic liberalism and at its centre has been privatization. During that time, those countries which embraced these economic changes have overwhelmingly lifted their GDP.

Your contention that the world bank encouraged the THEFT of Bolivia's utility companies illuminates your continuing insistence to sloganise complex issues. That is typical of the loony-left. For starters the world bank only has influence over those who need money from it in the first place. Secondly, why would the world bank lend money to a country which was not following economic best practice? Of course they would recommend privatisation. But privatisation does not mean selling your SOE's to the local used car dealer for a massive kickback. Thats just called corruption.

Socialism is a FAILED ideology in almost every sense. Get over it.

Cost shifting. Training necessary to business needs will always be taken care of because it is in the company’s interests to do so. When there is a glut of skilled workers on the market the company will undertake very little training, and when there is a shortage of skilled workers the company will undertake a lot of training.

I don't accept that our utility companies have a social obligation to train people they don't need. Running training schools that train people who are unlikely to stay with the company is merely shifting the cost from those who should rightfully bear it. The idea that public owned utilities had a charter to serve the public is archaic nonsense. We elect a gov't to cover that responsibility. Their job is to provide those basic educational opportunities to give everyone a fair start
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 21 August 2008 11:03:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L,

As I wrote, by my definition, taking someone's property without their consent is theft. If you take issue with my definition, then I consider that your problem and not mine.

I have heard ad nauseum the argument about 'representative democracy'. Tell me, Paul.L, who do you think Iemma and Costa are 'representing' with their policies to sell NSW's electricity assets? As I have already pointed out, the policy was emphatically rejected by the NSW public at the 1999 elections when the Liberal opposition stood explicitly on a program of full privatisation and the Labor Government stood on a program of retaining public ownership. The latest poll show 79% opposition. A previous poll showed 85% opposition.

Furthermore, every poll taken on every privatisation, the Snowy Hydro, Telstra, Medibank Private, etc, has similarly shown consistent overwhelming opposition to privatisation.

What else would it take to convince you that the NSW public oppose privatisation and that the NSW government has no mandate to sell?

Back to the topic at hand:

Paul Bremer had no mandate to privatise Iraq's publicly owned assets. As he made clear himself in 2001, he understood that privatisation would be opposed by the Iraqi public. Almost certainly that is why he ordered the cancellation of the elections that were underway, and almost certainly that is why Costa and Iemma did not put their plans to privatise NSW's electricty to the NSW public in the 2007 state elections.

---

I am not arguing for or against socialism here. I am arguing for democracy and for the right of democratically elected governments to play a role in the economy including the right to own utilities which provide public services. If you choose to label that 'socialism', then I am not going to argue to the death over that definition.

Neverthelesss, it happens that Evo Morales the socialist President of Bolivia has just won a ringing endorsement of the Bolivian people for his policies of renationalising privatised utilities (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-bolivia11-2008aug11,0,1755836.story) in the face of a concerted and often violent campaign funded in part by the U.S. (http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417850) to destabilise his government.
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 21 August 2008 1:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to deal with a few more of the growing numbers of evasions, self-contradictions and fallacies in Paul.L's posts.

"During that time, those countries which embraced these economic changes have overwhelmingly lifted their GDP."

It is widely understood, not least of all by Simon Kuznets, who devised the GDP measure in (I think) 1933 for U.S. President Roosevelt, that it is not an accurate measure of prosperity. It is not an accurate measure because it counts all economic activity as adding to prosperity. Thus, according to the GDP measure, economic activity dealing with the consequences fires, floods and manmade disasters adds to human prosperity, just as much as building railways houses or growing crops would.

No doubt money spent by the Latin American dictatorships murdering and torturing the opponents of their economic 'reforms' during the 1970's and 1980's would have been shown by the GDP measure as adding to national prosperity.

Another ludicrous aspect of the GDP measure is that it doesn't not take account of activities which do not involve monetary transactions. So much economic activity in third world nations, whereby people grew food and necessities either for themselves or for exchange for other commodities through village barter systems were not measured.

So, when many of these rural non-monetary economic systems were destroyed in the process of neo-liberal globalising 'reforms', neo-liberal economists were able to make claims of significant rises in living standards, when, in fact the reverse had happened. Peasants who were previously independent, self-sufficient and highly skilled custodians of their land were forced off their land in order to work for long hours in low-paid menial unskilled factory occupations, that is, if they could find such work. However, because they were paid wages, whereas before they weren't they could be depicted as being more prosperous. No account was made of the fact that many of what they now had to pay for, including rent, was previously free or cost very little.

For more discussion of the absurdity of the GDP measure, see http://info.interactivist.net/node/4530

There are many villages where “basic needs”
of their residents as they conceive ...
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 21 August 2008 11:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... them are satisfied, but whose collective income is less
than $365 a year per person. Are these villagers extremely
poor and, if so, in what way?

...

After all, what does the “exchange value” measure of extreme
poverty — the quantity $1 a day measure when considered from
the point of view of purchasing power parity (PPP) — come to?
The definition of PPP Sachs and the World Bank use is “the
number of units of a country’s currency needed to buy in the
country the same amount of goods and services as, say, one
US dollar could buy in the U.S.” Consequently, according to
the definition, an extremely poor person is someone who “lives”
on the “goods and services” that one can buy for $1 a day in
the US. ... according to the common understanding of what can
be bought in the US for $1 a day, the people that fall under
this definition ought all to be dead. But they are not.

---

Paul.L wrote, "For starters the World Bank only has influence over those who need money from it in the first place. ..."

http://members.pcug.org.au/~wildwood/LHBMozam.htm
...
After independence in 1975, the Mozambican government
established a national primary health care system to
reach its poor rural populations. The system was so
successful that the WHO cited
it as a model for developing countries. A war of
destabilization financed by neighboring South Africa,
initiated in the early 1980s, however, targeted the
health system and its workers. The system continued
to function remarkably well under the extreme
conditions, but Mozambique had to rely increasingly
on external assistance to recover from the economic
catastrophe and destruction caused largely by the war.
As a result, Mozambique turned to the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to gain access
to financing for development projects and to obtain
relief from an enormous international debt burden.

As a condition for funding, the World Bank and IMF
compelled Mozambique to limit total spending in
specific sectors beginning in 1987. They even
restricted how much the government could pay its
health workers. ...
Posted by daggett, Friday, 22 August 2008 2:05:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget,

For a clear indication of the nonsense you are regurgitating you need look no further than the arrivals lines at immigration for first world countries VS third world countries. Even a one eyed socialist would have to admit the flow is ALL one way. This NOBLE SAVAGE myth that there are enormous numbers of happy peasants earning less than a dollar a day is ridiculous.

The ugly truth at the heart of socialist anti privatisation theory is that people can't be trusted to do the right thing. They need public utilities and gov'ts and unions and all sorts of other organisations to do it for them. Economic liberalism at its heart puts trust in people to know, and do, what is best for them, instead of having large gov't deciding what is best for you.
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 22 August 2008 12:47:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, Paul.L,

Who told 65% of the Bolivian public to vote in support of Evo Morales on 10 August?

Who told 79% of the NSW public to be against privatisation of its electricity assets?
Posted by daggett, Friday, 22 August 2008 1:58:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget,

how about you provide the sources for your claims of 79% support for non-privatization in NSW.

Bolivia.

AS IF Bolivia is a good model of how to run ANYTHING. That country is the poorest in South America, has massive cocaine problems, has issues with US sponsored coca eradication programs, and has huge ethnic rivalries that are creating problems. 2/3rds of Bolivias people are subsistence farmers so I'm pretty sure that macro economic literacy is quite low.

But stealing land/businesses from rich people and giving it to poor people has always been popular with the masses. Its old fashioned pork barreling and it is clearly working. Being the head of the Coca Growers organisation and being a full blood Indian probably hasn't hurt his cause either. And of course portraying himself as the nations saviour from the predatory behaviour of the great Satan (the US) has also been quite a useful rhetorical device. Funnily enough the Bolivians like the money they are making from growing coca and are not inclined to stop any time soon. So it makes it rather easy to vote when your leader tells you he's going to protect your right to grow coca.

If you are attempting to suggest that people everywhere are opposed to privatisation and that this somehow has relevance to us in the first world you are striking out.

The relevance of Bolivias experience to our own is HIGHLY limited, if not nonexistent. Furthermore, privatisation of SOE's has occurred accross this country. I'm yet to hear anyone sane suggest the buy back of these SOE's. NOR have I heard the ridiculous charge that the general public are victims of theft. This is blatant socialist propoganda, no matter how much you would like to pretend otherwise.
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 22 August 2008 2:58:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L,

If you had followed the issue of privatisation as well as your strident advocacy in favour of it would suggest you should have, you could not have failed to notice, throughout recent years, evidence of overwhelming public opposition to privatisation. I note that you have not acknowledged the fact that privatisation rejected by the NSW electorate in 1999 and was not put to the electorate by Costa and Iemma in 2007, even though it is impossible to believe that the thought only occurred to them since the election.

In regard to the 79% opposition of the NSW public to privatisation, check out:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/poll-adds-to-string-of-bad-news-for-iemma/2008/06/29/1214677850292.html
... The weekend poll found 79 per cent oppose power privatisation,
even when reminded that the Government's rationale is to invest
more in public infrastructure. ...

Anyhow, Paul.L, how about responding to my direct questions before you attempt to lead us off on further tangents? I made the point in my previous post about popular opposition to privatisation in response to your claim:

"Economic liberalism at its heart puts trust in people to know,
and do, what is best for them, instead of having large gov't
deciding what is best for you."

The overwhelming evidence, as revealed by "The Shock Doctrine", is that it is free-market fundamentalists such as yourself who do not put their "trust in people". In 1973, having made no headway whatsoever in winning electoral support for their program in Latin America, Milton Friedman's Chicago Boys backed a number of bloody military coups. Henry Kissinger notoriously defended his own role in bringing about the Chilean coup of 1973 as being necessary to protect Chile against the "irresponsibility" of its own citizens.

This pattern has been repeated ever since, including in Iraq as I have shown above.

In regard to Bolivia, don't you think it odd, if 'free market' policies implemented since 1985 were so beneficial, that Bolivians would, in 2005, elect a socialist President pledged to reverse those reforms and that a fortnight ago 65% reaffirmed their support for him in the face of a concerted campaign to destroy his government?
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 24 August 2008 3:17:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoops!

Looks like I neglected to put the word 'reforms' at the end of my last post in inverted commas.

Part of the neo-liberals' misinformation strategy, of course, is the Orwelling re-labelling of their sociopathic policies as something good and positive. So, their plans to run down government services, reduce taxes on the rich, destroy legal protections for workers, steal publicly owned assets, impoverish the elderly and welfare recipients, etc have been dishonestly referred to as 'reforms'. As people can see, even those opposed to the neo-liberal agenda, such as myself, are capable of falling into the trap of using their language.

My apologies.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 24 August 2008 6:59:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
daggett,

I take it that you meant to type "Orwellian" and not "Orwelling"?
Posted by cacofonix, Sunday, 24 August 2008 7:15:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It looks as if Paul.L has lost his voice for a second time.

There seems to be another poll somewhere which shows not 79% public opposition to the sell-off 86% public opposition to the sell-off.

http://news.theage.com.au/national/iemma-makes-electricity-price-promise-20080826-42om.html
But polls show the majority of NSW residents - as many as 86 per cent - oppose the sale.

---

In regard to who started the Gulf war of 1990-1991, clearly Iraq was legally the aggressor. Nevertheless, there is strong circumstantial evidence that indicates that Saddam Hussein may have been set up by the U.S.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
... But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts,
like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

- U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to Saddam Hussein on 27 July 1990, 6 days prior to Iraqi Invasion on 2 August as Iraqi army units were moving towards Kuwaiti border.

Either the U.S. was stupid or it was consciously misleading Hussein to believe that the U.S. would not intervene if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Also, Kuwait was accused by Iraq of slant drilling across the border into its oil fields Kuwait was selling more oil that its OPEC quota of oil was pushed down oil prices and harming Iraq's economy as it was trying to recover from its war with Iran.

Clearly there was more than one side to that conflict, and it seems to me that the invasion could have easily have been prevented if U.S. Ambassador Glaspie had spoken more forthrightly with Hussein.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Tensions_with_Kuwait http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait#Economic_warfare_and_slant_drilling
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 26 August 2008 8:18:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget,

I have a life outside of OLO so just because I don’t reply to your every missive doesn’t mean I don’t have anything to say.

In relation to the privatization issue it may well be true that most people in NSW are against privatization of Electricity. There are many reasons for this, including the campaigns of the trade unions etc.

What is clear is that there is NO real desire across Australia to renationalise electricity in those markets where it has been deregulated. It is now commonly accepted across both political parties that economic rationalism has had a primary role in the success of the Australian economy over the last 30 years. It would take an irrational to even attempt to deny that.

Secondly, to attend to your ridiculous suggestion that the economic liberalism was the reason that the coup in Chile was undertaken. This was the era of the cold war. You remember the war on Communism, that great evil of the 20th century? The US made a number of decisions about the socialist regimes in the region. It backed just about anyone who was anti communist. Traditional protectionist or radical free marketeer, as long as they were not communist.

Kleins suggestion that “repression was necessary to implement Chicago School economic policies in Chile” is absolutely preposterous. The woman has NO SHAME. She will fit the facts to her argument every time. She even claims that Friedman worked as an advisor to Pinoche. This is a total fabrication. Furthermore, the claim that the Chicago boys were behind the coup is also a fabrication. The military was behind the coup and only after their protectionist/corporatist approach had yielded hyperinflation did the regime employ the civilian “Chicago boys” to realign the economy.

Some criticisms “it is guilt by association and assertion rather than proof, a weaknesses of too much of the book”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/sep/23/society.politics

Financial Times "a deeply flawed work that blends together disparate phenomena to create a beguiling – but ultimately dishonest – argument.

LRoB criticized its perceived naïveté and for conflating "'free market orthodoxy' with predatory corporate behavior."

TBC
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 27 August 2008 3:51:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont,

Kissinger’s actual quote was "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." This was during the height of the cold war, and although misguided, needs to be seen in the context of a aggressively expanding Soviet Empire which was seeking to broaden its “revolution”.

You’re attempt, or rather Kleins attempt to conflate economic liberalism with neo conservatism and war mongering is a transparent and totally flawed hypothesis. Whilst she makes the case that capitalists take advantage of calamity and change. Nowhere does she adequately demonstrate that economic liberals are fabricating such disasters in order to implement their “highly resisted” policy changes.

In respect of the simple ideological differences between market and command style economies, it is clear that market economies trust people to know what is best for them and where they should spend their money. Command economies on the other hand believe that individuals do not know what is best for them and seek to take away those decisions from the individual. Which is why they routinely mutate into communist dictatorships. After all, why bother with elections if you know what is better for people than they do themselves?

In regard to Bolivia, any attempt to suggest that their experience can be understood within a narrow privatization vs socialism spectrum is naïve and fanciful. As I have already pointed out, with 2/3rds of the population making a living as subsistence farmers it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that economic literacy has had much penetration. Furthermore, there are serious issues regarding ethnicity, nationalism, drugs and foreign control that affected the outcome of the elections.

You certainly have not come close to showing that economic liberalism is the driving force behind US interventionsism, nor has Naomi Klein. It is a fabricated and ultimately farcical hypothesis.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 27 August 2008 3:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So much self-contradiction and so many enormous leaps of logic. I have my work cut out for me, once more. (Actually I am quite happy for you not to contribute. There are many far more interesting questions I would prefer to discuss elsewhere.)

I suggest to other users that a good guide to the credibility of a contribution is the extent to which it directly quotes the author he/she is attacking, in this case, Naomi Klein.

I have yet to find a critique Naomi Klein, which, instead of quoting her directly, attempts to put words into her mouth in order to portray her as illogical and driven by ideology rather than the evidence.

What you are trying to do, Paul.L, is throw in a few isolated facts which superficially appear to contradict Klein's case, whilst avoiding directly attacking Klein's words.

However, even at that you are wrong:

"Saenz (President of the National association of Manufacturers - generously funded by the CIA and multi-nationals) recruited several Chicago Boys to design those alternative programs and set them up in a new office near the Presidential palace in Santiago." (p70)

Klein has produced copious further evidence of Friemdan's personal collaboration with the dictator Pinochet.

Of Friedman's role in Chile, Orlando Letelier, who was later assassinated in exile by the Chilean secret police whilst the U.S. government turned a blind eye, wrote:

Friedman "was the intellectual architect and unofficial adviser
for the team of economists now running the Chilean economy".
He dismissed Friedman's defence that that lobbying for "shock
treatment" was merely offering 'technical advice'. "The
establishment of a free 'private economy' and the control of
inflation a la Friedman," Letelier argued could not be done
peacefully. "The plan has had to be enforced, and in the
Chilean context could only be done by the killing of thousands,
the establishment of concentration camps all over the country,
the jailing of 100,000 people in three years. ..."(Klein, p99)

For some years afterwards, it was not possible for Friedman to hold public meetings, because invariably someone in the audience would quote Letelier's words.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 29 August 2008 10:30:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L wrote:

"Secondly, to attend to your ridiculous suggestion that the
economic liberalism was the reason that the coup in Chile
was undertaken. This was the era of the cold war. You remember
the war on Communism, that great evil of the 20th century? The
US made a number of decisions about the socialist regimes in
the region. It backed just about anyone who was anti communist.
Traditional protectionist or radical free marketeer, as long
as they were not communist."

Interesting that neo-liberal free marketeers seem to accept that the end of fighting 'communism' justified whatever means that were employed to do that (including, presumably the carpet bombing of Laos Cambodia and Vietnam and the murder of 500,000 socialists in Indonesia in 1965). However, as was revealed in Daniel Ellsberg's "The Penatagon Papers" the U.S. rulers knew perfectly well that in most of these cold war conflicts they were not fighting "communism", if by communism we mean the brutal system that Stalin brought to Russia. Rather they were fighting against popular democratic grass roots movements and often employing "communists" in order to defeat them.

A stark illustration of this was the way, at the 1954 Geneva Peace negotiations, that the Soviet and Chinese 'communists' leaned on their fellow Vietnamese 'communists' to agree to the partition of Vietnam and the imposition of an unelected dictatorship in the South even though the pro-independence Vietnamese Communist Party, as even acknowledged by Australian Foreign Minster Casey at the time, enjoyed overwhelming popular support throughout Vietnam, north and south.

A strange way to attempt to impose 'communism' on the world wouldn't you agree, Paul.L?
Posted by daggett, Friday, 29 August 2008 10:37:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"clearly Iraq was legally the aggressor. Nevertheless, there is strong circumstantial evidence that indicates that Saddam Hussein may have been set up by the U.S. "

Sadaam came to power same way as did Gaddafi & a host of other islamist Regimes - via the cloak and dagger mode.

The other notorious claim is America went to war for oil. In fact, those who stayed away from the coalition, did so primarilly because of oil - as exposed in the oil scandal & France's ShIraq, who called Sadaam a good friend. America has thus far spent Billions on the Iraq war and expended many US lives, and had no problem securing oil via its normal paths. This was a war only against Islamist Terrorism - hello?!

The other notorious premise is that Sadaam had no WMD - shall we ask the Kurds?

Sadaam dished out lottery sized rewards to anyone who blew up a school bus in Israel, and went around acting like a tyrant waiting to get his hands on some serious weaponry, as was agreed unanamously by all nations and 17 UN Resilutions, which sanctioned the use of military force - and we never saw a whimper from the sanctimonious US bashers at this time. It is France which should be taken to task, and America hailed. This is true even if there was some legitimate exaggerations of the extent of Sadaam's prowess in his race to get Nuclear - the guilty here are those who remained in the shadows in silence - such as France.

Those who cling to ficticious spins are those whose resumes against the war on terror will be found to be'BLANK' - these cannot boast at all. At this time, only one's choice of action against another mad man in Iran, impudently boasting in a neo Hitler Mode, should be the issue for discussion - let the US bashers first address Iran, then examine their legitimacy about Sadaam.
Posted by IamJoseph, Friday, 29 August 2008 11:20:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HeIsIamJoseph wrote "The other notorious premise is that Sadaam(sic) had no WMD - shall we ask the Kurds?"

So is that why Donald Rumsfeld, the architect of the 2003 invasion, went to Iraq to shake Sadaaaaaam's hand (see http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)?

Stop wasting my time, you fool.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 29 August 2008 12:35:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, cacofonix, I did mean "Orwellian" and not "Orwelling".

---

I also need to correct another error, where I have mistakenly reversed the meaning I meant to convey. I should have written:

"I have yet to find a HOSTILE critique Naomi Klein, which, DOES NOT ATTEMPT to put words into her mouth in order to portray her as illogical and driven by ideology rather than the evidence, instead of quoting her directly."

(I should add that there are sympathetic critiques of Naomi Klein, from people who generally agree with her, which don't attempt to misrepresent her. An example is the article "Why is Naomi Klein uncritical of mass immigration to the First World?" at http://candobetter.org/node/686)

---

To deal with another of the ever growing list of logical leaps in Paul.L's posts:

Note the sleight of hand in Paul.L's case about privatisation. He demanded evidence of public opposition to privatisation, with which any person informed about the issue would have already been familiar. When I produced it, the argument changes.

The fact that there are no mass movements today demanding, as an example, the renationalisation of the Commonwealth Bank somehow absolves Paul Keating's despicable act of fully privatising the Commonwealth Bank against a specific election commitment not to in 1993.

Paul.L, don't assume that such political movements won't emerge, and don't assume that they won't also demand that those who have profited at our expense from the plunder of our publicly owned resources be made to reimburse us for the expenses incurred.

Of course, we will know better, when this occurs, to expect, of those who support privatisation today, to support democratic principles of democracy, decency and honesty any more than they do today.

---

BTW, if anyone thought that the Howard Government had stooped as low as it was possible to stoop in this country, check out the latest antics of Iemma and Costa, who having prevented a full debate in Parliamant having put the NSW taxpayers through $500,000 expense in recalling Parliament, are now attempting to achieve privatisation through the back door at http://candobetter.org/NswElectricity
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 30 August 2008 11:51:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget,

Oh you poor deluded man

You say >> “What you are trying to do, Paul.L, is throw in a few isolated facts which superficially appear to contradict Klein's case, whilst avoiding directly attacking Klein's words.”

What absolute rubbish. The central tenet of the book, which I addressed in my last post, is that economic liberals require shock tactics to implement their agendas because ordinary voters would otherwise never accept them. This is clearly and obviously a highly contentious and in most cases completely flawed argument. Klein is an ideological zealot pushing a hypothesis that she will make any situation fit.

BTW, You can pretend that the London Review of Books or the Guardian are misquoting her but it really won’t wash.

I can’t even tell what it is you are trying to show by quoting p70 of Kleins book. Whatever, the idea that you can quote a source to prove the veracity of the claims of the same source is so obviously flawed I am flabergasted.

You say >> “In 1973, having made no headway whatsoever in winning electoral support for their program in Latin America, Milton Friedman's Chicago Boys backed a number of bloody military coups.

This is patently false. Especially regarding Argentina. As for Chile, as I pointed out previously the coup was carried out by staunch anti-communists not radical economic liberals. In fact the air force blocked pro-market reforms in social policy until 1979. The reality was that military officials were in charge of the economy at first. They were often corporatist and paternalist and opposed the Chicago Boys’ ideas about radical reforms. It wasn’t until runaway inflation took hold that Pinochet threw his weight behind liberalization and gave civilians ministerial positions. Their success in the fight against inflation impressed Pinochet, so they were given a larger role.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf

Whatever Leteliers words, there is NO evidence that Friedman ever supported such actions. The advice on liberalizing the economy was the same advice Friedman gave to the Soviet Union, China, and Yugoslavia. That didn't make him a communist supporter either

TBC
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 31 August 2008 10:22:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont,

If Klein produces copious evidence of Friedman colluding with Pinochet, lets see it. Because it is utter rubbish. Friedman never worked as an adviser and never accepted a penny from the Chilean regime. He even turned down two honorary degrees from Chilean universities ... because he thought it could be interpreted as a support for the regime. However, he was in Chile for six days in March 1975 to give public lectures, invited by a private foundation. When he was there he also met once with Pinochet for around 45 minutes, and wrote him one letter afterwards, arguing for a plan to end hyperinflation and liberalize the economy. http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf

Friedman strongly believed that economic liberalism could lead to political liberalization and democracy. In Chile's case that has been the end result with Chile evolving into one of the strongest economies in South America. A real sucess story.

Klein ignores the overwhelming evidence that poverty and unemployment are lowest in countries with the most economic freedom. In the freest fifth of countries, poverty according to the United Nations is 15.7 percent, and in the rest of the world it is 29.8 percent. Unemployment in the freest quintile is 5.2 percent, which is less than half of what it is in the rest of the world. In the least economically free quintile, filled with the kinds of restrictions on private property, businesses, and trade that Klein claims are ways of helping the people against the powerful, poverty is 37.4 percent and unemployment is 13 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf

BTW, Are you sincerely attempting to suggest that the USSR was not intimately involved in the spreading of international communism?

You rather bizarrely point to Rumsfledt's meeting with Saddam in 1983 as a response to Iamjoseph undeniable statement regarding Hussein, WMD’s and his murder of the Kurdsish villagers in Halabja in 1988. Don’t waste our time. Just because Rumsfeldt went to Iraq doesn’t make him complicit in Saddams attacks on his own people 5 years later. Nixon visited China in 1972, does that make him a communist?
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 31 August 2008 10:26:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So is that why Donald Rumsfeld, the architect of the 2003 invasion, went to Iraq to shake Sadaaaaaam's hand"

What does that mean - if it seeks to infer something? These were not countries without any interaction, but it had nothing to do with what transpired. This is the kind of escapism made of America backing the Talibans against the cold war encroachment of communism - that the Taliban took to terrorism and radical Islamism after that war is not consequential. No one anticipated the radical terror outcome - this was based purely on fanatical religious doctrines.

Here, America must be hailed for confronting Communism - while the Islamist Regimes should be taken to task for producing the Taliban, and sponsoring heinous doctrines across the global thread of Madarasas: the regimes are not innocent here, and are responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. What happened in Bali and India also belongs in the bosom of the Regimes for its source.

The finger here can only point to the simmering religious war which emerged, subsequent to Regimes seeking to deflect their own self-centred goals elsewhere. On no account can this factor be deflected, diminished or made secnd to anything else. Would you hold your government innocent and blame someone else, if it teaches its peoples its a blessing to kill off infidels - glorifying suicide bombers with bill boards in every street corner, with rewards of money and paradise ahead - I'm sure you would'nt? However, there has been only cowardice in addressing and speaking out against the issue of mass murder via religious beliefs - not a single voice from the UN thus far.

These are fanatical religious doctrines - not political or commercial effects. The deflection from the real ground zero is a mark of blind deflection too - thus this terrible conflict will go on and spread and become larger.

My point is that secondary and far removed factors should not cloud the main factor here. It is a global syndrome, spreading over all and unrelated borders today - and guess why!
Posted by IamJoseph, Monday, 1 September 2008 12:38:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess I will have to leave it to others to spot the flaws in the latest hysterical responses by Paul.L and IamJoseph until I can get around to explaining them myself.

In the meantime, some may be interested in the discussion in response to John Quiggin's article at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/02/oil-and-war/#comments
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 3 September 2008 10:38:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L wrote, "BTW, Are you sincerely attempting to suggest that the USSR was not intimately involved in the spreading of international communism?"

Yes, I am suggesting that and I am suggesting that the U.S. rulers knew perfectly well that to be the case.

How else do you explain the fact that the USSR leaned on the Vietnamese Communist Party at the Geneva Peace conference in order to force them to agree to give up most of what they won, at terrible cost, on the battleground as I pointed out above?

Whatever the cold warriors and, in more recent years, the Vietnam War revisionist historians have tried to claim, the supporters of the Vietnamese Communist Party were not fighting to bring barracks socialism to Vietnam, and both the rulers of the U.S. and the rulers of the USSR knew it.

If you read George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" you will know that the betrayal of the Vietnamese Communist Party in 1954 by the USSR was not out of character. In 1944 Greek Communists who had practically liberated their country from the Germans were ordered by Stalin to put down their weapons and were, as a result, massacred by the British and their former German collaborationist Greek allies. Similar orders were given to Italian Communists in 1945, although with consequences which were not quite as terrible.

So, it is a lie to claim that when the rulers of the U.S., together with Milton Friedman's Chicago Boys(1) helped the Chilean generals overthrow the democratically elected Allende government and murdered, tortured and jailed their opponents, that they were under any misapprehension that they were fighting to prevent the spread of totalitarian communism to Chile.

Kissinger, once again, explained why they did it "The example of a successful elected Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact upon---and even precedent value for---other parts of the world, especially Italy." (cited in Klein, p 451)

---

1. The whitewashing of Friedman's despicable role in Chile by Johann Norberg at http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf has been comprehensively demolished by Naomi Klein at http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/response-attacks
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 4 September 2008 2:05:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's instructive how some will turn arguments around 180 degrees when it is convenient.

In 2003, when Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and could not possibly have used them, even if they had, due to the presence of UN weapons inspectors in the country, the U.S. chose to launch the bloody and destructive war in preference to pursuing the many diplomatic options still available to them.

In 2003, according to IsntHeIamJoseph, Sadaam(sic) Hussein was so demonic a ruler, that no course of action other than outright invasion and overthrow of his regime could have been contemplated.

However, back in 1983, it was an entirely different story. After Saddam Hussein had launched an aggressive war(1) against neighbouring Iraq and had been accusations by Iran of Iraq having used chemical weapons against its forces:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of
using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol
requires that the international community respond to chemical
warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a
muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its
accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked
for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war
with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming
Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use
of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and
decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The
intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons
against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983
memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

-end-of-quote-

It was after that that Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq and shook Saddam's hands:

His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad,
where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of
President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while
emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president
[Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two
discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity
toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts ...

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 6 September 2008 12:16:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)

... find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its
facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran,
and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to
chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting
[Document 31].

-end-of-quote-

Of course, it was in 1998, sometime after that date, that the even more terrible chemical attacks against the Kurds at Halabja occurred, as Paul.L pointed out. Nevertheless, it is clear that Rumsfeld adopted different moral standards at different times according to the needs of U.S. foreign policy (and it would seem, his own personal financial interests as well).

Another principle, selectively applied by Rumsfeld, is opposition to WMD's. On page 290 of "The Shock Doctrine", we learn how, in 2000, Rumsfeld applied an entirely different standard on this issue towards Norht Korea than he was subsequenlty to apply against Iraq. Rumsfeld sat on the board of a Swiss engineering company which "sold nuclear techonology to North Korea, including the capacity to produce plutonimum" (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#ABB_and_North_Korea). Was the man incompetent or a criminal? You tell me which, Paul.L.

All of this indicates to me that, like Rumsfeld, neither JosephIam nor Paul.L are the least bit interested in the facts, evidence, logic or principles. They will invoke principles such as national sovereignty, democracy or human rights, when they appear to suit their predetermined positions and ignore them when they don't. Others might also find instructive Paul.L's twists and turns in another discussion about the recently abandoned attempts by the NSW Labor Government to privatise NSW's electricity assets against the wishes of at least 79% of the NSW public at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2103&page=0#44628

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 6 September 2008 12:24:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)

Footnote(s)
---+---+---

1. In fact, I don't hold Iraq entirely responsible for the war at that point. Iraq clearly started the war in 1979, but, as I recall, after the war had turned against them, they repeatedly offered peace negotiations to Iran. However, the Iranian Mullahs preferred to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen, including children, in a pointless prolongation of that conflict.

In point of fact, the U.S. sowed some of the seeds for that terrible conflict, when they covertly overthrew the democratically elected left-wing government of Mohamed Mossadeq in 1953. This was done, of course, in the name of defending 'democracy' and fighting totalitarian communism, all of which Paul.L excuses. This act lit the fuse which eventually brought the Iranian Mullahs to power in 1978.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 6 September 2008 12:26:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
100 DAYS TO STOP BUSH AND CHENEY PRIVATISING IRAQ'S OIL WEALTH

Friday, 29 August 2008

http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/2008/08/100-days-to-stop-bush-and-cheney-sat-11.html

George W Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney are putting immense pressure on the Iraqi government to pass a controversial oil law before they leave office. Iraqi trade unionists are fighting the law, which would effectively hand over Iraq’s oil to foreign companies such as BP and Shell for a generation.

Join the Hands Off Iraqi Oil (http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/) procession through London on Saturday 11 October to launch 100 days of action to stop Bush and Cheney. Come and help a team of Oil Law resisters lasso a giant Dick Cheney and keep him away from a barrel of Iraq’s oil. There will be a samba band banging (oil) drums and corporate pirates too!

Date: Saturday 11 October 2008 Time: 12 noon

Assemble: Shell House, SE1 7NA (Opposite Waterloo train station. Nearest tube: Waterloo)
Route: Through central London: Shell House - BP HQ - Grosvenor Sq. Photo opps @ every stop of the tour
Posted by cacofonix, Saturday, 6 September 2008 1:17:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yes, I am suggesting that and I am suggesting that the U.S. rulers knew perfectly well that to be the case. "

Guess how all the states surrounding Russia became communist - be assured it was not voluntarilly. But for America, Europe would be speaking another language today. Islamist terror is hardly limited to any one place or issue - it is a global phenomenon, and not so because of America confronting communism in Afghanistan.

Like communism, Islamists also have an agenda - all they need is the ability to action their goals, and this is what happened with Afghanistan - they used US weaponry to foster their own agenda.

The world is facing a new cold war - and it is mostly deflected by the very handy Palestinian conflict placebo. The truth is, the Islamist Regimes orchestrated the Taliban as a deflection from themselves and to sustain their thrones. This is also happening in every country where Muslims live - they are bombarded by poisonous Clerics in Madarasas against the rest of humanity. It is Briton ['EUROPE'] which established the Regimes - not America. Today's Islam is emulating medevial Europe - and the west is quagmired when it cannot take its own to task. We should be grateful that America does not follow Europe's ways.
Posted by IamJoseph, Saturday, 6 September 2008 1:19:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"George W Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney are putting immense pressure on the Iraqi government to pass a controversial oil law before they leave office."

Nothing evil here: America is wanting to sustain her energy and fuel sustainence, and has been the primal support of the oil industry till very recently. Oil is like water today. The oil should not be seen as the property of a few Islamist families established by Briton 120 years ago. The war in Iraq was not about oil but terrorism - which is a distortion and deflection of the real evil. Get it right?
Posted by IamJoseph, Saturday, 6 September 2008 1:25:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ArentYouIamJoseph, don't expect to be treated seriously if you continue to ignore the arguments put by your detractors and, instead, simply restate what you have already stated countless times before.

IamJosephIsHe wrote, "Guess how all the states surrounding Russia became communist - be assured it was not voluntarilly."

I don't really see how this answers my arguments.

As a result of secret agreements reached between Stalin, on the one hand, and Churchill and Roosevelt, on the other, Stalin was allowed to set up sympathetic police state puppet regimes in Eastern Europe in return for the Western Allies, being allowed to re-establish stable capitalist rule in the West.

Consequently Stalin used communist parties in the West to enforce that agreement. This included, as I wrote above, them in 1944 ordering partisans who had practically liberated Greece from the occupying Germans and Italians, to lay down their weapons before the British and their new-found allies amongst Greeks who had collaborated with the Germans ("The Kapetanios - Partisans and Civil War in Greece, 1943-1949", Dominique Eudes, 1972 (english edition) (1970, french edition)).

The conflict between Yugoslovia's Tito and Stalin, ironically originated because Stalin similarly instructed Tito to hand Yugoslavia across to the British and Tito defied those instructions. Later conflicts between Communist China and the Soviet Union originated, because the Soviet Union was prepared to do deals with the West at the expense of their Chinese Communist supposed allies.

The Communist Vietnamese were similarly sold out by both their supposed Chinese and Russian communist 'allies' in 1954 as I explained above.

This, and any other examples demonstrate conclusively that the Communist powers, far from incessantly trying to spread communism, in fact acted to prevent its spread, once their own perceived needs for national security were met.

The U.S. rulers, including Kissinger, as I have shown earlier, were not stupid and understood that perfectly well.

So, any argument that, by destroying democratically elected governments and suppressing popular political movements in Chile, Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc, they believed that they were resisting totalitarian communism, is a lie.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 6 September 2008 2:07:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"As a result of secret agreements reached between Stalin, on the one hand, and Churchill and Roosevelt, on the other, Stalin was allowed to set up sympathetic police state puppet regimes in Eastern Europe in return for the Western Allies, being allowed to re-establish stable capitalist rule in the West."

This is partly true and not contested. USA allowed Poland to be annexed by Russia, as well as half of Berlin. While this was regretable, it was also a decision based on compromise to resolve what would have been another great war. Russia demanded her share of the spoils. But this has nothing to do with the situation in Afghanistan, and the subsequent cold war - because Russia's encroachment required a response. This is also what America did - she continued the struggle against communism.

What happened after the cold war victory and the collapse of Russian communism, and the terrorism which replaced it - are not subsequential factors. Nor can radical Islamist doctrines be justified as a response to USA or the supply of weaponry against the cold war. These two factors are not related. The radical Islamists have their own, unrelated agenda. We see terrorism in India and in the recently evacuated area of Gaza with Hamas - which should have displayed the reverse of what is seen there.

The world witnessed what the Taliban did in Afghanistan - women were encased in black from head to toe, music was forbidden and Buddha relics were destroyed - which was based on radical doctrines of a religion, culminating in 9/11 and the housing of Al Qaida. You aught to visit a Hamas website if in doubt. America should be hailed for confronting another cold war very real and apparent today.
Posted by IamJoseph, Saturday, 6 September 2008 3:19:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Consequently Stalin used communist parties in the West to enforce that agreement. "

Stalinism is also unrelated to USA, and was initiated internally in Russia some 20 years before W.W.11. A large sector of the Russian people were either killed off or sent to gulags; numerous countries were pillaged and usurped into what became the soviet union. This was a result of a mafioso regime which hid behind the doctrines of Communism, barred its peoples from all outside news, fed them with attrocious falsehoods, and enforced a rule by a singualr dictator. Sounds familiar?.

It is analogoues to what radical Islamist Regimes do - they hide behind a religion, while Stalin hid behind an ideology. Nothing to do with America of all places - she confronted Stallinist communism, and is today confronting what all others should - but many have blank resumes in this confrontation, and invent deflectionary placebos instead. We've all heard of the notorious claims America perpertrated 9/11 - this shows the extend of the desperate deflections occuring today.

This situation will become a world war soon - when more Islamist Regimes acquire Nuclear WMD. The middle-east is only the front line - and here there is the aspiration this entire region is exclusive to Islam. Heard the slogan: FIRST THE SATURDAY PEOPLE - THEN THE SUNDAY PEOPLE - this refers to the west and the east?
Posted by IamJoseph, Saturday, 6 September 2008 3:36:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget,

I laughed my ass off when I read this gem of yours.

You said >> “ArentYouIamJoseph, don't expect to be treated seriously if you continue to ignore the arguments put by your detractors and, instead, simply restate what you have already stated countless times before.”

I have rebutted almost all of the ridiculous things you have suggested recently and yet you ignore the obvious logic and plow on with your conspiracy theories. So I’ll give it one more go.

I asked “Are you sincerely attempting to suggest that the USSR was not intimately involved in the spreading of international communism?"

And Dagget said

“Yes, I am suggesting that and I am suggesting that the U.S. rulers knew perfectly well that to be the case.”

Oh My God.

Your evidence for this consists of “How else do you explain the fact that the USSR leaned on the Vietnamese Communist Party at the Geneva Peace conference in order to force them to agree to give up most of what they won, at terrible cost, on the battleground”

Sorry What. Did you just suggest that the Soviet Union could not possibly have been involved in actively spreading communism because they at one time put pressure on the Vietnamese communists to accept a less than equitable settlement of their war of Independence? I’m not even going to bother responding to that, it is SO inane and so obviously flawed as an argument.

Here are some quotes for you.

Addressing Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow, Khrushchev used his famous "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. WE will bury you" expression, shocking everyone present. He was referring to the historically determined victory of communism over capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

On November 13, 1968, during a speech at the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party, Brezhnev outlined the Brezhnev Doctrine, in which he claimed the right to violate the sovereignty of any country attempting to replace Marxism-Leninism with capitalism.

TBC
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 7 September 2008 10:36:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont,

During the speech, Brezhnev stated "when forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but A COMMON PROBLEM AND CONCERN OF ALL SOCIALIST COUNTRIES." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

During November 1958, Khrushchev made an unsuccessful attempt to turn all of Berlin into an independent, demilitarized "free city", giving the United States, Great Britain, and France a six-month ultimatum to withdraw their troops from the sectors they still occupied in West Berlin, or he would transfer control of Western access rights to the East Germans. Khrushchev earlier explained to Mao, using a startling anatomical metaphor, that "Berlin is the testicles of the West. Every time I want to make the West scream, I squeeze on Berlin". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

From 1957 through 1961, Khrushchev openly and repeatedly threatened the West with nuclear annihilation. He claimed that Soviet missile capabilities were far superior to those of the United States, capable of wiping out any American or European city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

Yet again you seem to not have any factual understanding of the circumstances you are talking about.

You say >> “In 1944 Greek Communists who had practically liberated their country from the Germans were ordered by Stalin to put down their weapons and were, as a result, massacred by the British and their former German collaborationist Greek allies.

There is SO MUCH wrong with this one sentence I don’t know where to start. For starters the Greek partisans never came close to liberating their country. Secondly, you are ignoring the efforts of the other non-marxist partisans and the heroic efforts of the greek army in their losing battle with the Germans in 1941. Thirdly, fighting between Marxist and non-Marxist partisans over who would lead the resistance began in 1943. Finally and most importantly the decision was made at Yalta that Greece would be in the British sphere of influence, which effectively meant non-communist. At that time Stalin was anxious that the percentages agreement laid down at Yalta be followed, as he had a great deal to gain.
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 7 September 2008 10:40:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L wrote, "I have rebutted almost all of the ridiculous things you have suggested recently ..."

Well, I, for one, beg to differ. As I have already said (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7710#121008), why not let the others be the judge of that?

Paul.L wrote, "Did you just suggest that the Soviet Union could not possibly have been involved in actively spreading communism because they at one time put pressure on the Vietnamese communists to accept a less than equitable settlement of their war of Independence?"

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Vietnam War was the central battle in the struggle of the "Free World" against Communism.

I ask again, if the rulers of the USSR and China were bent on imposing totalitarian communism on the world using local communists as their tools, then why did they make them give up so much of the territory that they had conquered at such terrible cost? This included not only the southern half of Vietnam, but also nearly all of 50% of Laos they had wrested from the French ("The Vietnam Wars" (1991), Marilyn Young p 41). (see also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974&page=0#106544).

Also, this didn't happen just "at one time". It happened before, from 1945-1946 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh#Independence_movement http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue23/goldne23.htm) when the Vietnamese communists under Stalin's orders welcomed the British and French back after the end of the war and murdered Vietnamese who opposed to their return.

The same happened in Greece and would have happened in Yugoslavia if Tito had not refused to obey Stalin's orders.

As for your version of the Greek Civil War, you clearly don't know what you are talking about as even the flawed Wikipedia account at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War#Confrontation:_1944 will reveal.

As I said before, to argue that the U.S. rulers could have possibly believed that they were resisting the spread of totalitarian communism, when they overthrew democratically elected governments and suppressed popular political movements, is a lie.

I don't see what Kruschev's recklessly irresponsible bluster over nuclear weapons has to do with this
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 7 September 2008 10:49:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
However, it is generally acknowledged that the USSR behaved with restraint during the Cuban missile crisis. Furthermore, the US has repeatedly spurned the challenge by the USSR to commit itself not to be the first to use nuclear weapons in any conflict.

Paul.L wrote: "I’m not even going to bother responding to that, ..."

I hardly see what difference it will make. I see little in the way of substantive responses to my arguments, anyway.

Paul.L, the betrayal of the Greek people by Stalin occurred in 1944, before Yalta, which occurred in February 1945. The agreement to give Greece to the British would have been reached earlier. Whatever, it is not an agreement that I supported either in Eastern or Western Europe. It is most instructive that you apparently do.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 7 September 2008 10:54:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK,

You have again totally ignored those parts of my argument that don’t fit..

You say “Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Vietnam War was the central battle in the struggle of the "Free World" against Communism.”

You’re wrong, totally. The Vietnam war (I assume you mean the American one) was ONE battle among many over the 40 odd years of the cold war. To suggest, as you are doing, that the Soviet actions during this conflict are the SOLE measure of their ambitions is just totally incorrect. In any case, the Soviets and the Chinese supplied most of North Vietnams arms requirements.

You say >> “the betrayal of the Greek people by Stalin occurred in 1944 .. “

As I’ve already said, the Allies divided up Europe into spheres of influence and Greece was agreed to be part of the free world. The Greek people themselves ratified this decision by NOT electing the communist/socialists when they had the chance so your hysterical suggestion that there was a betrayal is nonsense. Furthermore, MANY of the Greek men who joined ELAS were not socialists; they were merely joining the most effective partisan organization then in operation.

You say >> ‘Whatever, it is not an agreement that I supported either in Eastern or Western Europe. It is most instructive that you apparently do.

I never said that I agreed with the decision to divide up Europe into Soviet and British/French/US spheres of influence. Show me where I did. And anyway, it is beyond irrelevant whether you agree/d with the carve up of Europe or not.

You say >> “Also, this didn't happen just "at one time". It happened before, from 1945-1946 …”

Yes BEFORE the cold war started in earnest after the crisis in Berlin, Stalin held to his part of the bargain regarding the fate of the liberated countries. That includes, Greece, Yugoslavia and Indochina among many others. To suggest that Soviet actions BEFORE the Berlin Crisis are emblematic or representative of their actions AFTER that incident is again, totally incorrect.

TBC
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 8 September 2008 11:32:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CONT,

You said >> “Yes, I am suggesting that { the USSR was not intimately involved in the spreading of international communism } and I am suggesting that the U.S. rulers knew perfectly well that to be the case.”

Sorry, What do YOU think Khrushchev was getting at when he said "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. WE will bury you"?? ?? You ignored that the first time around.

And you totally ignored the Brezhnev Doctrine, in which he claimed the right to violate the sovereignty of any country attempting to replace Marxism-Leninism with capitalism saying “when forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but A COMMON PROBLEM AND CONCERN OF ALL SOCIALIST COUNTRIES."

The Berlin crisis is one example of the Soviets trying to expand their influence. Then there was the Korean war, where the Chinese attempted to expand communist influence across all of Korea. The Soviet were involved in communist activities in Mozambique, Cuba, Burma, Angola among many others. But the most blatant and obvious expansion was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

US Charge d’affairs in Moscow George Kennan sent this telegram in 1946

“The USSR still lives in antagonistic “capitalist encirclement” with which there can be no permanent peaceful coexistence....[the Kremlin has a] neurotic view of world affairs....we have here a political force [Communism] committed fanatically to the belief that with [the] U.S. there can be no permanent modus vivendi, that it is desirable and necessary that the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life destroyed, the international authority of our state broken, if Soviet power is to be secure. A totalitarian regime bent on expansion....In general, all Soviet efforts on the unofficial international plane will be negative and destructive in character, designed to tear down the sources of strength beyond the Soviet control”
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 8 September 2008 11:34:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In case some may be wondering, I started up a different discussion thread, largely to cover some of the issues, which are not directly related to this discussion. The Forum is entitled "Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight the 'evil' of 'communism'?" and it can be found at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2121&page=0
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 6:47:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L wrote: "There is a whole school of economics called economic liberalism which believes in the privatization of State Owned Enterprises. There is much evidence to back up their claims that such privatization almost always benefits the consumer."

As daggett wrote on another thread "The end of neoliberalism?" at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/08/the-end-of-neoliberalism/#comment-217106

... economic neo-liberalism is barely more scientifically
based than the religious dogma peddled to ordinary people in
previous times in order to get them to accept socially iniquity.
It was concocted by a bunch of unconscionable frauds, including
Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, who met in 1947 at Mont
Pelerin as described in George Monbiot’s "How Did We Get Into
This Mess?" (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/08/28/how-did-we-get-into-this-mess/)
of 28 August 2007. As Monbiot wrote:

"Their purpose was to develop the ideas and the language
which would mask the real intent of the programme – the
restoration of the power of the elite - and package it as a
proposal for the betterment of humankind."

I suggest if anyone wants to further defend economic neo-liberalism they do it there.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 11:46:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L,

It seems to me that that the defenders of neo-liberalism over at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/08/the-end-of-neoliberalism/#comment-217106 need your help.

I have repeatedly asked one of the market fundamentalists that frequent that site to give examples of where, as he claimed, neo-liberalism has delivered in “delivered in spades”, but he has not risen to the challenge, nor has anyone else.

Perhaps you can help.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 2:15:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BUSH'S LEGASY

While I prefer Bush to any Democrat, I see two factors which over-turned his war on terror, and these are hardly ever considered by the pundits:

1. That he did not confront S. Arabia and Egypt for 9/11: the Saudi Regime is a 1000 times more liable for 9/11 than Al Qaida, which is only one off-shoot of the Wahabism mandate.

2. That Bush bowed to Blair who demanded Briton's price for its major contribution to Bush's coalition, namely making Bush reneg on his earlier commitment that Israel cannot be expected to retreat to borders which would seriously damage her viability. After all, the real Judas is Briton, who established the Regimes for 30 barrels of oil - Briton ultimately felled Bush.

These two factors ultimately lost the war on Islamic terrorism, doubled the human toll of 9/11, and costed US trillions of $. Worse, it gave terrorism a form of legitimacy and expansionism.

The oil factor [America's Interests] did not pay devidends in letting the Saudi Regime off the hook: had Bush taken this Regime to task, instead of the Taliban and The Iraq War - many trillions would be payable in Compensation, with almost no loss of life, and the war on terror would have been seriously negated. After all, 9/11 was far graver than 12/7.

It is the Saudi Regime which belongs in Gitmo - not $20 a year expendable peasant terrorists funded by the Saudi Regime. Now, whoever wins the election, will have to face the consequences of these monumental errors: the mad cow Dems will make it far worse if elected - or else disrupt every move by the Repubs if they win. The Saudi Regime has the blood of millions of innocent people around the world on its hands - and Bush failed to do what was necessary - to the extent it can be viewed as a criminal act. Mercifully, Australia averted what would have been even greater than 9/11, as exposed the last few days.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THINGS APPLY.
Posted by IamJoseph, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 9:57:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IamJoseph,

Are you aware that many Americans hold their own government responsible for the September 11 attacks?

See, for example http://911truth.org Their case looks very strong to me.

Whether elements within Saudi Government also had a part to play, I can't say.

Personally I am even less partial to Islam than I am towards Christianity, but if I lived in Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran, it might make more sense to me.

But the fundamental principle that has to apply is self-determination. Had the U.S. behaved decently towards Iraq following the invasion, I may have been able to bring myself to see that invasion in a different light, but they did not and so, they as well as Iraq, reaped another terrible whirlwind.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 21 September 2008 10:08:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Are you aware that many Americans hold their own government responsible for the September 11 attacks? "

Are you aware some also deny the Holocaust and the Jerusalem Temple as myths, call Moses a Muslim, count a deathly 3-state in Palestine as a 2-state, implant the name Palestinian to those who antithise this term, accuse Jews of *OCCUPYING* their motherland, have instigated five genocidal wars against a UN Re-established state, dished out lottery-sized rewards to anyone blowing up a school or bus in Israel - and now chant Israel must be wiped off the map and its a blessing to kill Jews & Christians - with a silent good muslim world?

The Iraqi invasion was correct - and points to how one must deal with Iran. Those who abstained must be held criminally liable - their motives were totally corrupt and less than credible. What went on in Iraq following the war included some 'NORMAL' bad war stuff in a bad place infested with mass murderers every nook & corner - but not evil stuff, nor comparable to how it was pre-US invasion: some 700,000 Iraqi corpses were unearthed by the coalition - so much for brave Muslim Freedom Fighters who remained silent of Sadaam, but shout loudly of America responding to a terror Regime opting for WMD's, and which never should have reigned in the first place.

The fundamental things apply.
Posted by IamJoseph, Sunday, 21 September 2008 10:41:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IamJoseph,

Having considered both Holocaust denial literature and the September 11 truth question, it seems to me that there is a lot more substance to the latter.

I am pretty certain that just about everything else in your post has been said many times before and responded to many times before.

I had thought that that I had seen an indication that the tone and quality of your responses might improve, so I decided to respond rather than ignore you, but I can see now that that was a mistake.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 21 September 2008 11:31:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget,

Mate all these massive conspiracies must be scaring the bejesus out of you. Not only did "THEY" conspire with the Russians and the Chinese to subjugate their people, and invent "Communist plots" all over the place, "THEY" also needed to kill 3500 of their people in order to start a war that would allow them to colonize Iraq and Afghanistan. And they managed to suck just about every single European country in with them.

So tell me Dagget, George Bush must be one of the cleverest men alive in order to able to get away with all of this.

Seriously, have you entirely stopped using your brain? Even that nitwit Naomi Klein surely isn't stupid, or conniving, enough to repeat any of the 9/11 conspiracy bullsh!t.

BTW, which "TRUTH" do you subscribe to regarding 9/11. I'm just interested to know which brand of LUNACY you belong to?
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 22 September 2008 9:55:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L,

I think two can play at the game of accusing the other of being a "conspiracy nut".

Let's recall that very recently, you were prepared to do what even the U.S. is no longer prepared to do, that is, accuse Allende of being a puppet of the Soviet Union in their plot to enslave the world. In your words:

"Allende took money personally from the KGB. He agreed to their involvement in reorganizing Chiles (sic) military and intelligence forces. Kissinger feared Soviet Expansionism and he was right to. Just look at Cuba. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Soviet_involvement" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2121#45509)

(Others may wish to visit that thread to read my response, which Paul.L has not yet acknowledged.)

You justify the imposition of a dictatorship on South Vietnam in 1954, the cancellation of democratic elections, and the subsequent devastation of most of Indo-China by repeating the same paranoid Cold War propaganda, and I am supposed to be the conspiracy nut?

When democratic governments are overthrown, countries devastated, thousands, and up to millions, killed, I have learnt not to take, at face value, official government explanations, particularly those of the U.S. government.

However, contrary to my normal reflexive response, in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, I did take, at face value, the U.S. Government version and subsequently even welcomed the invasion of Afghanistan, partly because of my revulsion at the attack and partly because of my detestation of the Taliban regime. To this day, in spite of the fact that the war has turned out very badly, I am not sure that that was wrong.

Anyhow, it pretty soon became obvious that the 9/11 attacks succeeded to the extent that they did because the Bush administration was, at least, grossly negligent. (Do you accept at least that, Paul.L?)

Others have since arrived at the conclusion that there exists a prima facie case that the September 11 attacks were an inside job.

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Monday, 22 September 2008 2:16:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)

(This continuation was inadvertently posted to the thread "Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight the 'evil' of 'communism'?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2121#45929 Let's hope that the software will allow me to post it here also.)

I would honestly feel a lot better if you could satisfy me that that were not the case. As poorly as I have regarded the U.S. Government I had not been prepared, until about a year ago, to contemplate the possibility that they were prepared to commit such a monstrous crime against their own people.

So, if you can find me a resource on the web that comprehensively demolishes the case of the 9/11 truth movement, I would be most interested.

I would be most interested to know if there are any plausible theories which explain how the third building, which was not even hit by the terrorist attack, managed to collapse completely in a matter of hours - surely one of the greatest failings of modern engineering history?

(Whether Klein herself is prepared to come out and voice concerns over the 9/11 attacks is irrelevant. Possibly she has judged that becoming embroiled in that controversy would detract from the incontrovertible case she has argued in "The Shock Doctrine". In any case, I am not altogether uncritical of Naomi Klein as towering a figure as I think she is.)
Posted by daggett, Monday, 22 September 2008 2:22:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Having considered both Holocaust denial literature and the September 11 truth question, it seems to me that there is a lot more substance to the latter."

And I think there are universes seperating truth from your views. Its not about my tone but the horrific premise you are giving legitimacy to. You have to consider what it means when your views have not a shred of credence, decency and humanity, and where it places you - it does not get lower. Grow up and face reality - start by fasting and begging forgiveness from the souls perished and their families for your attrocity.
Posted by IamJoseph, Monday, 22 September 2008 2:47:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget,

Take a look at the poular mecahnics debunking 9/11 Myths. They have a very good/thorough analysis of each of the silly claims of the loose change (should really be "loose screws") crowd.

You do realise however that there is NOTHING which will really prove absolutely that the US gov't was not involved in 9/11 attacks. There is NO WAY to prove categorically that something DID NOT happen.

I mean, Popular mechanics can say, just for examples sake, that no explosives residue was found. The loose change bunch will just say that the investigators didn't look hard enough, or that the explosives were a new and untraceable type.

After all that has come out about the private lives and bad choices of presidential nominees, DO YOU REALLY THINK that this MASSIVE conspiracy could be kept quiet? That NONE of the thousands of people who would have needed to be in the know, would talk?

And what was the point of it all? Invading afghanistan? Really? Not somewhere really useful like Iran? America could have picked a fight with anyone on the back of 9/11 and had the support of 95% of the world. And you're suggesting that they did it so they could attack afghanistan.

And as for Iraq, it would have been a million times easier to have manufactured a chemical or biological event in the no fly zones in Iraq.

And why would these ultimate conspirators allow the fact that there weren't any WMD's in Iraq when the coalition invaded to stop them? Surely "planting" evidence of WMD's, thus securing the evidence that backed their case, would have been a SNIP compared with 9/11. Why would they NOT do that?
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 22 September 2008 4:03:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry,

Here are the popular mechanics and debunking 9/11 myths web pages

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.debunking911.com/
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 22 September 2008 4:05:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Here are the popular mechanics and debunking 9/11 myths web pages"

How about some more mechanics on Bali, Madrid, London, Thailand, India, Russia, China and some 200 in Israel - was that US or Israel who did them?

How about some mechanics how you look when such attrocious stuff is even considered?
Posted by IamJoseph, Monday, 22 September 2008 6:32:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I heard through the grapevine that a request by daggett to open a separate discussion on "9/11" has been initially refused, so it looks as if discussion is to continue, it will have to continue here.

The 9/11 truth movement has responded to the Popular Mechanics material referred to by Paul.L in the article "Popular Mechanics Attacks Its '9/11 LIES' Straw Man" at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050208093000680 and in "Book Review: Debunking 9/11 Myths, by Popular Mechanics" at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070402105006226

I have just listened to a radio debate between Richard Gage, AIA, of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) and Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine first broadcast on Oakland's KKGN 960am radio this last Thursday, September 18th.

AR911 represents 475 architects and engineers who question the official US govt version of the 9/11 attacks and who are demanding a proper investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

Michael Shermer a supposed scientific skeptic put up what I thought was an astonishingly week case. He avoided discussing the scientific evidence and instead focused on peripheral issues:

* Osama bin Laden confessed to it, so that settles it.
* What Richard Gage was alleging against the company who serviced the elevators in the Twin towers was (gasp!) libellous. (Now many 'skeptics' does anyone know who are in favour of discussion being suppressed by libel laws)
* It was just too big a conspiracy so it can't have happened.
* The Bush administration was not competent enough to have pulled it off. (Gage responded: perhaps, but there were plenty of private corporations who were.)

"Skeptic" Michael Shermer (who also once promoted Bjorn Lomborg's ridiculous "The Skeptical Environmentalist") opposed Gage's demand for a proper new investigation even though Gage had shown that a lot of evidence had not been considered by the original 9/11 investigation.

Gage questioned why $40 million was spent on the investigation of the Monica Lewisnky affair but less than $1 million (don't remember the precise figure.) was spent investigating the 9/11 attack, which didn't seem to trouble Shermer.
Posted by cacofonix, Monday, 22 September 2008 6:47:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I urge anyone who has any doubts to listen to the debate "Were the World Trade Towers brought down by controlled demolition?" at http://noliesradio.org/

If the 9/11 truth movement are so wrong, then I would expect Shermer to have shot down Gage in flames.

Having heard the debate lasting 1 hour I am convinced that the U.S. government's case looks very suspicious and that they are hiding something.
Posted by cacofonix, Monday, 22 September 2008 6:47:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Iamjoseph,

If you went to those sites I supplied you would see that I too believe that this conspiracy sh!t is for the soft brained among us. Years ago the same people would have been convening in Nevada at the site of area-51, right after their star-trek convention. Or demanding an independent inquiry into crop circles. Some people have such boring lives that the idea that the reality is almost always the simplest explanation (aka occams razor), hurts too much.

The two sites I posted dismantle the bullsh!t that the conspiracy theorists are peddling.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 9:40:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cacofonix,

Ive read the response by the 9/11 truth idiots. It has to be some of the weakest writing I’ve had the misfortune to have to read.

They say >> “Superficially, the topics appear to address the major physical evidence issues brought up by the skeptics (while ignoring the mountains of evidence of foreknowledge, motive, and unique means possessed by insiders)”

So they’re saying forget the physical evidence, what about the circumstanstial evidence. They’re saying someone else could have done this because they had a motive? That it must have been an inside job because 1 person in an organization of 100’s of thousands new that a wanted person was taking flying lessons. Finally they’re saying that the because the US gov’t has high end capabilities, they must have done it.

Secondly,

You say >> “He avoided discussing the scientific evidence and instead focused on peripheral issues:”

Popular Mechanics and debunking 9/11 both discuss the scientific evidence, the later in some depth. As I have shown above, the response has been, “ forget the physical evidence, what about the circumstantial evidence”

Your assertion >> If the 9/11 truth movement are so wrong, then I would expect Shermer to have shot down Gage in flames.”

What? WTF? Your argument is that because one skeptic couldn’t totally convince you that something that didn’t happen, didn’t happen, the movement must be correct. Have you EVER thought how difficult it is to prove that you didn’t do something. In general, NOT doing something rarely leaves any evidence of its non-occurrence, funnily enough.

So Cacofonix, NONE of the 9/11 truth movements 5 most important points about that day relate to physical evidence. They are all circumstantial. What is the physical evidence, or have the so-called “truth” movement given up on that
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 10:20:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L, see my comment in the new discussion thread "9/11 Truth" at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#46009
Posted by cacofonix, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:26:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All

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