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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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?

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.