Analysis and discussion of elections and opinion polls in Australia
New Hampshire thread
In a probably vain effort to maintain order around here, I will henceforth be running separate threads for discussion of the US presidential campaign. Here’s the first.
Author: William Bowe
William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.
View all posts by William Bowe
Glen-
where to begin?
your statement “regardless of how the war began” implies that this has no relevance. You are utterly wrong. This war was morally and possibly legally the wrong decision and our government of the day supported it. This is a stain on our country, and has created a dangerous and unstable situation that has increased the threat of terrorism against our citizens, by increasing hatred of the west and allowing recruitment of young angry muslims by the jihadists.
I cannot think of a worse outcome for us than what we have done in Iraq, and we have not even begun to reap the consequences.
The Surge is irrelevant – whatever violence it “prevents” is temporary. Like the myth of the Hydra, for every head chopped off 100 grew.For every dead Iraqi, more hatred and revenge is sown in the hearts of the people who are left.
Brilliant.
This report from Princeton University is interesting.
This from the man who gave us Florida in 2000, Carl Rove and Diebold voting machines, message to George…… “cognitive dissonance”.
Basil,
the idea that there is any cognition at all ,dissonant or not, is a gross over estimation.
Jen, provide evidence the the war in Iraq has “increased the threat of terrorism to our citizens”.
jen @ 805
798
Artie B
“insurrectum”? No wonder they’re buggered!
I’m slightly curious:
Are you Lefties now a little bit dissappointed that violence in Iraq has plummetted to its lowest level since 2003? Or are you guys still in denial about this?
It basically means that you’ll have to put the anti-US schadenfreude on hold for awhile.
804
Basil Fawlty
Isn’t it a complete joy to see the Gulf States implement ‘democracy’ too? You know, the royal family picks the candidates in one for example.
They are all autocratic states, and as long as the US has the sheiks of those states complient and friendly (enough) to the US, they can run their sheikdoms like they always have.
Democracy it ain’t, but let’s not get too precious, because if George Bush says it’s democracy then it’s, well, a two-headed camel probably
“The vaunted decline in violence must also be put in perspective. There are still more than 575 attacks a week, well more than 2,000 a month. The number of attacks has declined only to early 2006 levels, one of the deadliest years of the war. Moreover, the drop cannot necessarily be attributed to the US military presence. As American officials on the ground have admitted, the move by Sunni groups to rein in Al Qaeda has made a huge difference. So has the decision by Muqtada al-Sadr to order his militia to stand down. Iran is also said to have used its influence to curb the violence by certain Shiite militias. They all had their reasons, unrelated to the American strategy, for trying to quell the violence. ”
By the way A-C, folks who have been unhappy about the war and the conduct of those prosecuting it are not ‘disappointed’ that less people are being killed and maimed. Probably more so just a little wary that those who used (I’m being generous here) very troubling evidence to go to war, then employed tactics which were demonstrable failures, are now promoting more of the same.
Unfortunaley A-C, the “evidence” will be there if there is an act of terrorism, and I hope to God there isn’t. However there is no doubt (and I ‘m not going to provide likns to all the articles etc: take your pick), that there is an increase of anti-western sentiment since the Iraq invasion, both inside Iraq ,and in other middle-eastern countries. This allows the jihadists to recruit more people to their cause, and therefore we are less safe. Or do you think that I am wrong about this?
Are you going to claim that the Iraq was has lessened anti- western sentiment????
809
A-C
Oh, another one! Don’t bother reading the arguments, just sit in front of Faux News (who brought you Saddam’s WMD, Mission Accomplished etc etc etc and all the pablum that spills from the feeble minded scribes of the Beltway), and give us ‘your’ researched ‘opinion’.
Go on, tell us, that Iraq is paradise, that the sectarian wars are over, and that the US can keep it’s bases there to eternity in peace and love.
Here’s the hard answer: The US cannot solve the sectarian problems of Iraq, even though their foolish invasion started it. There is no military solution, there is only the game of ‘whack a mole’, which they are playing now.
Now that the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Baghdad is complete (the Shiite population has grown considerably), and there are huge barriers around the remaing Sunni ones,and the provinces have mostly segregated, the stage is set. And it is NOT for a happy ending.
Politically, Iraq is stagnant, and even that law to allow some Ba’athists some low level jobs was OPPOSSED by the Sunni parties! (There was barely a quorom in the parliament by the way, and has hardly been for the last year or more, as most of the politiicians actually live outside the country most of the time.)
Sunni tribes are taking US money and arms, mostly under the pretext of killing the Salafi and Wahabbi nutters, but in reality they are also settling old tribal and gang rivalries, but hey, as long as there is a body count at the end of the day.
So, divided, walled, armed, politically moribund, and almost complete distrust across the sectarian divide.
Oh yes, and 2007 was the most violent year since 2003, but hey, the ‘surge’ has fixed everything?
And what draws in the Wahabbists? The occupation of Iraq by US troops. Pure and simple.
Take the US out of Iraq, and the strong magnet attracting every brand of jihadi crazy is gone, bin Laden cannot use it as recruiting material, and the Iraqi’s can get on with solving their own internal dispute without the Yanks constantly meddling in their politics (which they do on a daily basis, and have done from the beginning with hideous results).
Now, tell me, again, what’s ‘your’ opinion?
Thank you Kirribilli – succint, and erudite. And correct.
811
Pancho
Good point: if the Sunni’s will hunt down al Qaeda, then the argument that by leaving we give the country to bin Laden is pure and utter tosh.
Iraqi Sunni’s only allowed Wahabbists to oust the US until they realised that the Shia were a bigger threat.
So much for the ‘logic’ of Faux News talking heads.
Jen, I’m sure KR really appreciates your camaraderie and words of wisdom in his support.
BTW I love it when one Lefty calls another “erudite”, they really are a narcissistic bunch!
————————————————————————————————-
Looks like I really stirred the pot with post 809. The Iraq war is seriously a sore point for you ACTU members / Green-Left weekly subscribers. Among other things, it basically demonstrated how completely emasculated an irrelevant our “world government” (the UN) was and that decrypt body has continued the rotting process since.
Kirribilli, you really are a dolt. The sectarian problems in Iraq preceded the US invasion. They were fomenting for generations. Saddam only kept them in check through his iron grip on power. The vacuum following his overthrew made a confrontation highly likely.
The fact that Iraq’s various sects can sit in the one Parliament is a significant step towards co-existence.
[KR writes]: “Take the US out of Iraq, and the strong magnet attracting every brand of jihadi crazy is gone, bin Laden cannot use it as recruiting material, and the Iraqi’s can get on with solving their own internal dispute without the Yanks constantly meddling in their politics (which they do on a daily basis, and have done from the beginning with hideous results).”
Comprehension was evidently not one of your stronger suits in high school. If Al Qaeda was able to recruit Islamists “angry” enough to crash passenger jets into office buildings prior to the Iraq war, I really don’t think the act of toppling a secular dictatorship tremendously expanded their marketing base.
According to your “logic” (I’m using that word very loosely here) we should also pull out of Afghanistan because we might be making more people angry at us. I’m also guessing bombing Germany and Japan were bad ideas too, as they lead to a significant “escalation”.
V.true A-C, a lot of Neville Chamberlain’s on this blog at the moment.
AC- I’m going to have to point out that your logic is flawed.
You state “If Al Qaeda was able to recruit Islamists “angry” enough to crash passenger jets into office buildings prior to the Iraq war, I really don’t think the act of toppling a secular dictatorship tremendously expanded their marketing base. ”
Your phrase “I really don’t think” sums up the fact that your observation is a purely subjective one. Just because 19 people are fanatical enough to commit suicide-terror it does not follow that radical Muslims could not be further provoked by having their country invaded by “infidel agents of hate etc etc”. The technical term for your argument is a “fundamental attribution error”.
A-C, two quick points:
One, if you play a little more for the middle ground instead of opening up with ‘you ACTU members / Green-Left weekly subscribers’, you’d probably strengthen any point/s you wanted to make by actually having people read on.
Two, your argument that about ‘how completely emasculated’ the UN was holds to an extent. But the flipside of this episode has been to show that the incredible military power of the US can’t win every war, and the leadership of the US must use its immense power wisely and in consultation with others if it is to remain the great and respected nation we want it to be.
I don’t understand people who celebrate the breakdown of International Law and Institutions, particularly when those people are likely to be first to want to use them. Seems just stupid to me.
Ac
good to see that a different point of view comes on here every now and again
I fully support our involvement in iraq/afghanistan (didnt originally)
the problem is Perception versus reality
the real issue is: do we value our comforts (tv,mobile phones etc etc) versus our bleeding hearts.
Do not confuse an issue of imperialism versus modernisation
ps how many people here actually know an iraqi/afghani and have discussed with them the inherent problems that most posters (well meaning though they are) have no concept of.Viz equal rights ,standing of women etc
Diogenes, RE “fundamental attribution error”:
Christ, mate. I’m too embarassed to even consider posting on this blog from now on.
822 gusface 0 tell us about the people you actually know who are iraqi/afghani and the discussions you’ve had with them about the inherent problems.
A-C did claim
Looks like I really stirred the pot with post 809. The Iraq war is seriously a sore point for you ACTU members / Green-Left weekly subscribers. Among other things, it basically demonstrated how completely emasculated an irrelevant our “world government” (the UN) was and that decrypt body has continued the rotting process since.
The fact that Iraq got rid of its WMD proves that the UN inspection process worked just fine. Try and rewrite history all you want, but the truth is the UN was right, and you war mongers were wrong.
Comprehension was evidently not one of your stronger suits in high school. If Al Qaeda was able to recruit Islamists “angry” enough to crash passenger jets into office buildings prior to the Iraq war, I really don’t think the act of toppling a secular dictatorship tremendously expanded their marketing base.
It sees the US intelligence services don’t agree with your assessment:
Report: Iraq War Inspiring Terrorists
(CBS/AP) A declassified government intelligence report says the war in Iraq has become a “cause celebre” for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the United States that is likely to get worse before it gets better.
In the bleak report, released Tuesday on President Bush’s orders, the nation’s most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al Qaeda, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.
“If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide,’ the document says. “The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.”
The former director of the CIA’s National Counterterrorism Center, John Brennan, told CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric that intelligence community analysts are concerned that the conflict in Iraq is “fueling the fires of Islamic extremism inside Iraq and outside.
BTW-If you believe the occupation of Iraq is such a wonderful thing why haven’t you joined the war? I’m sure the Army would love to send you there.
Interesting how anyone having an opposing point of view re Iraq is labelled a ‘bleeding heart’. What a bloody put down that is.
Edit:
Looks like I really stirred the pot with post 809. The Iraq war is seriously a sore point for you ACTU members / Green-Left weekly subscribers. Among other things, it basically demonstrated how completely emasculated an irrelevant our “world government” (the UN) was and that decrypt body has continued the rotting process since.
The fact that Iraq got rid of its WMD proves that the UN inspection process worked just fine. Try and rewrite history all you want, but the truth is the UN was right, and you war mongers were wrong.
A-C Says:
January 14th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Jen, provide evidence the the war in Iraq has “increased the threat of terrorism to our citizens”.
A-C
I presume this statement is to wind people up, because even Bush’s dad can’t bring himself to say that Bush got Iraq right. The surge has cut reported violence in some provinces in the short term. As soon as it ends, things will be worse than ever. See Juan Cole’s “Informed Comment” for reasons why.
But the threat of terrorism generally has increased from the war in Iraq, and long before the surge. Only selective memory would suggest otherwise. Remember that back in late 2002 Al Quaida was pinned down in a mountain in Afghanistan and quite weak. Within 12 months of Iraq, they were mounting major opeartions in Bali and later Spain. There have also been London and second Bali bombings. And look at what else has been happening – Pakistan, Lebanon, Palestine – there are a lot more hothead out there, and I have no doubt that Iraq has enabled various organisations to recruit another generation of suicide bombers. The US may have kept its own shores safe for a while through draconian measures and trashing their own freedoms, but in teh long term it is a loosing game. I could quote Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, never mind any “lefties” as to why the whole war on terror is stupid adn self defeating.
Finally, on the whole left-right thing, that is your neurosis not mine. Just because I recognise that what calls itself right-wing politics is brain dead, doesn’t make me a marxist academic. I can call John Howard dishonest, and George Bush stupid, and still recognise that some Labor policies are wrong too. Don’t label the rest of us with your own obsolete boxes.
MayoFeral:
Congratulations. You have single-handedly destroyed every single pro-Iraq war argument put forward by every supporter on the planet.
-read my last paragraph on #817.
It’s a completely specious argument. Bombing Germany filled up their reserves with Volksturm and hitlerjugend. Of course waging war against your enemies makes them angrier. BTW: Notice we’re fighting Al Qaeda over there instead of here?
You really couldn’t help yourself with the “If you’re for the war why don’t you sign up” rubbish. It’s like saying you have to be gay in order to support
gay marriage
A-C – ‘Notice we’re fighting Al Qaeda over there instead of here?’
You’re not in Afghanistan and talking of Iraq are you?
No brilliance, I try to avoid the ABC’s method of referring to “our” country’s army as “Australian”
🙂 Sorry I wont try to use humour in future. Jump, and you might catch the point sailing over your head. Oops.
A-C I was merely pointing out to you that, if you are going to complain about other bloggers logic, you should use a logical argument yourself. Such as your counter-argument re gay marriage which is logical.
No prizes for guessing who said this
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
gary please quote in context not an isolated statement-makes your logic a bit fuzzy
I have no poblem with being laballed a “bleeding heart” over Iraq.
My heart does bleed for the now hundreds of thousands of dead innocents. And so should we all.
Even the Pope has spoken out aginst the war in Iraq. Hardly a left wing radical.
OK
so what if we didnt go in to iraq
what then
So who did you support in the TWO iran/iraq wars where over 500000 innocents were killed including child soldiers
or is that a little too hard to rationalise
gusface –
if we didn’t go into iraq we would not be complicit in a war that has killed the very civilians that it proported to be protecting from Saddam.
I do not support war except in self defence, and we were not under threat from Iraq.
well i’d feel better if we’d gone to war against the warlords in Africa at Darfur who’ve starved millions to death
but there’s no oil or statregic importnce there I guess
A-C’s insults are a poor substitute for thought, but judging from the calibre of the neocon claptrap he posts, it’s about on a par.
As most of it has been amply refuted by others, just one important point about Iraqi sectarianism:
All the neocon camp followers now try and rewrite Iraqi cultural history by asserting, incorrectly, that Iraqi’s were at each other’s throats before George Bush so kindly came and overthrew Saddam.
This is WRONG. Mixed marriages abounded, many tribes are actually mixed, and the average urban Iraqi hardly knew if his neighbour or workmate was from the same sect or not. Largely, it did not matter, and if you don’t believe me, go and read the Iraqis who commented about this from the beginning of the war. They were appalled that people they’d known all their lives suddenly distrusted each other, that the Iraqis were suddenly “Shia” or “Sunni”, or “Kurd” (although the latter are not Arabs, and so were always ‘outsiders’ to some degree).
And who promoted this? Paul J Bremmer, the CPA and every silly thought process of the invading armies. In other words, this was a ‘manufactured’ idea that had none of the horrendous impact it came to have before the invasion.
Sure, Saddam, a Sunni, favoured certain Sunni tribes, but there were Shia even in the Ba’ath Party.
I’ve read so many Iraqis lament what has happened to them, and so many were shocked when this sectarian war was unleashed on them.
Typical neocon tactic, unleash the dogs of war and then pretend it’s the victim’s fault.
Completely re-write the cultural history and then deny all moral responsibility. How utterly contemptable.
Gusface
you ask what if we didn’t go to war
Thats a “Howardism”.
We went to war because Sadam allegedly had WMD’s
We went to war despite UN and all other countries saying we were wrong to believe there were WMD’s (They believed their UN inspectors were correct)
Iraq is the easiest proven WRONG war in history
since there were no WMD’s in Iraq after all
For the record the other countries didn’t say there were no WMD’s, they accepted the expert evidence of Hans Blix that there was no evidence there was, and that further time should be allowed to confirm the negative.
For the record the US and UK (and then US) based on really very little very bad intelligence thought we knew better. Blix and the UN were amazingly right and insightful the coalition that invaded massively and stupidly wrong.
Also many many many commentators and experts predicted the massive trouble that would follow perfectly correctly and we believed the fanciful dominos of freedom and democracy dream of the stupid Neocons.
That they haven’t had the maturity courage or wisdom to admit these fundamental errors is key to the analysis of anything they have said or done since. These are demonstrably very stupid people without any credibility and they are still running the disaster.
Oh, sorry Gusface – let me supply the full quote. “ps how many people here actually know an iraqi/afghani and have discussed with them the inherent problems that most posters (well meaning though they are) have no concept of.Viz equal rights ,standing of women etc”
Now, tell us about the people you actually know who are iraqi/afghani and the discussions you’ve had with them about the inherent problems. You are the one who has changed his mind on the war. Something has persuaded you. If it’s not the
iraqi/afghani people you have discussed the inherent problems with then what was it? If you haven’t had such discussions the aren’t you committing the same “sin” you accuse others on the other side of the argument as committing?
I wonder if you can actually answer the question this time rather than hiding under the “you’ve taken me out of context” safety net.
Kirribilli Removals agree , they are trying to re-write history
Why ?
because the sole reason for going to war (the existence of WMD’s)
has been proven false.
As you correctly point out mate , the neocons are now trying to RETROSPECTIVELY change their reason for going to war by rewriting history.
I cann’t help feeling the existence of massive oil in Iraq and the close proximity of Iraq to Israel have had some impact.
Certainly the “Palestinian” issue gets secondary priority now
Correctio:
horrendous impact it came to have before the invasion.
should read….
horrendous impact it came to have AFTER the invasion.
A-C @ 829
It’s a completely specious argument. Bombing Germany filled up their reserves with Volksturm and hitlerjugend. Of course waging war against your enemies makes them angrier.
But there weren’t any Al Qaeda in Iraq until after the US/UK/Australian conquest! Invading Iraq was the equivalent of Britain invading Poland in 1939 rather than taking on Germany thus opening the way for German special forces to set up shop in Warsaw and allowing the Wehrmacht cart blanc in France.
I’m sure bin Laden is very grateful for your support for keeping American troops tied up in Iraq, just as he wanted. Keeps the heat off so Al Queda can destabilize Pakistan in relative peace and keeps the recruits coming. You might find the NY Times article Kirribilli Removals linked to in 790 instructive, particularly the laments of old guard Taliban about what is now happening in Pakistan.
BTW: Notice we’re fighting Al Qaeda over there instead of here?
Where is “here”? Madrid? London? Bali? Glasgow?
From an interview last year with Abduljabbar al Kubaysi, influential political leader of the Iraqi resistance and secretary-general of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance:
There is another striking example. Al Qaeda started in Falluja as the entire resistance started there. While it is a 100% Sunni town right after the beginning of the occupation about 12,000 Shiite families from the South took refuge in Falluja and Ramadi because they were accused of being Baathist. I was not only an eyewitness, but also involved in organising the relief for them. They were helped by the ordinary population because they regarded them as being with the resistance. Until today about 20,000 Shiite refugees remain in Falluja and not a single hostile act on sectarian base could be observed not even by al Qaeda. There certainly are quarrels between the resistance groups over domination, this is normal, but not on the basis of religion.
…so, it’s much more complex than the simple-minded Faux News talking heads and Whitehouse press releases would have us believe.
Anything coming from Glen or A-C on this subject is dribble, pure and simple.
Have I missed any US foreign policy success’s:
Pakistan
US propps up a Dictator with a ‘nuk’..home of numerous terrorists traning camps
Iran :
US propped up the despotic Shah then people kicked out the Shah AND the US
Lebanon:
was pro west & democratic..
but bombed back to the dark ages in 2005 as US remained silent
Afghanistan:
almost got rid of Tailban but when more important countrie like Iraq with oil needed the US , deserted Afghanistan 100% for the Tailaban to remuster
Gazza Strip :
had democratic elections…but US rejects the democratic victor
Saudi Arabia:
US propps up a despotic Royal Family …has massive oil supplys
Kuwait
US propps up a despotic Royal Family …has massive oil supplys
Egypt
US propps up a despot – the world’s largest ‘arab’ population
Iraq
US invades…finds no WMD’s…civil war starts & continues without an end
oops! Bit of a miscount.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs
Glen-
where to begin?
your statement “regardless of how the war began” implies that this has no relevance. You are utterly wrong. This war was morally and possibly legally the wrong decision and our government of the day supported it. This is a stain on our country, and has created a dangerous and unstable situation that has increased the threat of terrorism against our citizens, by increasing hatred of the west and allowing recruitment of young angry muslims by the jihadists.
I cannot think of a worse outcome for us than what we have done in Iraq, and we have not even begun to reap the consequences.
The Surge is irrelevant – whatever violence it “prevents” is temporary. Like the myth of the Hydra, for every head chopped off 100 grew.For every dead Iraqi, more hatred and revenge is sown in the hearts of the people who are left.
Brilliant.
This report from Princeton University is interesting.
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/summary.html
Good to hear that Shrub hasn’t lost his sense of irony, preaching democracy to the Arabs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7186346.stm
This from the man who gave us Florida in 2000, Carl Rove and Diebold voting machines, message to George…… “cognitive dissonance”.
Basil,
the idea that there is any cognition at all ,dissonant or not, is a gross over estimation.
Jen, provide evidence the the war in Iraq has “increased the threat of terrorism to our citizens”.
jen @ 805
798
Artie B
“insurrectum”? No wonder they’re buggered!
I’m slightly curious:
Are you Lefties now a little bit dissappointed that violence in Iraq has plummetted to its lowest level since 2003? Or are you guys still in denial about this?
It basically means that you’ll have to put the anti-US schadenfreude on hold for awhile.
804
Basil Fawlty
Isn’t it a complete joy to see the Gulf States implement ‘democracy’ too? You know, the royal family picks the candidates in one for example.
They are all autocratic states, and as long as the US has the sheiks of those states complient and friendly (enough) to the US, they can run their sheikdoms like they always have.
Democracy it ain’t, but let’s not get too precious, because if George Bush says it’s democracy then it’s, well, a two-headed camel probably
“The vaunted decline in violence must also be put in perspective. There are still more than 575 attacks a week, well more than 2,000 a month. The number of attacks has declined only to early 2006 levels, one of the deadliest years of the war. Moreover, the drop cannot necessarily be attributed to the US military presence. As American officials on the ground have admitted, the move by Sunni groups to rein in Al Qaeda has made a huge difference. So has the decision by Muqtada al-Sadr to order his militia to stand down. Iran is also said to have used its influence to curb the violence by certain Shiite militias. They all had their reasons, unrelated to the American strategy, for trying to quell the violence. ”
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071217/editors
By the way A-C, folks who have been unhappy about the war and the conduct of those prosecuting it are not ‘disappointed’ that less people are being killed and maimed. Probably more so just a little wary that those who used (I’m being generous here) very troubling evidence to go to war, then employed tactics which were demonstrable failures, are now promoting more of the same.
Unfortunaley A-C, the “evidence” will be there if there is an act of terrorism, and I hope to God there isn’t. However there is no doubt (and I ‘m not going to provide likns to all the articles etc: take your pick), that there is an increase of anti-western sentiment since the Iraq invasion, both inside Iraq ,and in other middle-eastern countries. This allows the jihadists to recruit more people to their cause, and therefore we are less safe. Or do you think that I am wrong about this?
Are you going to claim that the Iraq was has lessened anti- western sentiment????
809
A-C
Oh, another one! Don’t bother reading the arguments, just sit in front of Faux News (who brought you Saddam’s WMD, Mission Accomplished etc etc etc and all the pablum that spills from the feeble minded scribes of the Beltway), and give us ‘your’ researched ‘opinion’.
Go on, tell us, that Iraq is paradise, that the sectarian wars are over, and that the US can keep it’s bases there to eternity in peace and love.
Here’s the hard answer: The US cannot solve the sectarian problems of Iraq, even though their foolish invasion started it. There is no military solution, there is only the game of ‘whack a mole’, which they are playing now.
Now that the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Baghdad is complete (the Shiite population has grown considerably), and there are huge barriers around the remaing Sunni ones,and the provinces have mostly segregated, the stage is set. And it is NOT for a happy ending.
Politically, Iraq is stagnant, and even that law to allow some Ba’athists some low level jobs was OPPOSSED by the Sunni parties! (There was barely a quorom in the parliament by the way, and has hardly been for the last year or more, as most of the politiicians actually live outside the country most of the time.)
Sunni tribes are taking US money and arms, mostly under the pretext of killing the Salafi and Wahabbi nutters, but in reality they are also settling old tribal and gang rivalries, but hey, as long as there is a body count at the end of the day.
So, divided, walled, armed, politically moribund, and almost complete distrust across the sectarian divide.
Oh yes, and 2007 was the most violent year since 2003, but hey, the ‘surge’ has fixed everything?
And what draws in the Wahabbists? The occupation of Iraq by US troops. Pure and simple.
Take the US out of Iraq, and the strong magnet attracting every brand of jihadi crazy is gone, bin Laden cannot use it as recruiting material, and the Iraqi’s can get on with solving their own internal dispute without the Yanks constantly meddling in their politics (which they do on a daily basis, and have done from the beginning with hideous results).
Now, tell me, again, what’s ‘your’ opinion?
Thank you Kirribilli – succint, and erudite. And correct.
811
Pancho
Good point: if the Sunni’s will hunt down al Qaeda, then the argument that by leaving we give the country to bin Laden is pure and utter tosh.
Iraqi Sunni’s only allowed Wahabbists to oust the US until they realised that the Shia were a bigger threat.
So much for the ‘logic’ of Faux News talking heads.
Jen, I’m sure KR really appreciates your camaraderie and words of wisdom in his support.
BTW I love it when one Lefty calls another “erudite”, they really are a narcissistic bunch!
————————————————————————————————-
Looks like I really stirred the pot with post 809. The Iraq war is seriously a sore point for you ACTU members / Green-Left weekly subscribers. Among other things, it basically demonstrated how completely emasculated an irrelevant our “world government” (the UN) was and that decrypt body has continued the rotting process since.
Kirribilli, you really are a dolt. The sectarian problems in Iraq preceded the US invasion. They were fomenting for generations. Saddam only kept them in check through his iron grip on power. The vacuum following his overthrew made a confrontation highly likely.
The fact that Iraq’s various sects can sit in the one Parliament is a significant step towards co-existence.
[KR writes]: “Take the US out of Iraq, and the strong magnet attracting every brand of jihadi crazy is gone, bin Laden cannot use it as recruiting material, and the Iraqi’s can get on with solving their own internal dispute without the Yanks constantly meddling in their politics (which they do on a daily basis, and have done from the beginning with hideous results).”
Comprehension was evidently not one of your stronger suits in high school. If Al Qaeda was able to recruit Islamists “angry” enough to crash passenger jets into office buildings prior to the Iraq war, I really don’t think the act of toppling a secular dictatorship tremendously expanded their marketing base.
According to your “logic” (I’m using that word very loosely here) we should also pull out of Afghanistan because we might be making more people angry at us. I’m also guessing bombing Germany and Japan were bad ideas too, as they lead to a significant “escalation”.
V.true A-C, a lot of Neville Chamberlain’s on this blog at the moment.
AC- I’m going to have to point out that your logic is flawed.
You state “If Al Qaeda was able to recruit Islamists “angry” enough to crash passenger jets into office buildings prior to the Iraq war, I really don’t think the act of toppling a secular dictatorship tremendously expanded their marketing base. ”
Your phrase “I really don’t think” sums up the fact that your observation is a purely subjective one. Just because 19 people are fanatical enough to commit suicide-terror it does not follow that radical Muslims could not be further provoked by having their country invaded by “infidel agents of hate etc etc”. The technical term for your argument is a “fundamental attribution error”.
A-C, two quick points:
One, if you play a little more for the middle ground instead of opening up with ‘you ACTU members / Green-Left weekly subscribers’, you’d probably strengthen any point/s you wanted to make by actually having people read on.
Two, your argument that about ‘how completely emasculated’ the UN was holds to an extent. But the flipside of this episode has been to show that the incredible military power of the US can’t win every war, and the leadership of the US must use its immense power wisely and in consultation with others if it is to remain the great and respected nation we want it to be.
I don’t understand people who celebrate the breakdown of International Law and Institutions, particularly when those people are likely to be first to want to use them. Seems just stupid to me.
Ac
good to see that a different point of view comes on here every now and again
I fully support our involvement in iraq/afghanistan (didnt originally)
the problem is Perception versus reality
the real issue is: do we value our comforts (tv,mobile phones etc etc) versus our bleeding hearts.
Do not confuse an issue of imperialism versus modernisation
ps how many people here actually know an iraqi/afghani and have discussed with them the inherent problems that most posters (well meaning though they are) have no concept of.Viz equal rights ,standing of women etc
Diogenes, RE “fundamental attribution error”:
Christ, mate. I’m too embarassed to even consider posting on this blog from now on.
822 gusface 0 tell us about the people you actually know who are iraqi/afghani and the discussions you’ve had with them about the inherent problems.
A-C did claim
Looks like I really stirred the pot with post 809. The Iraq war is seriously a sore point for you ACTU members / Green-Left weekly subscribers. Among other things, it basically demonstrated how completely emasculated an irrelevant our “world government” (the UN) was and that decrypt body has continued the rotting process since.
The fact that Iraq got rid of its WMD proves that the UN inspection process worked just fine. Try and rewrite history all you want, but the truth is the UN was right, and you war mongers were wrong.
It sees the US intelligence services don’t agree with your assessment:
BTW-If you believe the occupation of Iraq is such a wonderful thing why haven’t you joined the war? I’m sure the Army would love to send you there.
Interesting how anyone having an opposing point of view re Iraq is labelled a ‘bleeding heart’. What a bloody put down that is.
Edit:
The fact that Iraq got rid of its WMD proves that the UN inspection process worked just fine. Try and rewrite history all you want, but the truth is the UN was right, and you war mongers were wrong.
A-C Says:
January 14th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Jen, provide evidence the the war in Iraq has “increased the threat of terrorism to our citizens”.
A-C
I presume this statement is to wind people up, because even Bush’s dad can’t bring himself to say that Bush got Iraq right. The surge has cut reported violence in some provinces in the short term. As soon as it ends, things will be worse than ever. See Juan Cole’s “Informed Comment” for reasons why.
But the threat of terrorism generally has increased from the war in Iraq, and long before the surge. Only selective memory would suggest otherwise. Remember that back in late 2002 Al Quaida was pinned down in a mountain in Afghanistan and quite weak. Within 12 months of Iraq, they were mounting major opeartions in Bali and later Spain. There have also been London and second Bali bombings. And look at what else has been happening – Pakistan, Lebanon, Palestine – there are a lot more hothead out there, and I have no doubt that Iraq has enabled various organisations to recruit another generation of suicide bombers. The US may have kept its own shores safe for a while through draconian measures and trashing their own freedoms, but in teh long term it is a loosing game. I could quote Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, never mind any “lefties” as to why the whole war on terror is stupid adn self defeating.
Finally, on the whole left-right thing, that is your neurosis not mine. Just because I recognise that what calls itself right-wing politics is brain dead, doesn’t make me a marxist academic. I can call John Howard dishonest, and George Bush stupid, and still recognise that some Labor policies are wrong too. Don’t label the rest of us with your own obsolete boxes.
MayoFeral:
Congratulations. You have single-handedly destroyed every single pro-Iraq war argument put forward by every supporter on the planet.
-read my last paragraph on #817.
It’s a completely specious argument. Bombing Germany filled up their reserves with Volksturm and hitlerjugend. Of course waging war against your enemies makes them angrier. BTW: Notice we’re fighting Al Qaeda over there instead of here?
You really couldn’t help yourself with the “If you’re for the war why don’t you sign up” rubbish. It’s like saying you have to be gay in order to support
gay marriage
A-C – ‘Notice we’re fighting Al Qaeda over there instead of here?’
You’re not in Afghanistan and talking of Iraq are you?
No brilliance, I try to avoid the ABC’s method of referring to “our” country’s army as “Australian”
🙂 Sorry I wont try to use humour in future. Jump, and you might catch the point sailing over your head. Oops.
A-C I was merely pointing out to you that, if you are going to complain about other bloggers logic, you should use a logical argument yourself. Such as your counter-argument re gay marriage which is logical.
No prizes for guessing who said this
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
gary please quote in context not an isolated statement-makes your logic a bit fuzzy
I have no poblem with being laballed a “bleeding heart” over Iraq.
My heart does bleed for the now hundreds of thousands of dead innocents. And so should we all.
Even the Pope has spoken out aginst the war in Iraq. Hardly a left wing radical.
OK
so what if we didnt go in to iraq
what then
So who did you support in the TWO iran/iraq wars where over 500000 innocents were killed including child soldiers
or is that a little too hard to rationalise
gusface –
if we didn’t go into iraq we would not be complicit in a war that has killed the very civilians that it proported to be protecting from Saddam.
I do not support war except in self defence, and we were not under threat from Iraq.
well i’d feel better if we’d gone to war against the warlords in Africa at Darfur who’ve starved millions to death
but there’s no oil or statregic importnce there I guess
A-C’s insults are a poor substitute for thought, but judging from the calibre of the neocon claptrap he posts, it’s about on a par.
As most of it has been amply refuted by others, just one important point about Iraqi sectarianism:
All the neocon camp followers now try and rewrite Iraqi cultural history by asserting, incorrectly, that Iraqi’s were at each other’s throats before George Bush so kindly came and overthrew Saddam.
This is WRONG. Mixed marriages abounded, many tribes are actually mixed, and the average urban Iraqi hardly knew if his neighbour or workmate was from the same sect or not. Largely, it did not matter, and if you don’t believe me, go and read the Iraqis who commented about this from the beginning of the war. They were appalled that people they’d known all their lives suddenly distrusted each other, that the Iraqis were suddenly “Shia” or “Sunni”, or “Kurd” (although the latter are not Arabs, and so were always ‘outsiders’ to some degree).
And who promoted this? Paul J Bremmer, the CPA and every silly thought process of the invading armies. In other words, this was a ‘manufactured’ idea that had none of the horrendous impact it came to have before the invasion.
Sure, Saddam, a Sunni, favoured certain Sunni tribes, but there were Shia even in the Ba’ath Party.
I’ve read so many Iraqis lament what has happened to them, and so many were shocked when this sectarian war was unleashed on them.
Typical neocon tactic, unleash the dogs of war and then pretend it’s the victim’s fault.
Completely re-write the cultural history and then deny all moral responsibility. How utterly contemptable.
Gusface
you ask what if we didn’t go to war
Thats a “Howardism”.
We went to war because Sadam allegedly had WMD’s
We went to war despite UN and all other countries saying we were wrong to believe there were WMD’s (They believed their UN inspectors were correct)
Iraq is the easiest proven WRONG war in history
since there were no WMD’s in Iraq after all
For the record the other countries didn’t say there were no WMD’s, they accepted the expert evidence of Hans Blix that there was no evidence there was, and that further time should be allowed to confirm the negative.
For the record the US and UK (and then US) based on really very little very bad intelligence thought we knew better. Blix and the UN were amazingly right and insightful the coalition that invaded massively and stupidly wrong.
Also many many many commentators and experts predicted the massive trouble that would follow perfectly correctly and we believed the fanciful dominos of freedom and democracy dream of the stupid Neocons.
That they haven’t had the maturity courage or wisdom to admit these fundamental errors is key to the analysis of anything they have said or done since. These are demonstrably very stupid people without any credibility and they are still running the disaster.
Oh, sorry Gusface – let me supply the full quote. “ps how many people here actually know an iraqi/afghani and have discussed with them the inherent problems that most posters (well meaning though they are) have no concept of.Viz equal rights ,standing of women etc”
Now, tell us about the people you actually know who are iraqi/afghani and the discussions you’ve had with them about the inherent problems. You are the one who has changed his mind on the war. Something has persuaded you. If it’s not the
iraqi/afghani people you have discussed the inherent problems with then what was it? If you haven’t had such discussions the aren’t you committing the same “sin” you accuse others on the other side of the argument as committing?
I wonder if you can actually answer the question this time rather than hiding under the “you’ve taken me out of context” safety net.
Kirribilli Removals agree , they are trying to re-write history
Why ?
because the sole reason for going to war (the existence of WMD’s)
has been proven false.
As you correctly point out mate , the neocons are now trying to RETROSPECTIVELY change their reason for going to war by rewriting history.
I cann’t help feeling the existence of massive oil in Iraq and the close proximity of Iraq to Israel have had some impact.
Certainly the “Palestinian” issue gets secondary priority now
Correctio:
horrendous impact it came to have before the invasion.
should read….
horrendous impact it came to have AFTER the invasion.
A-C @ 829
But there weren’t any Al Qaeda in Iraq until after the US/UK/Australian conquest! Invading Iraq was the equivalent of Britain invading Poland in 1939 rather than taking on Germany thus opening the way for German special forces to set up shop in Warsaw and allowing the Wehrmacht cart blanc in France.
I’m sure bin Laden is very grateful for your support for keeping American troops tied up in Iraq, just as he wanted. Keeps the heat off so Al Queda can destabilize Pakistan in relative peace and keeps the recruits coming. You might find the NY Times article Kirribilli Removals linked to in 790 instructive, particularly the laments of old guard Taliban about what is now happening in Pakistan.
Where is “here”? Madrid? London? Bali? Glasgow?
From an interview last year with Abduljabbar al Kubaysi, influential political leader of the Iraqi resistance and secretary-general of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance:
There is another striking example. Al Qaeda started in Falluja as the entire resistance started there. While it is a 100% Sunni town right after the beginning of the occupation about 12,000 Shiite families from the South took refuge in Falluja and Ramadi because they were accused of being Baathist. I was not only an eyewitness, but also involved in organising the relief for them. They were helped by the ordinary population because they regarded them as being with the resistance. Until today about 20,000 Shiite refugees remain in Falluja and not a single hostile act on sectarian base could be observed not even by al Qaeda. There certainly are quarrels between the resistance groups over domination, this is normal, but not on the basis of religion.
http://iraqresistance.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html
…so, it’s much more complex than the simple-minded Faux News talking heads and Whitehouse press releases would have us believe.
Anything coming from Glen or A-C on this subject is dribble, pure and simple.
Have I missed any US foreign policy success’s:
Pakistan
US propps up a Dictator with a ‘nuk’..home of numerous terrorists traning camps
Iran :
US propped up the despotic Shah then people kicked out the Shah AND the US
Lebanon:
was pro west & democratic..
but bombed back to the dark ages in 2005 as US remained silent
Afghanistan:
almost got rid of Tailban but when more important countrie like Iraq with oil needed the US , deserted Afghanistan 100% for the Tailaban to remuster
Gazza Strip :
had democratic elections…but US rejects the democratic victor
Saudi Arabia:
US propps up a despotic Royal Family …has massive oil supplys
Kuwait
US propps up a despotic Royal Family …has massive oil supplys
Egypt
US propps up a despot – the world’s largest ‘arab’ population
Iraq
US invades…finds no WMD’s…civil war starts & continues without an end