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
i ahve met and have as friends both refugees from iraq and afghanistan
Frazan was from afghanistan,awaiting a tribal marriage (she was 10) when her parents spirited her out of the country,she ended marrying an aussie afghan (remember the old camel herders that built our overland telegraph) and then went back (at least attempted to).upon finding that her family (and most reliies ) had been killed she has returned to OZ vowing never to leave-maybe it was the mysogny,living standards,denial of basic rights for females or just the fact that these middle eastern countries in the main are better suited to the middle ages.
her story and network of fellow refugees ALL tell the same story.ps she considers herself persian,not arab,not afghani not iraqi-go figure
i have drinks occassionally with 3 fellows who served in iraq (one was part1 also) and their view is quite instructive
coming from OZ with our inherent rascism etc they were amazed not just at the points made above BUT also how stratified(my words) Iraq is and possibly will be-from a scholarly point Iraq is state created by Britain to keep the Hashemites on side IT WAS NEVER A COUNTRY BEFORE
So please do a bit of research,and look around you at our Society-not great admittedly but a far sight better than what is over their-and if you truly believe in Human rights then you will understand that iraq/afghanistan is a battle that must be won
In order to help our resident red necks please talk slowly, don’t use big words or technical terms.
851
gusface
“then you will understand that iraq/afghanistan is a battle that must be won”
The real problem with that idea gusface is that none of the neocons, or anyone else for that matter, can define just what ‘win’ means in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter.
Like so much that has been said about them, the arguments are manufactured in binary terms, win/lose,Shia/Sunni, good/evil, religious/secular, jihadi/moderate but the realities are infinitely more varied and the transitions more shaded and complex.
Just what on earth does it mean to ‘win’ in Iraq? From whose point of view? Who gets to decide?
There are books being written on the subject that only scratch the surface! So whenever I hear the old ‘stay the course’ and ‘defeat the terrorists’ and all the other euphimisms for keeping an endless war of occupation going, I immediately distrust either the intelligence or the intention (or both!) of the speaker.
so an insightful response from Chris B
btw brains i have done my level best to comprehend the “poor iraq” line but failing anyone to contest
1female mutilation,forced marriage (around 10) and the fact that what you are born into is what you will stay in for the rest of your life
2.massive wealth power and privelege by the MALE only elite
3.lack of basic conditions forced on the many minorities (anyone remember the kurds,marsh arabs,zoroasterists etc)
i suppose i just get a redder neck (though i do use suncream)
855,
Gusface, you only have an argument once you show that the invasion has done anything to assist these people…
Um I wasn’t responding to anyone. Just making a joke.
Chris, please don’t comment unless you actually have something to say.
i suppose KR a win is where you get the fabric of society to a stage that it can elect and govern for all
perhaps the idea of turning iraq into its component states would go a fair way to achieving this
why the UN has not ultimate control is due to geopolitical considerations (russia,china) and not acase of it being an unjust war (ps all wars are unjust)
and KR dont go down the path of veiled insult (pun intended) as it demeans some good arguments you present
I actually read an article 2 pages back and thought I’d post here so he wouldn’t think I was pointing the finger.
Sorry Gus, it was not directed at you personally, but rather the lousy argument.
As for Iraq, it was probably THE most secular Arab state under the Ba’ath Party, and women were far more independent, better educated, and economically freer than nearly any other Arabs.
Allowing a stronly fundamentalist Shiite government to overturn that (and that’s exactly what they’ve done in spades) is a tragedy for that country. (Woman are violently attacked in the streets for not being covered, in Iraq, my god, this NEVER happened before the invasion).
There is no such notion now of a government for all, and that’s got a long list of causes, and prime among them is the US invasion. Ironic, huh? Ahmed Chalabi, for his own political advantage, sought to “de-Baathify” the government and civil services, and convinced Paul Bremmer of this urgent need. That began a Sunni backlash of colossal proportions, and has lasted to this day, and no doubt will last a heck of a lot longer.
Nup, a pro-Iranian Shiite government cannot ‘govern for all’, and that’s the tragedy of what the US has foistered upon all of Iraq in its naive attempt to cobble together a ‘democracy’.
In other words, the reality is infinitely more complex, and clobbering it with military force is like trying to nail mercury with a hammer…utterly futile.
gusface,
the point is tht while all the issues you raised are completely valid, bombing the crap out of Iraq, killing thousands upon thousands of civilians is NOT the way to resolve them.
And if you are going to ask me what is, then we will open a discusiion about the impacts of education, generational and cultural change , the role of the UN and so on. But we are discussing the merits of the US action inIraq. And there aren’t any.
An interesting piece by Patrick Cockburn from The Independent which appeared a little while ago – should be compulsory reading for anyone with even a vague interest in what’s really going on in Iraq. Cockburn is one of the few journos who’s been in Iraq virtually the whole time (from memory he arrived there about 6 months after the war started) – it seems to me they’re grooming him to be the next Fisk.
WMD’s are the reason for going to war. It was stated publicly by Bush & Howard
The reason had nothing to do with improving the lot of females or the population in general
What a pathetic argument which if true would be questioned why are not 130,000 US troops in Darfur , or in Kenya or in despotic Burma
Time has gradually destroyed the US’s Vietnam War policy as truth came out
The same will apply to Iraq
Ron @ 850 – Don’t forget that Iran had a secular, democratic government until the MI6/CIA lead coup that put the Shah in power. The Iranian government’s great ‘crime’ was believing that Iranians, not the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP) should control Iranian oil and have a greater share of the profits than they were getting – as little as 16% – and that was on very rubbery figures. The International Court of Justice had previously ruled that Iran could nationalise the oil industry and was entitled to a 50/50 split of the profits.
Also, Hamas won a majority in the Palestian parliament as a whole, not only in Gaza. But in Bushite World, democracy only counts if you vote for the US preferred candidates.
What I meant to say is time history has a habit of putting politicans ‘bull’ into truth.
1960’s ‘right wing’ politicans ‘bull’ about Vietnam was challenged by Labor only
Today Vietnam is universally viewed as a policy disaster
The same will in time apply to Iraq.
a war fought on a false reason , which has caused massive civilan lives and which has not only strenghened Iran
but increased the breeding ground for terorists & given them “practice”
862
Pathological Logic
That’s a good summary by Cockburn, PL, thanks for the link. I’ve always read his stuff, and Juan Cole too from before the invasion, and it still surprises me how totally ignorant most people are about Iraq. Nevertheless, it still does not stop them from sprouting the same half-baked, ill-informed tripe, year after year.
Speaking of Cole, for glen to accuse him of being anit-Semitic is trawling in the gutter of neoconservative bile. Cole is a fine academic, a man of immense principle, and has a colossal range of friends and collegues of every race, religion and creed.
Calling Cole an ani-Semite is appalling and deserves utter contempt.
ron
the WMD’s were false-nobody denies that
as i said before i was against the iraq war BUT have now changed my mind.
1.the real threat posed to the world by militant islamist who,much like pol pot did, want to take us back to year zero
2.the usa is far from saintly BUT i value a hot dog over a falafael.especially when i have the freedom to buy one anywhere anytime (i know its a bit spurious but you get the gist of what im saying
3.the chance to resolve,yes i said resolve,the errors made by both the ottoman and british empires
ps The reason had nothing to do with improving the lot of females or the population in general
What a pathetic argument
not according to every female i have spoken too about it (maybe time for a mysogny check)
gusface, given your previous posts on this site and Ozpolitics over the past 2 years, I’m actually quite surprised that you support both wars.
when it comes to literally a clash of civilisations i suppose one must take sides
also their has been a lack of historical depth to the analysis and considering socio-economic principle and practice i realised i was kidding myself supporting effectively the overthrow of our civilisation (it really is that fundamental once you get beyond BOTH sides spin)
btw A-C no side owns the moral high ground
so far from a rabid supporter i think i am just a pragmatist who does truly cherish our society (flawed as it is)
867 gusface- All those reasons you give are good but I don’t think the war is going to be successful in delivering any of them. The War on/of Terror is not going to be won by invading Iraq, which posed a minimal terrorist threat, compared with Pakistan, Syria, Palestine and Saudi Arabia (where most of the 911 terrorists came from). It’s just going to make it worse.
Another thing, pollbludgers, that BBC/ABC poll of Iraqis: 57% said attacks on US were OK.
So, tell me again, Iraqis really want the US in their country, regardless of sect???????
Nah, let’s ignore what they think, we have to stay there to save them from what? bin Laden?
Nothing like a neocon argument, it just goes round and round in circles.
857
William Bowe Says:
January 14th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Chris, please don’t comment unless you actually have something to say.
Damn, thats a bit hard William
Kirribilli Removals Says
Calling Cole an ani-Semite is appalling and deserves utter contempt
Kirribilli , the anti sementic argument is alway used for those who criticise Israel
in any balanced way
People then waste time like you did ! , arguing why they or Cole are not
anti sementic rather than the actual substance of your /Cole’s view
i suppose libya (gadaffi) just sort of,you know,happened,fell upon,whatever
its current stance 🙂
or maybe just maybe he sniffed the wind and realised that the great satan was not kidding and might just turn on him
lockerbie anyone?
873
Ron
I agree Ron, it’s the most abused term in the lexicon, but one point: I was not arguing with ‘glen’, I was putting my opinion of his appalling comment on the record.
‘glen’ removed himself from engaging with me forever by hurling abuse at a third party whom I happen to admire, and have invariably found a gentleman, and a very courageous and honest man. Something I seriously doubt could EVER be said about ‘glen’.
cheers
874
gusface
Conversely Gus, it could be argued that there was no need to invade Lybia, and that the economic pressure on that country had actually worked. Libya was moving in the right direction well before the invasion of Iraq. And, like Iraq, it’s WMD were of the same standard ie virtually non-existant, and they did not have the means to improve them.
Sorry, but that argument is a neocon talking point, and of the usual ‘standard’!
The US armed Iran under the Shah in the 70’s
The US armed Sadam in the 80’s
The US armed Musharraf in the 00’s
The US worries about a “persian’ nuke” (the ‘nuke’ presently does not exist)
whilst supporting an unpopular Dictator Musharraf in Pakistan which MAY
end up in anarchy with a “muslim nuke” (the ‘nuke’ presently does exist !)
Gusface you make me laugh. Do you REALLY think that the Americans went to war in Iraq, with the potential loss of tens of thousands of lives, (both western and middle eastern, of all ages), and more importantly, at a cost of 100 billion $US, out of the caring generosity of their heart?
AAAAHHAAHHAAHHAA.
Even most of the radical warmongering right have conceded that the war was a mistake.
I hate to break it to the Americans, but they don’t like you! I know that that may be hard to believe, but you have got to learn to take a hint!
My honest and blunt message to the Americans is this; forget about controlling Iraqs oil fields and LEAVE. The Iraqis will NEVER stop fighting You and themselves as long as their are foreign troops in their own country. So says Centre.
Its amazing all the things that have been said to have happened in Iraq have happened 100 times worse in Saudia Arabia, yet the US don’t invade Saudia Arabia. Where’s the’re democracy? The fund Madrases all over the world. 6 of the terrorist on the planes on 911 were from Saudia Arabia. None were from Iraq. Where’s the logic.
Sorry typo, should be they fund terrorism.
Again, Madrases.
I thought this was banned topic.
Gusface:
You don’t improve a peoples lot by killing several hundred thousand of them, so lets not pretend.
You don’t stop terror by giving several million several hundred thousand more reasons to want to see the end of the west, so lets not pretend.
One thing is for sure, the world is less secure and less perfect than it was 10 years ago. Fortunately the mad right wingers in the west are falling one by one, as they fall there is less of a reason for the mad right wingers in the east.
And when this latest round of the crusades is over, the world will not be perfect, it never was and never will be; but maybe the west will be killing less people.
On todays score has the west way out in front when it comes to the killing score. What twisted logic leads you to believe a mother or father in the east will be less bitter after losing a son or daughter than a mother or farther in the west.
It’s a bit sad that those that claim to be followers of Christ don’t actually follow his message.
are we talking about the same libya here KR
cos from my reading re muamar and his little islamist wet dreams actually was the hot bed of the nutoid element that so despoils the chance to come into the twentieth century for many of these countries
ps “Conversely Gus, it could be argued that there was no need to invade Lybia”
by turning i meant perhaps another missile strike or SF op (god knows they wereas tried a few times) but if invasion is your preferred option then i guess your mind made that choice not mine.
as for “neocon taling point” NO it is called analysis and argument
and KR i am no neocon (ask my “good” mates glen ,esj and a-c for those lines)
It’s not original Pollbludgers, but:
“It’s the economy,stupid”
My point being that in the US, the most pressing issue is no longer the war, (yep, it’s being declared a ‘victory’ by Bill Kristol for one, a neocon who has had every single thing wrong about Iraq from day one until today!), but the economy.
It really is the super-abundance of choice, eh? Which disaster concerns you the most: the futile occupation of an Arab country or the economy?
Take ya pick!
Maybe time to leave Iraq, metaphorically speaking, (and withdraw the army too for that matter), and concentrate on what is concentrating the mind of the US electorate the most, their own sinking predicament.
Each year the current US tactics for fighting “terrorism” lose more ground .
In 2007 , Afghanistan & Pakistan have worsened (Gaza without Fatah is worse)
In 2006 Lebanon was bombed into stone ages creating more dissidents
In 2005 Iran ‘isolation’ commenced
Diplomacy , an olive leaf and some aid seems to have Indonesia , the world’s largest Muslim country, accepting a reason to fight terrorism
Most of the above is quite peripheral to New Hampshire, methinks.
So what type of spin must the Americans use to enable them to stay in Iraq long enough to obtain control its oil fields and government?
I know, what a beauty, just say that if we leave before the job is done, the terrorists win. Brilliant!
Got some fools around here to believe it!
Interesting how Bush punished Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11) but is now rewarding Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden and 14 out of the 19 hijackers came from.
Nothing like tossing some more petrol near the fire to keep us all on our toes…
Aaaah……., this too will blow back and bite his derriere.
Thanks Megan, I just said 6. But 14 sounds right.
Women aren’t allowed to have a license to drive in Saudia Arabia.
Maybe Phil but then again maybe not.
‘One idea behind the war, it is clear, was to give America a big say in the future of this oil-flush nation. And, after all, we’ve never completely pulled our troops out of Germany or Japan either.
Does that mean that it is now legitimate in the mainstream media to say that oil was a motive in the U.S. invasion of Iraq? I doubt it. (Even more so, it is verboten to say that Israel was a motive, too. The war, of course, was about Iraq’s WMD, remember?) In any case, for your edification, the magazine goes on to say, rather dreamily:
Rice… laid out an eloquent vision of how she and Bush see their legacy. “Someday, people in Baghdad and Beirut and Cairo and, yes, in Tehran … will wonder how anyone could ever have doubted the future of liberal democracy in their countries. But most of all, they will remember fondly those fellow democracies, like Britain and the United States… who stood with them in their time of need.” Whether fondly or not, the Iraqis won’t have too much trouble remembering that the Americans were there. Why? Probably because the Americans won’t have left yet.’
Permalink
Ron, a small quibble, you left out the Kirkuk to Haifa oil pipeline above.
gusface – I see you’ve bought into the whole ‘Islamists want to enslave us all’ horse manure. Utter nonsense, but even if it were true, war might, repeat might, just about be justified if there was a reasonable chance of victory. So how do you think it’s going so far, bearing in mind that its already gone on nearly twice as long as it took to defeat the combined military might of Germany and Japan?
lockerbie anyone?
Not even the relatives of those who died at Lockerbie now believe Libya was responsible, or even that the bomb was put on board in Malta, as claimed. It was most likely taken on board in London, which is interesting given that a number of US intelligence officers joined the flight there.
In June, 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal after concluding that the Libyan intelligence officer found guilty of the alleged crime “may have suffered a miscarriage of justice”.
Isn’t it interesting how the downing of a passenger aircraft carrying mostly westerners justifies crippling sanctions and threats of war against a probably innocent country, but the downing of a passenger aircraft carrying Muslims resulted in some of the crew from the USN cruiser that shot it down being awarded combat citations and both the captain and weapons officer getting the Legion of Merit*. This is “awarded for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements.” Thats right, killing unarmed Muslims civilians is worthy of medals and citations.
And people wonder why some Muslims might not be so keen on us westerners…sheeeesh!
*Hilariously, the Legion of Merit takes precedence over a DFC, which, at least in the RAAF, requires doing a lot more than simply shooting down an Airbus. I wish I’d known this about 40 years ago!
I know it’s an unpopular topic but in tomorrow’s Repug primary in Michigan, McCain and Romney are absolutely locked at 50/50. The word is that if Romney doesn’t win in his home state, he’ll pull up stumps.
More blowback: Murders alleged to have been committed by veteran’s after returning from Afghanistan and Iraq have nearly doubled since 2001. In most cases the victims are family or loved ones of the alleged perpetrator who often has mental health issues. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009701209
Yet, while some of the candidates do refer to it on their websites, veteran’s mental health problems, and the shameful lack of treatment being offered, rarely gets a mention in the 2008 campaign.
However, we shouldn’t be too critical. There are still lots of ex diggers not getting adequate, much less quality, treatment too. 🙁
I never really understood the argument that islamist attacked the U.S due to their hatred of liberty and freedom? If it was purley about culture differences the last place they would want to attack would be the USA.
How many terrorist attacks have there been in Sweden, Norway,Finland, the Netherlands or Switzerland??
MayoFeral- I would hope that McCain is sympathetic. But beside the humanitarian argument for looking after vets, there is a fiscal one. Poor care for soldiers after WWI was responsible for an enormous ongoing loss of productivity and chronic disease burden for the participant countries, esp Germany. The resentment greatly helped Hitler, allowing him to harness the disenchantment into action. The less advanced countries like Turkey never got over having a huge population it couldn’t look after. It reminds me of dragon’s teeth.
Perhaps overconfident from my predicting Labor’s victory to within one seat in June of last year, I want to put on record some predictions re the US. I think John McCain will win the Republican nomination. If he doesn’t, the Republicans are not too bright. (I know saying that has created an opening.)
The Democrat nomination will depend on John Edwards. I think Hilary Clinton will finish first, Barack Obama second and John Edwards third. The questions will then be:
1) To whom will John Edwards release his delegates – Senator Clinton or Senator Obama?
2) Will the vice presidential nomination be his price?
Hi gary
i ahve met and have as friends both refugees from iraq and afghanistan
Frazan was from afghanistan,awaiting a tribal marriage (she was 10) when her parents spirited her out of the country,she ended marrying an aussie afghan (remember the old camel herders that built our overland telegraph) and then went back (at least attempted to).upon finding that her family (and most reliies ) had been killed she has returned to OZ vowing never to leave-maybe it was the mysogny,living standards,denial of basic rights for females or just the fact that these middle eastern countries in the main are better suited to the middle ages.
her story and network of fellow refugees ALL tell the same story.ps she considers herself persian,not arab,not afghani not iraqi-go figure
i have drinks occassionally with 3 fellows who served in iraq (one was part1 also) and their view is quite instructive
coming from OZ with our inherent rascism etc they were amazed not just at the points made above BUT also how stratified(my words) Iraq is and possibly will be-from a scholarly point Iraq is state created by Britain to keep the Hashemites on side IT WAS NEVER A COUNTRY BEFORE
So please do a bit of research,and look around you at our Society-not great admittedly but a far sight better than what is over their-and if you truly believe in Human rights then you will understand that iraq/afghanistan is a battle that must be won
In order to help our resident red necks please talk slowly, don’t use big words or technical terms.
851
gusface
“then you will understand that iraq/afghanistan is a battle that must be won”
The real problem with that idea gusface is that none of the neocons, or anyone else for that matter, can define just what ‘win’ means in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter.
Like so much that has been said about them, the arguments are manufactured in binary terms, win/lose,Shia/Sunni, good/evil, religious/secular, jihadi/moderate but the realities are infinitely more varied and the transitions more shaded and complex.
Just what on earth does it mean to ‘win’ in Iraq? From whose point of view? Who gets to decide?
There are books being written on the subject that only scratch the surface! So whenever I hear the old ‘stay the course’ and ‘defeat the terrorists’ and all the other euphimisms for keeping an endless war of occupation going, I immediately distrust either the intelligence or the intention (or both!) of the speaker.
so an insightful response from Chris B
btw brains i have done my level best to comprehend the “poor iraq” line but failing anyone to contest
1female mutilation,forced marriage (around 10) and the fact that what you are born into is what you will stay in for the rest of your life
2.massive wealth power and privelege by the MALE only elite
3.lack of basic conditions forced on the many minorities (anyone remember the kurds,marsh arabs,zoroasterists etc)
i suppose i just get a redder neck (though i do use suncream)
855,
Gusface, you only have an argument once you show that the invasion has done anything to assist these people…
Um I wasn’t responding to anyone. Just making a joke.
Chris, please don’t comment unless you actually have something to say.
i suppose KR a win is where you get the fabric of society to a stage that it can elect and govern for all
perhaps the idea of turning iraq into its component states would go a fair way to achieving this
why the UN has not ultimate control is due to geopolitical considerations (russia,china) and not acase of it being an unjust war (ps all wars are unjust)
and KR dont go down the path of veiled insult (pun intended) as it demeans some good arguments you present
I actually read an article 2 pages back and thought I’d post here so he wouldn’t think I was pointing the finger.
Sorry Gus, it was not directed at you personally, but rather the lousy argument.
As for Iraq, it was probably THE most secular Arab state under the Ba’ath Party, and women were far more independent, better educated, and economically freer than nearly any other Arabs.
Allowing a stronly fundamentalist Shiite government to overturn that (and that’s exactly what they’ve done in spades) is a tragedy for that country. (Woman are violently attacked in the streets for not being covered, in Iraq, my god, this NEVER happened before the invasion).
There is no such notion now of a government for all, and that’s got a long list of causes, and prime among them is the US invasion. Ironic, huh? Ahmed Chalabi, for his own political advantage, sought to “de-Baathify” the government and civil services, and convinced Paul Bremmer of this urgent need. That began a Sunni backlash of colossal proportions, and has lasted to this day, and no doubt will last a heck of a lot longer.
Nup, a pro-Iranian Shiite government cannot ‘govern for all’, and that’s the tragedy of what the US has foistered upon all of Iraq in its naive attempt to cobble together a ‘democracy’.
In other words, the reality is infinitely more complex, and clobbering it with military force is like trying to nail mercury with a hammer…utterly futile.
gusface,
the point is tht while all the issues you raised are completely valid, bombing the crap out of Iraq, killing thousands upon thousands of civilians is NOT the way to resolve them.
And if you are going to ask me what is, then we will open a discusiion about the impacts of education, generational and cultural change , the role of the UN and so on. But we are discussing the merits of the US action inIraq. And there aren’t any.
An interesting piece by Patrick Cockburn from The Independent which appeared a little while ago – should be compulsory reading for anyone with even a vague interest in what’s really going on in Iraq. Cockburn is one of the few journos who’s been in Iraq virtually the whole time (from memory he arrived there about 6 months after the war started) – it seems to me they’re grooming him to be the next Fisk.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3241904.ece
Or if that link doesn’t work:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/11/5769/
WMD’s are the reason for going to war. It was stated publicly by Bush & Howard
The reason had nothing to do with improving the lot of females or the population in general
What a pathetic argument which if true would be questioned why are not 130,000 US troops in Darfur , or in Kenya or in despotic Burma
Time has gradually destroyed the US’s Vietnam War policy as truth came out
The same will apply to Iraq
Ron @ 850 – Don’t forget that Iran had a secular, democratic government until the MI6/CIA lead coup that put the Shah in power. The Iranian government’s great ‘crime’ was believing that Iranians, not the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP) should control Iranian oil and have a greater share of the profits than they were getting – as little as 16% – and that was on very rubbery figures. The International Court of Justice had previously ruled that Iran could nationalise the oil industry and was entitled to a 50/50 split of the profits.
Also, Hamas won a majority in the Palestian parliament as a whole, not only in Gaza. But in Bushite World, democracy only counts if you vote for the US preferred candidates.
What I meant to say is time history has a habit of putting politicans ‘bull’ into truth.
1960’s ‘right wing’ politicans ‘bull’ about Vietnam was challenged by Labor only
Today Vietnam is universally viewed as a policy disaster
The same will in time apply to Iraq.
a war fought on a false reason , which has caused massive civilan lives and which has not only strenghened Iran
but increased the breeding ground for terorists & given them “practice”
862
Pathological Logic
That’s a good summary by Cockburn, PL, thanks for the link. I’ve always read his stuff, and Juan Cole too from before the invasion, and it still surprises me how totally ignorant most people are about Iraq. Nevertheless, it still does not stop them from sprouting the same half-baked, ill-informed tripe, year after year.
Speaking of Cole, for glen to accuse him of being anit-Semitic is trawling in the gutter of neoconservative bile. Cole is a fine academic, a man of immense principle, and has a colossal range of friends and collegues of every race, religion and creed.
Calling Cole an ani-Semite is appalling and deserves utter contempt.
ron
the WMD’s were false-nobody denies that
as i said before i was against the iraq war BUT have now changed my mind.
1.the real threat posed to the world by militant islamist who,much like pol pot did, want to take us back to year zero
2.the usa is far from saintly BUT i value a hot dog over a falafael.especially when i have the freedom to buy one anywhere anytime (i know its a bit spurious but you get the gist of what im saying
3.the chance to resolve,yes i said resolve,the errors made by both the ottoman and british empires
ps The reason had nothing to do with improving the lot of females or the population in general
What a pathetic argument
not according to every female i have spoken too about it (maybe time for a mysogny check)
gusface, given your previous posts on this site and Ozpolitics over the past 2 years, I’m actually quite surprised that you support both wars.
when it comes to literally a clash of civilisations i suppose one must take sides
also their has been a lack of historical depth to the analysis and considering socio-economic principle and practice i realised i was kidding myself supporting effectively the overthrow of our civilisation (it really is that fundamental once you get beyond BOTH sides spin)
btw A-C no side owns the moral high ground
so far from a rabid supporter i think i am just a pragmatist who does truly cherish our society (flawed as it is)
867 gusface- All those reasons you give are good but I don’t think the war is going to be successful in delivering any of them. The War on/of Terror is not going to be won by invading Iraq, which posed a minimal terrorist threat, compared with Pakistan, Syria, Palestine and Saudi Arabia (where most of the 911 terrorists came from). It’s just going to make it worse.
Another thing, pollbludgers, that BBC/ABC poll of Iraqis: 57% said attacks on US were OK.
So, tell me again, Iraqis really want the US in their country, regardless of sect???????
Nah, let’s ignore what they think, we have to stay there to save them from what? bin Laden?
Nothing like a neocon argument, it just goes round and round in circles.
Damn, thats a bit hard William
Kirribilli Removals Says
Calling Cole an ani-Semite is appalling and deserves utter contempt
Kirribilli , the anti sementic argument is alway used for those who criticise Israel
in any balanced way
People then waste time like you did ! , arguing why they or Cole are not
anti sementic rather than the actual substance of your /Cole’s view
i suppose libya (gadaffi) just sort of,you know,happened,fell upon,whatever
its current stance 🙂
or maybe just maybe he sniffed the wind and realised that the great satan was not kidding and might just turn on him
lockerbie anyone?
873
Ron
I agree Ron, it’s the most abused term in the lexicon, but one point: I was not arguing with ‘glen’, I was putting my opinion of his appalling comment on the record.
‘glen’ removed himself from engaging with me forever by hurling abuse at a third party whom I happen to admire, and have invariably found a gentleman, and a very courageous and honest man. Something I seriously doubt could EVER be said about ‘glen’.
cheers
874
gusface
Conversely Gus, it could be argued that there was no need to invade Lybia, and that the economic pressure on that country had actually worked. Libya was moving in the right direction well before the invasion of Iraq. And, like Iraq, it’s WMD were of the same standard ie virtually non-existant, and they did not have the means to improve them.
Sorry, but that argument is a neocon talking point, and of the usual ‘standard’!
The US armed Iran under the Shah in the 70’s
The US armed Sadam in the 80’s
The US armed Musharraf in the 00’s
The US worries about a “persian’ nuke” (the ‘nuke’ presently does not exist)
whilst supporting an unpopular Dictator Musharraf in Pakistan which MAY
end up in anarchy with a “muslim nuke” (the ‘nuke’ presently does exist !)
Gusface you make me laugh. Do you REALLY think that the Americans went to war in Iraq, with the potential loss of tens of thousands of lives, (both western and middle eastern, of all ages), and more importantly, at a cost of 100 billion $US, out of the caring generosity of their heart?
AAAAHHAAHHAAHHAA.
Even most of the radical warmongering right have conceded that the war was a mistake.
I hate to break it to the Americans, but they don’t like you! I know that that may be hard to believe, but you have got to learn to take a hint!
My honest and blunt message to the Americans is this; forget about controlling Iraqs oil fields and LEAVE. The Iraqis will NEVER stop fighting You and themselves as long as their are foreign troops in their own country. So says Centre.
Its amazing all the things that have been said to have happened in Iraq have happened 100 times worse in Saudia Arabia, yet the US don’t invade Saudia Arabia. Where’s the’re democracy? The fund Madrases all over the world. 6 of the terrorist on the planes on 911 were from Saudia Arabia. None were from Iraq. Where’s the logic.
Sorry typo, should be they fund terrorism.
Again, Madrases.
I thought this was banned topic.
Gusface:
You don’t improve a peoples lot by killing several hundred thousand of them, so lets not pretend.
You don’t stop terror by giving several million several hundred thousand more reasons to want to see the end of the west, so lets not pretend.
One thing is for sure, the world is less secure and less perfect than it was 10 years ago. Fortunately the mad right wingers in the west are falling one by one, as they fall there is less of a reason for the mad right wingers in the east.
And when this latest round of the crusades is over, the world will not be perfect, it never was and never will be; but maybe the west will be killing less people.
On todays score has the west way out in front when it comes to the killing score. What twisted logic leads you to believe a mother or father in the east will be less bitter after losing a son or daughter than a mother or farther in the west.
It’s a bit sad that those that claim to be followers of Christ don’t actually follow his message.
are we talking about the same libya here KR
cos from my reading re muamar and his little islamist wet dreams actually was the hot bed of the nutoid element that so despoils the chance to come into the twentieth century for many of these countries
ps “Conversely Gus, it could be argued that there was no need to invade Lybia”
by turning i meant perhaps another missile strike or SF op (god knows they wereas tried a few times) but if invasion is your preferred option then i guess your mind made that choice not mine.
as for “neocon taling point” NO it is called analysis and argument
and KR i am no neocon (ask my “good” mates glen ,esj and a-c for those lines)
It’s not original Pollbludgers, but:
“It’s the economy,stupid”
My point being that in the US, the most pressing issue is no longer the war, (yep, it’s being declared a ‘victory’ by Bill Kristol for one, a neocon who has had every single thing wrong about Iraq from day one until today!), but the economy.
It really is the super-abundance of choice, eh? Which disaster concerns you the most: the futile occupation of an Arab country or the economy?
Take ya pick!
Maybe time to leave Iraq, metaphorically speaking, (and withdraw the army too for that matter), and concentrate on what is concentrating the mind of the US electorate the most, their own sinking predicament.
Latest News from the Votemaster on the US election.
http://www.electoral-vote.com
Gusface , I left out my punchline from last blog
Each year the current US tactics for fighting “terrorism” lose more ground .
In 2007 , Afghanistan & Pakistan have worsened (Gaza without Fatah is worse)
In 2006 Lebanon was bombed into stone ages creating more dissidents
In 2005 Iran ‘isolation’ commenced
Diplomacy , an olive leaf and some aid seems to have Indonesia , the world’s largest Muslim country, accepting a reason to fight terrorism
Most of the above is quite peripheral to New Hampshire, methinks.
So what type of spin must the Americans use to enable them to stay in Iraq long enough to obtain control its oil fields and government?
I know, what a beauty, just say that if we leave before the job is done, the terrorists win. Brilliant!
Got some fools around here to believe it!
Interesting how Bush punished Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11) but is now rewarding Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden and 14 out of the 19 hijackers came from.
Nothing like tossing some more petrol near the fire to keep us all on our toes…
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080112/D8U4B3504.html
Aaaah……., this too will blow back and bite his derriere.
Thanks Megan, I just said 6. But 14 sounds right.
Women aren’t allowed to have a license to drive in Saudia Arabia.
Maybe Phil but then again maybe not.
‘One idea behind the war, it is clear, was to give America a big say in the future of this oil-flush nation. And, after all, we’ve never completely pulled our troops out of Germany or Japan either.
Does that mean that it is now legitimate in the mainstream media to say that oil was a motive in the U.S. invasion of Iraq? I doubt it. (Even more so, it is verboten to say that Israel was a motive, too. The war, of course, was about Iraq’s WMD, remember?) In any case, for your edification, the magazine goes on to say, rather dreamily:
Rice… laid out an eloquent vision of how she and Bush see their legacy. “Someday, people in Baghdad and Beirut and Cairo and, yes, in Tehran … will wonder how anyone could ever have doubted the future of liberal democracy in their countries. But most of all, they will remember fondly those fellow democracies, like Britain and the United States… who stood with them in their time of need.” Whether fondly or not, the Iraqis won’t have too much trouble remembering that the Americans were there. Why? Probably because the Americans won’t have left yet.’
Permalink
Ron, a small quibble, you left out the Kirkuk to Haifa oil pipeline above.
Refresher here – ‘The enemies of a free Iraq’
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_660.shtml
for what KR et al are on about.
Some of you may have seen this published as ‘What they’re dying for: Oil, lily pads and puppets’
ESJ, sorry not Neville, just not with you.
Oops permalink http://robertdreyfuss.com/blog/2006/04/newsweek_it_was_about_oil.html
gusface – I see you’ve bought into the whole ‘Islamists want to enslave us all’ horse manure. Utter nonsense, but even if it were true, war might, repeat might, just about be justified if there was a reasonable chance of victory. So how do you think it’s going so far, bearing in mind that its already gone on nearly twice as long as it took to defeat the combined military might of Germany and Japan?
Not even the relatives of those who died at Lockerbie now believe Libya was responsible, or even that the bomb was put on board in Malta, as claimed. It was most likely taken on board in London, which is interesting given that a number of US intelligence officers joined the flight there.
In June, 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal after concluding that the Libyan intelligence officer found guilty of the alleged crime “may have suffered a miscarriage of justice”.
Isn’t it interesting how the downing of a passenger aircraft carrying mostly westerners justifies crippling sanctions and threats of war against a probably innocent country, but the downing of a passenger aircraft carrying Muslims resulted in some of the crew from the USN cruiser that shot it down being awarded combat citations and both the captain and weapons officer getting the Legion of Merit*. This is “awarded for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements.” Thats right, killing unarmed Muslims civilians is worthy of medals and citations.
And people wonder why some Muslims might not be so keen on us westerners…sheeeesh!
*Hilariously, the Legion of Merit takes precedence over a DFC, which, at least in the RAAF, requires doing a lot more than simply shooting down an Airbus. I wish I’d known this about 40 years ago!
I know it’s an unpopular topic but in tomorrow’s Repug primary in Michigan, McCain and Romney are absolutely locked at 50/50. The word is that if Romney doesn’t win in his home state, he’ll pull up stumps.
More blowback: Murders alleged to have been committed by veteran’s after returning from Afghanistan and Iraq have nearly doubled since 2001. In most cases the victims are family or loved ones of the alleged perpetrator who often has mental health issues.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009701209
Yet, while some of the candidates do refer to it on their websites, veteran’s mental health problems, and the shameful lack of treatment being offered, rarely gets a mention in the 2008 campaign.
However, we shouldn’t be too critical. There are still lots of ex diggers not getting adequate, much less quality, treatment too. 🙁
I never really understood the argument that islamist attacked the U.S due to their hatred of liberty and freedom? If it was purley about culture differences the last place they would want to attack would be the USA.
How many terrorist attacks have there been in Sweden, Norway,Finland, the Netherlands or Switzerland??
MayoFeral- I would hope that McCain is sympathetic. But beside the humanitarian argument for looking after vets, there is a fiscal one. Poor care for soldiers after WWI was responsible for an enormous ongoing loss of productivity and chronic disease burden for the participant countries, esp Germany. The resentment greatly helped Hitler, allowing him to harness the disenchantment into action. The less advanced countries like Turkey never got over having a huge population it couldn’t look after. It reminds me of dragon’s teeth.
Perhaps overconfident from my predicting Labor’s victory to within one seat in June of last year, I want to put on record some predictions re the US. I think John McCain will win the Republican nomination. If he doesn’t, the Republicans are not too bright. (I know saying that has created an opening.)
The Democrat nomination will depend on John Edwards. I think Hilary Clinton will finish first, Barack Obama second and John Edwards third. The questions will then be:
1) To whom will John Edwards release his delegates – Senator Clinton or Senator Obama?
2) Will the vice presidential nomination be his price?
One of the better campaign adds …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo