Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Imagine...
Last night I was duped, along with at least two other Websites, into publishing the following hoax speech under John Howard's name. I do wish I'd done it on April 1 because then I could pretend to be very clever rather than a mere oaf, or at least hopelessly vulnerable to hope.
When several people pointed out it was a hoax (and a couple commented gobsmacked), I took the post down of course. I publish it now as a record of the amusing episode, as a way of taking responsibility for the mistake, and as, well... some of us would just like to imagine... I include the original introduction and the comments.
Thankyou to Webdiarist John Richardson for bringing this address from our Prime Minister to the Deakin Society to my attention. You can find it here. Here's JR's introduction: "First Francis Fukuyama, then Tony Blair and now, here it is: a soul searching speech from the rodent on Iraq – as close to a mea culpa as we’re ever likely to get. Maybe he has been taking too many red ones?"
12 March 2006
Transcript of the Prime Minister the Honourable John Howard MP, Address to the Deakin Research Centre, Canberra
"Reflections on the situation in Iraq"
During our recent celebrations of the Coalition's ten years in power, I have, as Prime Minister, been publicly reflecting on our Party's many great achievements, as was appropriate to do. But on this occasion, among old friends and senior colleagues, I wish to share some unsettling thoughts about the situation in Iraq.
Three years ago in Sydney, when I spoke to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, who were gathered on the deck of HMAS Kanimbla, I felt that above all other Australians, they were entitled to know from me why it is that the Government had asked them to go to the Persian Gulf and face the armed forces of a dangerous dictator.
I said then that all the intelligence material collected over recent times, to which Australia had contributed, proved overwhelmingly that Saddam Hussein had maintained his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and that he was on the brink of nuclear capability. This posed a real and unacceptable threat to the stability and security of our world. I said that unless Iraq was disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction totally and permanently then the Middle East would remain a powder keg, waiting for a match.
I sincerely believed that was true - on the best intelligence and advice that was available at that time. On February, 2003, I told Parliament, that disarming Iraq would bring enormous benefits to the Middle East and be widely welcomed throughout the world. Unfortunately, our expectations in this matter have not yet been realised. Even so, I have continued to hold firm to our commitment, despite the ups and downs of the occupation, because our alliance with the US is vital to the security of Australia.
On May 19, 2004, after my return from a visit to Baghdad, I told the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne that the situation in Iraq was rapidly improving. That the north of the country was relatively peaceful and most of the south was reasonably stable. I pointed out that Iraq was 'no longer ruled by a loathsome and homicidal dictator, and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved'. I sincerely believed that at the time.
There had been so many encouraging signs of progress. Let me re-iterate some of the signs I mentioned in 2004, and reflect on the situation from today's perspective, as we approach the third anniversary of the occupation.
I said then that electricity, water, telephone and sanitation were gradually being restored to pre-war levels or above. Sadly, this did not happen. As of February this year, 125 projects to provide electricity have been cancelled. Of the 136 projects that were originally pledged to improve Iraqi water and sanitation, only 49 will be ever finished.
I said then that six major water treatment plants had been rehabilitated. Perhaps I should have pointed out that these plants had previously been destroyed by British and US bombs during the 12 years of UN sanctions against the Hussein regime. Today, the water situation in Iraq is dire. Billions of dollars have been shifted from rebuilding vital infrastructure to guarding the borders of Iraq.
I said that all 240 hospitals as well as 1,200 health clinics were fully operational, which was the advice we had received from the then administrator, Mr Paul Bremer. Unfortunately, this turned out to be overly optimistic. On November 2004, at the start the coalition¹s pacification of the city of Falluja, the city's General Hospital was occupied by US troops and - I am sorry to say - that hospital staff were handcuffed and some patients were dragged from their beds; perhaps for good reasons. Snipers were posted on the roof of the building and ambulances were strafed. On November, 6, the BBC reported that US air strikes had reduced the newly built Nazzal Emergency Hospital to rubble.
One doctor reportedly told Reuters, and I quote: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja. We had one ambulance hit by US fire and a doctor wounded. There are scores of injured civilians in their homes whom we can't move. A 13-year-old child just died in my hands." Now I do not wish to labour the point. But it should be conceded that an impartial examination actions of the Coalition of the Willing during operations in Falluja has raised uncomfortable issues for our Government. On the face of it, the Geneva Conventions and core articles of the UN Declaration on Human Rights have been ignored. During the siege of Falluja, many Iraqi women and children were caught in the line of fire and some civilians were shot as they tried to swim across the Tigris. It has even been reported that weapons of dubious legality were used in Falluja, such as cluster bombs, napalm, incendiary white-phosphorus and thermobaric, or "fuel-air" explosives, which can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation.
The International Red Cross estimates that at least 60% of those killed in the assault on the city were women, children and the elderly; a pattern of destruction that has persisted throughout the occupation of Iraq, and, as much as we would like to shut our eyes, this has served to boost the recruitment of insurgents and harden their resolve. In May last year, the city of al-Qaim near the Syrian border was the target of a major offensive known as Operation Matador, which resulted in hundreds of Iraqi casualties. This operation also displaced thousand of civilians, destroyed entire neighborhoods, polluted water supplies and put one hospital out of action. Six months later in al-Qaim, Operation Steel wiped out the General Hospital, other medical centers, some mosques and schools, even the electricity station.
These are the facts. There are many more examples. And they raise serious concerns for the future predicament which our Government and our party may find ourselves facing. We have been lucky up to this point, because the full extent of the mayhem resulting from our U.N sanctioned occupation has not been dwelt upon by the Australian media. You can draw your own conclusions why this is so. However, having been kept well briefed on the conflict by our intelligence agencies, and I can assure you that many unpleasant details are still to emerge.
Also, on a personal note, it would be inaccurate for me to maintain that the events unfolding during course of the occupation have left me unmoved. It has long been my habit to keep aquainted with opinions opposed to my own, and to canvas a wide range of views. If an edited version of this talk is made available, it may reference sources from the internet.
Under international law, all military forces owe a 'duty of care' to the civilians of an occupied city. And I am starting to ask myself if this is a commitment we have betrayed. In fact, I dare to wonder if we have betrayed the very ideals that I invoked in my support of the invasion.
In my 2004 speech to the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, I said that, 'Iraq now has a growing and robust independent media, which is absolutely essential for the development and maintenance of a healthy democracy'. Well, I am afraid that was a little premature. Our US partners thought it necessary to suppress the more irresponsible organs of opinion. Several editors were arrested. And while I accepted assurances from our allies that the bombing of the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera in 2003 was an accident, I must say, that in light of the recent unearthing of the Downing Street memo, the contents of which are available to my Government, I now hold grave doubts about the official story. All told, since the start of hostilities in Iraq, it appears that 82 media personnel have lost their lives.
I must say, that it came as a surprise to members of my Government when General George Casey recently re-asserted the right of the US military to plant paid-for stories in the Iraqi press. We believe this sets an unfortunate precedent, in that it may lead to suspicion among Iraqi citizens that that the West prefers a paid press to a free press.
I also noted in my 2004 speech that 'Australia had helped to re-establish the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, [and] set up a payments system for the 2003 harvest and used our experience to help Iraqi farmers bring in the bumper summer grains harvest'. Perhaps I should have been more forthright about that experience. For many years the Australian Wheat Board has been helping the Iraqi Government bring in bumper summer grains from Australia. We have achieved this by channelling millions of dollars of hidden commissions into the coffers of the man previously described as a loathsome and repellent dictator. To be frank, we had been privately funding a regime that we publicly claimed was a threat to the world, and I can see now that this might lead some people to question our probity.
All in all, since the war began I have consistently maintained that the situation in Iraq was measurably better than it was under Saddam Hussein.
I held to this belief even during the dark days of the Abu Ghraib abuses, which caused many in the region to question whether democracy would make the slightest difference. But I strongly argued at the time that the difference would be apparent for all to see, because the victims of abuse would not only able, but would be encouraged to speak out, to seek redress and to find justice.
Sadly, very few victims have been able to find justice. And those senior figures who issued the orders to turn up the heat on detainees, have not been properly investigated. In the matter of our own citizen, David Hicks, who remains to this day Guantanamo Bay, often in solitary isolation, it is becoming increasing difficult to distinguish his predicament from that which would have faced a prisoner of Saddam Hussein. I believe the Department of Foreign Affairs has been remiss in accepting the assurances of some US officials at face value.
I speak to you here openly, and with sadness. I have no intention of repeating or elaborating these remarks outside this room. For decades, many of you have stayed loyal the principles of our Party. However, it is not wise for any leader to mislead himself, and I have no wish to mislead you. Like our good friend Tony Blair, I too admit to episodes of anguish. I worry the situation is getting worse. Not only in Iraq, but elsewhere in the world. You will of course be making up your own minds as you watch the news in the coming weeks.
I note that the latest US Country Reports on Human Rights concedes that in Iraq, 'civic life and the social fabric remain under intense strain from the widespread violence'. The US ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, has said we have 'opened a Pandora¹s box in Iraq'. There is mounting evidence of arbitrary detention and torture committed by government forces, both police and military.
During my recent trip to India, also horribly touched with extremist violence, I was reminded by their soft spoken Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, that the British had seriously erred by clinging too long to their former colony. Despite widespread opposition to their presence, British politicians continued to insist that their departure would lead to chaos. Dr Singh said, 'But it would be our chaos, don¹t you see?' At that moment I understood what he was saying.
There is tremendous pressure from the US for our troops to remain in Iraq, and of course mutual loyalty is a vital component of the alliance. But the longer the Coalition of the Willing remains, the more we are detested, and the more blood is shed. The country is already tearing itself apart, so I am asking you, could our departure really make it any worse?
Perhaps it is time for Iraqis to regain control of their future, and for the coalition of the willing to be willing to leave the stage. When I say this, I speak as a troubled private citizen, and not as the Prime Minister of Australia.
Flying home from India, I started to ask myself what a leader like Mahatma Gandhi would do, but I feared I would not be able to live up to the answer, unless I have some wise advice form my longtime friends. Please look into your hearts and let me know what you find.
Thank you.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
metagooglics & deadlinks' murder
True paranoids just know, that not only are 'they coming to get you', but they're eating your bread-crumb trail on the way.
On the internet, this last might show up by the disappearance of material - Ta ra! - Exactly as in the case of my 'Killing and mass murder' A-bomb deadlink to free.freespeech.org, perhaps. If you try to go there, you are re-directed to freespeech.org, which looks nothing like the original, nor does it (the new site) contain my 'missing content' (as far as I can tell - how do you prove a negative? ie. Q: How does one prove Iraq has no WMDs? A: not by illegally invading; but just by "Leave it to Blix!" That would'a done it, OK?)
Interesting as well; if you Google to try to locate the A-bombdecision.html page, you find this:
Web Results 1 - 2 of 2 English pages for "A-bombdecision". (0.51 seconds)
Did you mean: "A-bomb decision"
Sites Omitted from Google SafeSearch - "F" http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/A-bombdecision.html Verify omission of this site individually and using keyword searches: ... http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/google-safesearch/sites-F.html - 264k
If you go here [cyber.law.harvard], you'll find that the site I wanted is one listed by some academic(s) as being blocked by the 'safesearch' function (which I hadn't selected), but which, meant to block porn as it is, has no business blocking any A-bomb decision stuff in the 1st place - one might'a thunk.
Long story short: all the 'freespeech' stuff I saw has gone, presumably flushed down the data-black-hole gurgler.
Just wheels within wheels - or malice aforethought? (Q: whose interests would be served; who could do it? What might'a happened, do you reckon, to the 'original' site owners? Brrr...)
Oh bother
Malcolm, in fact it was you who "bothered" me ("Before you go...").
Define "implicitly".
Your account of "the correct jurisprudential characterisation of a legal system" is eagerly anticipated. A fresh kilometrico red pen is at my disposal.
Killing and mass murder
Aw Malcolm, just look at what you've done, and these only in the very first para:
What is this? Your pettifogging1 at its most perfect?
I'm not too worried about Malcolm's supposed sarcasms, more about his lack of stick-to-it-ivity.
"The point you seem to miss is that there are legitimate reasons for killing."
Point of order: we are not talking about any old killings here; we are talking about mass-murder in Iraq (with Iran and possibly nukes yet to come?).
Malcolm is incorrectly detecting a religious flavour; I'm “following” the lead given by B, B and H: that we live in a so-called (by them) Christian society, and that each of B, B and H claims to be Christians, therefore the possible “special” status of “Thou shalt not kill”. The latest crassness from Bliar is that he expects to be judged “in Heaven” - arrrgh! (["Anti-war campaigners have criticised Tony Blair after he suggested his decision to go to war in Iraq would ultimately be judged by God"])
As for murder vs. killing, it has possibly escaped Malcolm's notice that a, if not the, subtitle to my work since first hearing of the Yanks' proposed "Shock and Awe" is: “murder for oil”. I have just checked one of my archives. The phrase occurs first on 3 June 03 and 117 times, murder alone first on 11 March 03, and 251 times and oil alone first on 19 March 03, and 341 times – this is by no means an exhaustive count.
Malcolm's two paras on the A-bombing of Japan indicate a fair summary of “the pushed paradigm”. I don't suppose that evidence (acceptable for use by some denizen of a Darlinghurst courtroom) to the contrary to be readily available – do you? A “smoking gun” (mushroom cloud), or a confession of such import? – but there is lots'a stuff, whether simply “anecdotal” or whatever, to be found on the net. [You could start here – Oops! website gone2.]
One phrase of Malcolm's here is intriguing: "Lots of Japanese citizens (you call them innocent but that, except in the case of children, may be debatable)…” – Ahem! Just how much say did the average Japanese man-in-the-street have? About as much as Phil-in-the-street before Howard sent us to war? And would that make me not innocent? Perhaps that's why, along with "No war!”, some of us said "Not in my name!"?
To be continued. It's enough for now; weekends are for family.
But one last thing: "Climbing out of the slime might be a difficult thing since war and aggression will always be with us."
Isn't this total defeatism? I ask again, what are we here (in WD) for? If everything is OK as it is then there's nothing to do; should we just pack up and go home?
Refs:
1. pettifog v. (-gg-) 1 practise legal trickery. 2 quibble or wrangle about trivial points. [origin unknown]
2. The website was:
[dead link://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/A-bombdecision.html]
It referred to a book: The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb by Gar Alperovitz. [See the intro here].
From that intro:
A few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed, Admiral William D. Leahy went public with the following statement:
Leahy was not what one might call a typical critic of American policy. Not only had the five-star Admiral presided over the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (and, too, the Combined American-British Chiefs of Staff), but he had simultaneously been Chief of Staff to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, serving Roosevelt in that capacity from 1942 to 1945 and Truman from 1945 to 1949. Moreover, he was a good friend of Truman's and the two men respected and liked each other; his public criticism of the Hiroshima decision was hardly personal.
and:
In the midst of the Cold War--shortly after his famous Farewell Address criticizing the "military-industrial complex"--Eisenhower also went public with a statement about the Hiroshima decision. Recalling the 1945 moment when Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used against Japanese cities, Eisenhower stated:
Something clearly had caused Leahy and Eisenhower to break the unwritten rule that requires high officials to maintain a discreet silence in connection with controversial matters about which they have special knowledge.
[from Phil: take it or leave it; you can find anything on the net... or so they say, it's why I always try to provide “quality” links.]
A fool with a good heart
Dear Hamish, I have just read the piece you took for true and am partly mystified at two points. First that you could be silly enough to mistake that for what you did. I guess your bullshit antennae is not as good as could be. I think this may have something to do with why you wanted to believe it. You and such a large proportion of people on this forum.
Hamish: I have to plead guilty, but I was extremely skeptical and went to the website and checked the links (the replication was very clever). Obviously I didn't check carefully enough.
I can honestly say that I have always thought the American desire to go into Iraq doomed. I can honestly remember thinking it was likely but sad in the Summer of 2001-2. Knowing a little about the American frame of mind, politics and economy it looked highly likely even though they were probably still only planning for it.
Possibly they are planning to go into Iran as we think also. Given the nature of the result of Iraq today I feel that Iran, although possible is less likely than Iraq.
I say all this because I also felt at this time that Australia had to go with America if it went into Iraq. Our own security depended on it. The reason I came to this decision was that the bigger issue was the eventual challenge America was going to face from China. We will in my opinion want to be on America's side in this challenge to their dominance. Betraying Western nations is not an option I can recommend, especially the US given the amount we have in common. Regardless of how wrong you think the Americans are at the moment, they are practically family.
So what do you do when a family member is being belligerent? I suggest you stay the course with them through their difficult times until you finally manage to influence them against their destructive course of action. I personnally think the Australian government has been doing an awesome job. This is an amazing tightrope act with incredibly dire repercussions.
So I recommend many people of this forum to have a deeper look at the difficulties of government or at least stop rattling on like fools. Given that Condi Rice and the Japanese Foreign minister have just come to our shores on I suspect very important business, I ask you whether you really think they would be here if we had taken the approach of New Zealand and Canada.
Of course there really could be a conspiracy and the people of this forum are just poor suffering dupes who really are smarter than our representatives.
US or China - which should be our ally?
I would like to agree with you that we would logically ally with the US (treaty or no treaty) in a military action against China but would we?
Our government has on three occasions opposed US wishes and voted for China’s interests in the last three years, very surprisingly.
Is it in the interest of our nation to militarily ally in such an event?
Might seem a silly question but consider: if the result is obvious would we not ally with the winner or at least abstain?
We are no longer riding upon the sheep's back. But without the Chinese boom we would be in deep trouble with no manufacturing left and the US keenly competing with our agricultural products.
Whom should we ally with?
Such a war will never happen anyway unless one side has determined that it will win and survive, or is contaminated by a leadership for whom the latter consideration is irrelevant or has faulty intelligence or the use of such. Scary so far?
Economically the US is stuffed and China owns a majority of the previous bond releases (with Japan, and the Bahamas / mafia, probably), with an unserviceable debt and a war of attrition building in Iraq miring resources and destroying international prestige and reputation both militarily and on human rights. (The UK is sitting pretty watching it all).
US manufacturing has been pretty much moved to China. The US market for the goods will dry up soon if the real estate bubble which has been providing the loan equity for soft products bursts there as here. US manufacturers are facing bankruptcy competing or removing social obligations for workers. Too late for GM, one suspects.
Energy for the US is unstable. Venezuela provides about a third of the gas and may pull the plug. Alaska will now be drilled and has already had a big oil spill. Antarctica is a target, one suspects, for the same reasons Alaska is. What are current local US reserves?
China has access to Russian, Turkmenistan, and Iranian reserves as well as Sakhalin fields. As well as Indonesia and Australia and East Timor.
Human rights and international respect for laws – the two are interchangeable, both taking what they want.
Language – well, that seems to be the only discriminator, and how quickly can we all learn Mandarin? Can anyone understand American anyway?(joking, about their dubbing our films).
So – just to be a devil's advocate – is it so definite that it would be in the nation's interest to go all the way (down) with the USA?
Cheers
PS Obviously nuclear war is a quick event. Better to not be one of the targets there anyway.
Suspect, if anything happened, it would be a bio war from one side (US) – all denied and under the cover of a "natural mutation". The selective bio response would leave a new demographic in the world.
Let' just stick to trade wars, so much less terminal for our species and planet.
As a final comment , the Taiwan issue is "easy" to sort out. Send all the imperialist Chinese who took over when kicked out of China and both groups would be satisfied. Better than a world war but less than peaceful coexistence.
There's domestic law, international law, and....
Malcolm, as a lawman you ought to know that various international covenants and conventions to which Australia is signatory are scheduled or otherwise given effect in various bodies of legislation in this country. Look at the HREOC Act 1986 for one (check out Schedules 1-5, folks).
Thus international law is to an extent "part of domestic law".
Malcolm, are you able to summon the forbearance to tell me whether you think the extent to which international law has been given effect in Australian domestic law has been adequately tested through the judicial system?
The Need to Know
I'm a lawyer, not a lawman. Yes (as I implicitly acknowedged in my last post), some international covenants apply as part of our domestic law. (How's your grandmother on sucking eggs?) They are relatively few compared to the legions of drivel put out by the UN and the most significant of them deal with trade and international boundaries not playschool "human rights" to which most of the countries who voted for them pay no attention whatsoever.
As to your last question, the short answer is no. The reason for that answer is (a) it depends on what you mean by "adequately" and (b) it all depends on whether a justiciable issue has arisen. There are lots of cases where justiciabale issues have arisen but I daresay there are thousands more that have never been tested usually because those who propound "human rights" either don't have the money to bring cases, go to lawyers who are too stupid or gutless to take them on, or don't seek out those of us who will take good arguable cases on spec.
I think you have to realise there is a fertile (and relatively wealthy) human rights club in this country and they like to be paid before they like to assert principle (with notable exceptions of course and it would be unfair to mention names because I might leave out some very worthy ones).
You also have to remember that some cases are just hopeless for a variety of reasons and it would be a waste of time to run them.
Personally, I do not believe in rights in any absolute sense, I believe in arguable cases based on facts which make them arguable.
Now, if you stop bothering me for the next 24 hours, I might have a chance at explaining what the correct jurisprudential characterisation of a legal system is.
Sweet dreams.
Pay attention, laddie!
I think, Malcolm, we're at cross-purposes here.
The discussion, you'll recall, was about international law, its sources and status. Now you appear to be on Australian domestic law.
I'm afraid I'll have to mark you down yet further for inattention to topic.
It was Phil Kendall with whom you were discussing his supposed absolute opposition to "killing".
Tsk tsk, more inattentiveness – those grades are sliding, Malcolm.
Fiona: Need a second, Malcolm?
Trapped
No, you were talking about International Law. I was asking you where you thought it came from and how you thought it could be implemented.
From a personal point of view, I don't give a toss about "International Law". In fact, I am quite comfortable with the idea that, until it becomes part of domestic law we can ignore it.
I asked you whether I was correct in thinking you had adopted a particular view (based on the material in your earlier post regarding suffering).
A simple "No" would have sufficed.
And good evening to you milady. No need to warn the innocent though. Thank you for the offer but we are "versed" in different weapons.
No wonder at all
Malcolm B Duncan: "condign punishment with a view to rehabilitation seems to be the traditional formula"
Not as much fun, though. Anyway, this would seem an inadequate formula to apply in the present case (remember, Saddam/Iraq). What do you think are Saddam's prospects for reform?
I dare say Saddam would be prone to recidivism, unless the authorities set him up in the style to which he was formerly accustomed. Also required would be an X-Box or similar, with an assortment of “Profound Carnage” rated games to amuse and hopefully neutralise any residual homicidal tendencies.
But wait! Wouldn't that be like rewarding him? Perhaps rehabilitate, then hang him. An expression of sincere remorse, then that last long walk down the corridor at Abu Ghraib.
Sorry, Malcolm. Please try harder.
(Grade Withheld.)
warm and fuzzily killin' 'em all
One wonders why Malcolm B Duncan might come to WD at all?
After all, if s/he wants more killing, basically all s/he has to do is wait, because 'business as usual' could deliver the next big load of corpses PDQ in Iran, this time with nukular bunker-busters, or some such monstrous obscenity (the US having worn out most of their troops in Iraq, they'd now be restricted, so it is said, to aerial bombardment). The Yanks are quite used to the nuclear thought anyway, since they prototyped at Hiroshima & Nagasaki; two different types of nukes on pristine, defenceless civilian targets; basically to gather data (and the feel-good factor: 'Look - how clever are we (and how brutal & inhuman)?')
Note that the lawyers among us didn't do anything about that perfect travesty, thus possibly encouraging GWBush to do his Oh, so hypocritical "We will bring them to justice!" spruik. As if the US knew anything about justice? Don't make me laugh...
The problem as I see it is that 'more of the same' is producing exactly that, an' what I'm interested in is restarting the climb outa the slime.
Here's another modern buzz-word: scalability. This one is fairly obvious, in contrast to some of the AmeriSpeak gobbledegook (warm and fuzzy) bastardisations.
I illustrated scalability with my 'domestic siege' analogy, apparently lost on Malcolm - or, perhaps he deliberately ignores things not going his way: please explain.
There are concerns at the moment about bullying, in our schools for example. Scaled up, bullying is what happened in Iraq; with slightly(!) more deadly consequences. Basically, daaarlings, it's not on - unless you are a nukular armed US, that is. Boo! Hiss!
So now I pose my own question: if killing is OK, Malcolm me old mate, why have a legal system at all?
PS: Kindly spare me any further AmeriSpeak.
But wait. 'Late-breaking,' as CNN might say; over on the 'The failure of representation by the major parties' thread, this: Citizen Initiated Referenda
Submitted by Malcolm B Duncan on March 17, 2006 - 7:23pm. I have one thing to say to this proposal; I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer.
What Malcolm is referring to is a film, a review of which (wherein the film is called a movie) can be found [here].
I think that Malcolm B Duncan is a) not serious & b) wasting my time.
The Wonder of it all
I have no doubt I am wasting your time, phil kendall, but that, in itself, is probably a good thing as it distracts you from some of the other mischief you might otherwise get up to (like the obvious gender confusion you seem to partake of – or is that just political correctness or an automatic post-modernist response?)
The point you seem to miss is that there are legitimate reasons for killing. That may or may not make killing a good thing. I have been through this innumerable times before: self-defence including the killing of a person threatening the life of another, particularly a child (and here threatening means on the point of inflicting death or serious physical injury) is but one example of lawful killing. That there are lawful instances of killing does not make it morally right for everyone. You may have a particular mindset that says killing is completely unacceptable in any circumstances (and if I am correctly detecting a religious flavour to your posts, please remember that the Biblical prohibition is on Murder not killing per se – otherwise poor old David would be up for a war crime over the Goliath incident). If so, we differ. t is only unlawful killing that I think should carry a punishment (that, in turn lead us into a different argument, what should that punishment be?). That does not mean nor have I ever said that I approve of wholesale killing across the board.
You present me with the perfect wartime argument: the bomb. Lots of Japanese citizens (you call them innocent but that, except in the case of children, may be debatable) died. On balance, in that war, was that wrong? I and many others say no simply because of the alternative. Plan B (and a maniac like Macarthur would have carried it out) was a physical invasion of the Islands of Japan. Without the bomb, it seems reasonable to assume that the Emperor would have continued his command to resist at all costs. The cost in human life of Allied troops would have been stupendous and totally disproportionate to the ultimately achieved aim (assuming it succeeded.)
I should be interested to hear what basis you have for the assertion that the bombing was “basically to gather data”. That does not accord with my general understanding of the way in which the decision was reached.
As far as the modern Australian Defence Force goes, lawyers do their bit both in drawing the rules of engagement and prosecuting any of our troops who breach them. To equate Australian Defence practice with that of the Bush forces is to lay oneself open to the charge of watching too much American television (you probably think you have the right to take the fifth too).
Wars are rarely about justice although I do think there is a good argument that defeating the Nazis and Imperial Japan in 1945 was a just aim. Climbing out of the slime might be a difficult thing since war and aggression will always be with us. The latter is a human emotion only held in check with difficulty, as one can tell from any of the aggressive responses on even so civilised a forum as Webdiary. Your desire to climb out of the slime might be admirable but how many people do you think you will be able to take with you?
Apparently, I have been naughty in some way in not addressing this “argument”. First, I didn’t really notice it; secondly, I do not see how the analogy is appropriate (presumably the intervention of the police is lawful whereas the invasion of Iraq was an act of unprovoked aggression); and, thirdly, the expression is “disproportionality”.
The use of disproportionate force in a domestic situation (i.e. killing where breaking an arm would be sufficient) defeats a defence of self-defence or provocation.
A legal system exists for the purpose of adjudicating disputes between subjects. Not all killing is lawful, not all acts are lawful, not all commercial behaviour is legally acceptable. Thus disputes arise over those matters. We have a legal system to adjudicate those disputes in a civilised formalised context.
Why do I come to Webdiary? Three reasons I suppose: to learn by exposing myself to the views of others which I may not previously have considered; to educate and correct the erroneous reasoning of those such as you when you commit it; and to have a bit of fun (you have no idea how much research goes into Yorick and Alphonse but I find it an amusing diversion from the tawdry affairs of the tax office, my clients and a bit of a relaxation away from the Cross-city Tunnel.)
If you don’t think I’m serious, all I can say is that even in the flawed democracy we have, you are entitled to your view, however often it needs to be corrected.
Now to Jacob F. Stam
I don’t do “grades” (I wonder where that expression came from) I do marks. You asked for them, you didn’t get any. I once awarded 0 for that matter to both teams in a debate – it was a fair mark in the circumstances.
Close, but condign punishment with a view to rehabilitation seems to be the traditional formula (the rehab more honoured in the breach in our current system). It does need to be said, however, that we have a recidivism rate of less than 50%. In my own limited experience, it is generally only the druggies or the mentally ill (typically with some sexual dysfunction) who re-offend. Most people who pass through my tender ministrations never go near a Court again.
I assume you mean the Taxation Reform Party (NSW) Inc [TARP]. Slowly but steadily as is the way with these things. Being sick for two months didn’t help. We probably won’t be registered by 24 March (the pernicious cut-off date engineered by the major parties including the perfidious Democrats and Greens) but that’s not to worry, Plan B just costs more. We, in conjunction with allied citizens’ groups, have had the beginning of a minor win on the Cross-City tunnel and more will follow and we make the local press regularly. So kind of you to ask. Care to join? I’m still having trouble with the website http://www.taxationreformnsw.org but I hope to have that fixed this month. All the forms and the Constitution are there.
David C: Hi Malcolm, how about you and Phil tone down all the sarcasm? (Lowest form of wit etc.) It doesn’t tend to engender constructive debate. Malcolm, I’m assuming you have your tongue in cheek when your talk about correcting “erroneous” reasoning or views. Even if you do, I think it’s gratuitously provocative. In this sort of qualitative debate nobody is ‘correct’; it’s about the strength of an argument. Cheers.
Rhetorical devices, style, and substance
David C, you appear to be confusing reasoning and opinion. Of course reasoning can be erroneous and that should be exposed and extirpated. As for sarcasm being the lowest form of wit, tell that to Pope. If you want to censor my posts because you don't like their style, go right ahead. I shall use whatever rhetorical devices I consider appropriate.
Jacob A. Stam: Hussein is not amenable to domestic law or our legal system. He is being tried by something else entirely so I am afraid I do not get your point.
Do I understand correctly that you are against killing but that you would like to see him hanged after a proper trial and sentencing?
If so, how quaint. Fortunately, it couldn't happen here.
Fiona: Good evening, Malcolm. I did warn David C, albeit after the event. Me, I would (of course, perhaps…) only dare correct your spelling and – very occasionally – your punctuation.
P Plate Editor
Malcolm, hi, I may have come down a bit hard on you when I was wearing my editor's hat on Saturday. If so, I apologise. I'm still getting the hang of this editing thing. Even I use sarcasm on occasion (but I'm saintly most of the time), and certainly it's hardly rare on Webdiary. I was really just trying to lift the tone a bit. Cheers.
Back to the books: addendum
Malcolm B Duncan: "I'm getting the shits..."
There's stuff you can take...
"Customary law is so diverse it is not capable of supporting an unified system."
Sad but true, but in any case we're stuck with these vestiges. What do you want, perfection? Well, we all do, but please, reality check...?
"...our domestic system isn't much chop in that regard either."
God, you're such a perfectionist!
"...you both seem implicitly to accept that the result has to be delivered by some sort of legal system which, in turn makes people like me a necessary evil..."
True enough... and by the way not everything's about you, Malcolm.
"Assuming you do want a legal system..."
Well, we do, or at least I think most of us do.
Anyway, Malcolm, I'm still waiting for you to say something tangible. Please spare us this suspense, and deliver us the wisdom we know you must possess!!
Back to the books
Malcolm B Duncan: "I would give your effort a zero Jacob A Stam."
I was hoping for at least an F minus. Ah well, same old story. You remind me, Malcolm, of a tutor I once had. Or nearly had, even proferred sexual favours fell on deaf gonads. Rejection follows me like a querulous ghost.
But, transporting myself back to my student days by an effort of will, the way to please you suddenly seems clear to me. I begin by exploring the question of what my guru wants to hear?
A clue: "I was not asking for idealism, I was asking for practicality."
Another: "Thou shalt not kill? Why ever not?"
Yet another: "you seem to want something warm and fuzzy." (Okay, think NOT warm and fuzzy. Got it...)
Clued up now: "...the basic questions still remain unanswered by either of you: What is the source of authority for the system and how should it be implemented?"
"What is the source of authority?"
Ahhh... coercion...?
"How should it be implemented?"
Um... uh... by making them suffer...?
Am I on the right track, at least, Malcolm?
How's TRAP going, by the way?
No, I would not have believed it
Just realised that no, I would not have believed that speech, unless I made enormous concessions for Howard's inability to tell the truth.
I just read this:
As I wrote in a previous post, I knew positively that this was a lie. Imad Khadduri, writer of the blog Free Iraq, tried to get this message out in the months leading up to the invasion too, and I'd been reading him via the Yellow Press, a now defunct net magazine, beforehand.
Sources of International Law
Sources of International Law
Before you go, boy...!
Malcolm B Duncan, g'day, here's my (necessarily brief) layman's Q&A...
Customary sources, bilateral and multilateral treaties and conventions (e.g., the UN Charter), etc.
In the modern ideal, the force of international law is grounded in 'universal aspirations' for transcendence above the law of the jungle, the rule of the gun, the state of nature, and so on. In practice, its 'force' is only realisable through the goodwill of the 'community' of sovereign nations. (For example, a United Nations that is not 'united' is by definition a dud.)
By various means, commonly decided in the latter day by multilateral bodies such as the UNSC and upheld by member states; these include resolutions (binding 'judgements'), sanctions, and - the ultimate sanction - armed intervention. Also, there are resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly, which have the status of being 'recommendations for action' and are generally pissed upon.
In the case of unprovoked and imminent aggression, the right of self-defence is preeminent. For most other 'offences', see 3 above.
What's my score, lawman?
Phil, yours is an interesting take on Malcolm's questions. Regarding our fearless leaders and their professed Christianity, I would say that JC himself gave the world an 'out clause' of Biblical proportions when He said: "My kingdom is not of this world." Then there's "Render unto Caesar that which is his...", etc.
Thus we're stuck in a vale of tears after all, where anything goes and often does. It's all a green light for the vicissitudes of earthly life, which of course are often perpetrated by men/women who go to church every Sunday.
The supposed requirement of the 'statesman' to get one's hands dirty for the greater good is elevated to grand tragedy in the Weberian dilemma of the gentleman Machiavellian (see Max Weber's essay "Politics as a Vocation"). Poor John Howard, all his weaselling and sinning is being done for the good of the country and her citizens, and look at the thanks he gets. Oh, boo hoo!
Of course, there's a kernel of truth to that aspect of tragedy in the statesman's lot. It's just that too often 'the greater good' is conflated with less pure imperatives, such as the desire to win elections at any cost, "whatever it takes", the promotion of sectional interests which nevertheless are deemed to benefit the greater good. Then the tragedy descends into farce, and/or becomes someone elses tragedy.
By the way, I'm not going anywhere. "Count me out" was my response to the kind of dialogue where someone's delusional belief in a "self-evident proposition" (viz., the Iraqi people's desire to become collateral damage) is used as a justification after the fact for a criminal adventure.
I'm getting the shits
I'm getting the shits with this new system.
I shall try to keep this brief because over the weekend, as invited by Hamish, I intend to do an article about what law is. [Hamish: I think it was someone else, but yes, that would be brilliant.]
I would give your effort a zero Jacob A. Stam. Customary law is so diverse it is not capable of supporting an unified system. The UN is, like the League of Nations before it, inherently incapable of achieving results because of its political makeup.
I was not asking for idealism, I was asking for practicality. A system of law that does not achieve results is no use (and before you get on your high horses, our domestic system isn't much chop in that regard either.)
Thou shalt not kill, Phil Kendall? Why ever not? There are lots of good reasons for killing. As a prescriptive rule it is honoured in the breach (or in wartime, the breech) rather a lot wouldn't you say? Clearly it is not a maxim which forms the basis of any legal system.
In both cases you seem to want something warm and fuzzy but, interestingly enough, you both seem implicitly to accept that the result has to be delivered by some sort of legal system which, in turn makes people like me a necessary evil. In the view of the NSW Cabinet, I am probably an evil which is unnecessary. In my own view, I shall settle for an evil necessity.
Assuming you do want a legal system, the basic questions still remain unanswered by either of you (and one does not have to be a qualified lawyer to answer): What is the source of authority for the system and how should it be implemented?
Hamish - 'twas you
Here it is:
The failure of representation by the major parties
Submitted by Malcolm B Duncan on March 15, 2006 - 8:20am:
A little editorial self-control please.
Hamish: indeed, guilty as charged Malcolm! Though I could say then that it was in fact you who made the initial suggestion. I must keep more careful mental notes. Meanwhile, I'll reiterate that such an article from you would be most welcome.
Turn the other Cheek
I find it hard to understand, as an atheist, just how Christians justify war.
Jesus taught to love and not hate, to turn the other cheek and to love our enemy
If we claim to believe and we worship our God, but forget those words and take up the sword, to fight and kill for greed, power, hate, for lust and revenge.
I have hope that one day we will learn, to stop the hate and learn to love, that is why I march, that is why I take a stand, without guns or swords I go to this battle, to show the world that there is a better way.
we hold these truths to be self-evident...
Disclosure: I am not a lawyer (nor would I want to be one), but without prejudicing Jacob A Stam's right of reply, I'd like to take a 'stab' at answering Malcolm B Duncan's "would you mind telling me the source of this 'International Law' and the reason you regard it as of any force whatsoever?":
1. thou shalt not kill.
2. they don't care - err, count.
-=*=-
In the first instance, each of B, B & H claim to be Christians themselves and further, they claim that we live in a Christian society.
Which of itself (the latter) would imply, that certain of the Ten Commandments, ie. those to do with civil life (as opposed to the 'purely spiritual', since we (notionally) adhere to a separation of Church and State), would have the force of law. Which they usually do, see (1) above.
That's my 'reading' of 'common law', vis-à-vis the illegal invasion of Iraq: it was wrong to go there and kill (innocent) people (and destroy the entire country's infrastructure, etc).
In the second instance, if we take a 'domestic siege' situation as a prototype of Iraq before "Shock and Awe", then in such a situation the police do not bulldoze the house, killing/maiming innocent occupants, then stealing the contents. If this were to happen, we would be likely to say that the police had acted 'disproportionally' (to put it mildly).
That's my 'reading' of 'Church law', vis-à-vis the illegal invasion of Iraq: it was unjust (based on 'proportionality' alone, only one of many injustices) to go there and kill people (& same gruesome etc).
In the third instance, if we look to the failed attempt at a UNSC resolution, we see that B, B & H didn't get one, in fact they withdrew the attempt, not even exposing themselves to the possible 'wimpy' French (or some other) veto.
That's my 'reading' of 'International law', vis-à-vis the illegal invasion of Iraq: it was strictly illegal to go there and kill people (and same ghastly etc).
In the fourth instance, if we look to the Nuremberg trails after WW2: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." [Nuremberg] (quoted also over at [webdiary, The failure of representation by the major parties]).
That's my 'reading' of 'victors' justice', vis-à-vis the illegal invasion of Iraq: it was a supreme international crime to go there and kill people (and same sad etc).
-=*=-
Now, not being a lawyer, I can't say how any of the above might achieve "the force of law," or what might be done about it - except to say, that they hanged a lot'a people at Nuremberg.
We do know that the UN is as good as f**ked, and that one of the main reasons for this is that the US fails to properly support it (as well, the US refuses point-blank to recognise the ICC. Don't start me on the topic of thugs (Bolton.)) Facit: we've got as good as no international plods, let alone courts.
So, it comes down to common morality, and thence to 'public opinion.' As 'inventors' of Hollywood & Madison Ave, as well as being 'leaders' in prostituting the '4th Estate' i.e. main-stream press/media (MSM), the US is running a propaganda campaign like no other, ever, in a (futile?) attempt to 'justify' their illegal invasion of Iraq and subsequent killing of lots'n lots'a totally innocent people (& same bloody etc; again & again) - all the while trying to pretend it's not really after Iraq's oil (next candidate for some "Shock & Awe" treatment: Iran!)
Oh, yeah. One other thing. They, B, B & H, all lied. They lied before, during and after. As each 'excuse' fell, they proposed another. The very last 'fig-leaf' is 'democratisation' (and still killing people to 'free' them). Now, it may be one thing, to say 'all politicians lie,' but it's quite another when it comes to war - and mass killing of innocents - don't you think?
-=*=-
(Continued from the heading):
.. that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [uslawdocs]
More 'condescension'?
Ian MacDougall, it's a pity you took my bedtime story analogy as 'condescencion'. It was a device intended to highlight the limitations of a too simplistic assessment of the outcomes in this debacle. If you take exception to my characterisation of your question as 'simplistic', there's nothing I can do about that, other than suggest that you consider the characterisation may be correct.
Now, on to your utilitarian theory of war for "the greatest good for the greatest number". By this reasoning, and taking the polling to be the decisive indicator of success, then the lesson out of this would seem to be that we should encourage our governments to lie and deceive our countries into going to war, to disregard and violate international law, to wage war with disproportionate violence and indiscriminate weapons, and so on.
It gets results, right? So the hell with it, let's just let the cockroaches do as they please, since whatever they do may eventually, by the law of averages, do some good. Why bother striving to formulate policy on a rational and ethical basis when we can have open slather for subterfuge and mendacity, and reap the benefit of accidentally good outcomes?
The hell with democratic aspirations for ethical and transparent governance. Our faith in open and transparent democracy must be either misguided or an anachronism. Our leaders know best, and even if they don't, there's always those accidentally good outcomes.
It may even be that shonky Shock and Awe campaigns are the answer to all the troubles of the world. What do you think, Ian, are the people of Burma and Zimbabwe all secretly yearning to be Shocked and Awed into liberation? Should we oblige them?
But seriously, are these polls the last shred of the figleaf of justification for this disgraceful debacle?
No, you're wrong. Consider the rains that broke the drought in Queensland recently: thank God for the rain, pity about the widespread catastrophic flooding. You have simply chosen not to factor in the costs of the Iraq debacle, as if ignoring them makes it all go away.
Ian, I thought it was me who was arguing that Saddam's fall "shouldn't be considered in isolation". I'm not getting your point here...
Well, gee, we all hold various propositions to be self evidently true. Is this a bit of postmodern relativism creeping into the discussion? On that basis, this thread will go on indefinitely. Count me out...
International Law
Before you go, would you mind telling me the source of this "International Law" and the reason you regard it as of any force whatsoever?
Then, I'd be very interested in your explanation of how it is permissibly enforced and how, after it is breached, the "offender" - as our local plods so like referring to people - should be dealt with.
Etc, etc, etc...
G'day again, Ian MacDougall. University of Maryland, Eh?
Wonder if they're friends of the Lancet?
Because lots'a righties poo-pooed the Lancet study, based as it was on statistical methods, and those methods themselves based on hair-raising stories of heroism trying to interview even half-way enough Iraqis – but they did it, interviewed enough in the end, and then threw out the statistical outliers, one of which was Fallujah. To keep Fallujah in, would'a doubled the estimates of the dead, you see.
Since then, so they say, the violence in Iraq has got a lot worse, to the nth degree in fact. I understand (from a fairly casual armchair perusal of the press/media – our famously independent MSM, you understand) that the oh, so brave reporters over there don't even dare leave 'the green-zone' anymore, in these latter post-"Shock'n'Awe" oh, so free Iraq salad-days.
So: wanna tell us just how you personally reckon that those fearless academics from Maryland got that oh, so lovely 77/22% result, and exactly where and under what circumstances they found their nationwide sample of 1,150? Ring 'em up on their mobies? Hmmm? Because, I'd betcha they didn't do it face-to-face. I'd ask you for proof, but providing any would be impossible – oh, only IMHO, of course.
Fair enough
Good point, Phil. Though I don't think that constitutes a solid argument.
To be fair to Ian, and despite my "sample of Iraqis" quip of above, there was more than one poll which gave, roughly, the same results. I honestly believe those results to be true. The real question is how much credence should be given to those answers as an enduring and true reflection of how Iraqis feel about the situation.
I am not at all qualified to propose this theory as de facto, but I can't help but think that the Iraqis have suffered so much psychological trauma that they will, by necessity, seek out a "silver lining" to save their sanity. Therefore, the ramifications of all their suffering not being worth the fall of Saddam is too painful to consider. I guess the best example I can come up with is that of the battered wife. That is to say, "Yes, he beats me, but he loves me." I could be talking out my arse on this one, and I suspect that I'm missing something obvious, but I'll leave it to those more qualified to make that judgement. Mike Lyvers is such a person. Unfortunately, the fact that I might not be his favourite person this week could colour his assessment of my amateur treatise.
Nevertheless, damn good thinking Phil!
What about the victims of Saddam?
Marilyn, What about the victims of Saddam, do they deserve to be ignored as though nothing ever happened? I personally would have preferred seeing Saddam before the Hague court for a more thorough and balanced coverage of his crimes. The reality is that if Saddam were to stand trial for all of the crimes he is accused of, he would spend the rest of his life in court.
Re “John Pace has just stated clearly that over 2,000 people per week are being slaughtered just in Baghdad. Who gets charged with that?” I doubt that one person is responsible for each and every one of these deaths. Each individual incident resulting in these deaths would have to be treated separately.
I don’t agree that the joint Iraqi and US assault on insurgent positions in Fallujah constitutes a war crime.
I’ve already stated my view on whether the removal of Saddam was worth it.
My Answer to Ian
Ian asks, "Was the fall of Saddam a good thing?"
Well of course it was and since we're talking about the ends justifying the means...
Prior to August 1945, Hiroshima City Council was a bit worried about the fire hazard posed by all the older homes and timber workshops in the growing city. The Americans came to the rescue and solved that problem. Was that a good thing?
Sorry. That was a bit bitchy. Nevertheless, I'm sure you haven't missed my point. By trying to engage in historical revisionism, you're not going to make us forget the lies and illegality. Saddam's fall was indeed a good thing, and most Iraqis would agree, but I'm not about to allow anybody to claim that as a justification for the war on Iraq because it was never seriously presented as such in the first place.
Etc, etc, etc....
Once more unto the issue, dear friends
Jacob A Stam: you wrote in response to my question as to whether the fall of Saddam was a good thing: “that question will ellicit the predictable response from anyone: Of course, the fall of Saddam was a good thing."
Jeff Weintraub originally wrote, under the heading Iraqis still think it was worth it:
Then you issued me with the following challenge:
I did mention the grain of salt bit. I gave the link, which you seem to have followed up. Since my primary purpose in providing that link was the citing of the University of Maryland survey result, I don’t think I can be accused of evasion, though you may be hard to satisfy on that point.
No doubt among the 77% of the Iraqis in the study who answered ‘yes’ (to the question: “Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?”) there were some who had bad or very bad personal experiences under Saddam. To them, on balance, anything they experienced during or after his fall was worth it. Among the 22% who answered ‘no’, some or all would have had worse experiences after Saddam’s fall than before. (Interestingly, the 77:22 yes/no ratio also correlates closely with the Shia/Sunni ratio in Iraq, though I do not know if those questioned were also asked their sectarian affiliation.)
Clearly, for a mother who lost a child to the invasion, nothing could ever compensate. For a mother who lost one to Saddam’s henchmen, likewise. But according to the poll, most thought on balance and in their own subjective experience, the war was worth it. Overwhelmingly most. Moreover, if all around any given individual friends and neighbors had found it was not worth it, then that one who thought it was would probably be reluctant to admit it. The only possible calculus as far as I can see is John Stuart Mill’s: the greatest good for the greatest number. Which as far as I can see is the basis you must have used for your own judgement on balance: “that question will ellicit the predictable response from anyone: Of course, the fall of Saddam was a good thing.”
You then immediately launch into an attempt (in two short paragraphs) at condescending qualification, which finishes with a pertinent, and begged, question:
You said the fall of Saddam was a good thing. If that is true, there can only be one answer on the worth of it. If it brought more harm than good, and did not produce the greatest good for the greatest number, then it clearly was not worth it, and it was in its totality, a bad thing. So, sorry: it can’t be “considered in isolation and divorced from the ugly context and reality, [and only] seen with wide-eyed jubilation. Much as the demise of the wicked witch in a bedtime story will send a child into blissful slumber.” With respect, you can’t have it both ways, although you give me the impression that you want to. Other readers of course, may disagree.
Which brings me to your clincher:
I never argue from authority, only from facts; as many as I can establish and gather economically. The central fact I cited from Weintraub was the 77:22 split in the most recent poll (January 2006) between those in favour and those against, in Iraq. But going back to the source, on that same link I provided for all Webdiarists, we find this:
I think that slab of quotation says it all about Weintraub’s ‘source’. He is holding a proposition to be self-evident. You can nit-pick at that as much as you like without any effect on his argument, which is supported by that poll result, all but one of the other polls, and three Iraqi elections.
Absolute conviction
Gareth Eastwood: "Saddam passed my personal threshold for removal by force in the late eighties."
Yeah, I sympathise with that view myself up to a point, Gareth. Sadly Saddam Hussein was at that time the enemy of a certain superpower's enemy, and the then-administration actively supported their friend in Baghdad by blocking Congressional moves to rein in Saddam with sanctions and the like. Recall this was the friend in Baghdad who was then known to be using chemical weapons against their shared Iranian foes, thereafter to use such weapons against the Kurds, to which the Washington friend helpfully turned a blind eye.
So anyway, you think the costs were "absolutely" worth it. Bully for you. I envy your ability to have such easy conviction where the risks and costs are someone elses.
Saddam
Maryj, "Was the cost worth it to get rid of one man?"
Definitely.
In my view this is an absolute yes. Saddam was a dictator who murdered and tortured his own people on a mass scale. Remember Halabja? Why does everyone ignore Saddam's past behaviour?. Saddam passed my personal threshold for removal by force in the late eighties. Saddam should have been before a court for crimes against humanity and/or the Iraqi people over ten years ago. The world had to wait over a decade before anyone found the guts to do it. Think of all the lives that would have been saved if he was removed a decade ago.
what about our victims?
OK Gareth, suppose Saddam has a trial that is not a total farce like we are witnessing now, so what?
He is not being tried for Halabja or the Shi'ite uprising, or the invasion of Iran or Kuwait. He never will be because he will be hung before they get around to it.
Now to victims. John Pace has just stated clearly that over 2,000 people per week are being slaughtered just in Baghdad. Who gets charged with that?
The US demolished Fallujah and killed thousands in the greatest war crime of the century to date. Who will be charged? Will the victims of that get someone to put on trial?
100,000 dead to put one criminal on trial? Really was that a good thing, a reasonable outcome? Really?
I wish someone could explain that to me.
send in the cavalry?
Ian MacDougall "can only admire [my] profound knowledge of military matters."
Well thanks, mate. To see another piece of my strategic brilliance, you might like to have a quick squiz at "Another Peace Plan." [webdiary, 2003/02/12]
The military mis-adventure that is the illegal invasion of Iraq is, in any case, only one brick in a very large and ominous wall.
Back in the 'real world', I don't think one has to be a military genius to see that the US has gone bad; the time has looong gone that they did anything even remotely admirable. Lets start here (although the problems began much earlier):
Now, Dr Phils may be 'a dime a dozen' on the internet (Haw, haw), so we could grab a bit of 'backup'. Lets try this:
But wait a sec, Ron Paul's stuff is smelling suspiciously like Gold-standard whining (which we do not want and are not pursuing); my admittedly selective quote is to illustrate the big problems that exist with the US currency. And we will see, that 'democratising' Iraq was the last and least of any of the specious reasons offered. We could perhaps use a fresh perspective.
Let's try this:
Perkins describes some of the ways of how the US is ripping-off the world, there are others; a particular favourite of mine being the revolting resource-rent rip-off racket, a story for another day, perhaps.
So far, we've taken a wander, from the military, through the monetary to the ripping-off of under-trodden quasi-colonised people.
-=*=-
Let's move to a different but parallel track.
Following the oil shocks of the 70's, lots'a good US citizens started buying smaller cars, the archetypical example being the Honda Accord. This alarmed GM & Ford; so much so, that they threw the switch on Hollywood/Madison Ave: what all good US citizens 'really' needed was a full-sized car. Forget if not ignore CAFE(**1), or bypass it entirely with a behemoth SUV (or over here, a fat 4WD).
As well as obscenely overweight 'automobiles', a lot'a US citizens are grossly overweight themselves (with good ol' Aussies 'punching above their weight' here, sadly); the US expends vast amounts of energy cooling to ridiculously low temps in summer, then to extreme warmth in winter. How perverse, indeed. Long story short: with about 5% of the population, they consume in the order of 25% of the world's resources. Which, mostly, they are as good as stealing (by, for example, printing money). Using as 'backup' of course, their undenied 'military superiority'.
IN FACT, the US bestrides the world, holding it to ransom: "Stand and deliver - or else!"
Now, this 'law of the jungle' stuff might be OK for dumb animals, but we humans, we like to think we're smarter than that (don't we?) The problem is, that with current US over-consumption leading the way, we are killing our once jewel-like planet; it's choking on CO2, the glaciers are starting to melt, we'll drown if we don't thirst, or burn - or all those together, or even worse.
Sooo, friend MacDougall, it's not the military mis-steps we really need to worry about - but having to fight off pro-wars is delaying the really important fight - hopefully, not for very much longer.
Ooops! The bloody Yanks are at it again, not 'just' sabre-rattling against Iran; Rep Paul again:
and then this:
The review concludes:
It's Time alright - to pull all heads out of the sand (if not from darker places), and face up to the fact that the US has become an extremely dangerous renegade.
All may be lost, if we can't stop the US berserkers.
-=*end*=-
PS Personally speaking, Ian, this goes far beyond any 'armchair' anything. You might revel in your pseudo-neoCon-smugness or whatever is your reasoning, that Saddam deserved everything he's got with more to come (rack, noose/firing squad then dismembering etc). But it's not just politics, all 'more of the same' is doing is leading us over a precipice and straight down the tubes. Time to put political prejudice in the back-pocket for a while, and man the pumps. If we don't, we may not even live long enough to regret not doing that. And, you could show a bit more compassion for all the hideously mutilated, dead and mourning in Iraq, I reckon. There had to be a better way, and it's high time they (CoW) just stopped and went home.
Refs:
**1. CAFE = corporate average fuel economy.
Saddam falls... Que?
Ian MacDougall, question will ellicit the predictable response from anyone: Of course, the fall of Saddam was a good thing.
I've said before here and elsewhere that the fall of Saddam, considered in isolation and divorced from the ugly context and reality, can only be seen with wide-eyed jubilation. Much as the demise of the wicked witch in a bedtime story will send a child into blissful slumber.
Now turn your mind to the costs, risks and benefits, sketched here briefly by me and others, and elaborated in abundance everywhere, Ian. Was it all worth it?
I note you didn't mention that even your preferred source, Weintraub, noted that "polling results should always be taken with a grain of salt", and that "not all the results of this poll are encouraging or reassuring for those of us who supported the 2003 Iraq war". No doubt these considerations will present little difficulty for Weintraub, but how about you, Ian?
Finally, I'd appreciate an answer to my initial questions: "What's Weintraub's source for making this claim ["that in 2002-2003 most Iraqis favored the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his regime, however ambivalently"]? Is there some pre-invasion poll that has been kept from the rest of us?"
I'd be particularly interested in whether Weintraub's data might quantify the pre-invasion degree of "ambivalence" that Iraqis had about the prospect of becoming collateral damage during the course of their liberation. You see, I believe this has a bearing upon the presumptions made by the Coalition of the Willing governments in pursuing the utterly discredited course that they did. Do you have any thoughts yourself about that, Ian?
By the way, no, I'm not "a bit less disgusted" as you suggest, because as anyone can see, the dice are still rolling in this debacle. "Mission Accomplished" was declared on the decks of the Lincoln going on three long years ago, sometimes it seems an eternity. I hate the suspense. Don't you, Ian?
Saddam falls, OK?
Mark Ross: “All those lies, all that ignoring of massive public opposition and all those hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars were all worth it according to a sample of Iraqis.”
No, only according to all but one of the polls taken so far, and the three elections that have so far been held since Saddam’s fall. Because the Iraqi people could have blown the whole American campaign apart, by simply staying away from the polls, as the ‘insurgents’ directed them to. Instead, and with great courage, they defied the ‘insurgents’.
But answer me this, Mark: Was the fall of Saddam a good thing?
Jacob A Stam: “If after all of that Iraqis can say to us - "Well done!" - I'll begin to feel less disgusted with my country's part in this debacle.” Actually, that is precisely what they are saying, Jacob. As far as they are concerned, the fall of Saddam was that good. And now that you are presumably feeling a bit less disgusted, do you think the fall of Saddam was a good thing?
Phil Kendall:, I’m glad to see that you agree that the fall of Saddam was a good thing. You wrote: ”My message: Yeah, sure it's a good thing that Saddam is gone, but it did not need an all-out "Shock & Awe" slaughter…”
I agree, Phil. It would probably have been better done in 1991 as the finale for the First Gulf War, when what was left of Saddam’s army after it was expelled from Kuwait was in disorganised retreat. As for the latest war not needing ‘Shock and Awe”, I can only admire the profound knowledge of military matters you must have. Never mind armchair strategist. Beside you, I don’t even qualify as a front yard footslogger.
one out, all out
Ian MacDougall: "But WMD proved to be his undoing, ..."
I do not believe the above statement is in any way correct, nor that anything from the referred-to blog starting with:
"Sunday, March 12, 2006 The Iraq war from Saddam's perspective (NYTimes) This New York Times story summarizes a classified US military report ..." could have much if any relevance.
The WMD question has been resolved: in the beginning B, B & H lied and what's more they knew they were lying - Andrew Wilkie, Wolfowitz/Vanity Fair, Downing St. memos; how much proof, how many times? And in the end there were no WMDs. Not a single, tiny little one.
Then, in the first instance, we know that the NYT is not immune from lying itself (say G'day to the gullible Ms Judith Miller and her now disgraced 'sources' - and even after she's gone, NYT has not cleaned up its act. The WP stands equally disgraced. So much for the US 'papers of record', and most of the rest of the MSM to boot).
In the second instance, who could trust anything from the US military, classified or not, when they are the world's worst and most frequent psyop perpetrators?
And more specifically in the third instance, we have heard (they told us so!) that the US military will now actively interfere with the blogoSphere.
With at least one obvious error, some blog as a source (y'c'n read anything on the net!) and a dubious quote, one must surely suspect the lot.
Perhaps the whole thing is a psyop?
OK, y'c'c have a relax, the NYT article exists, but whether it's just US military propaganda, who can tell?
Hmmm - then, Ah ha!
Here's a few 'pithy' bits:
What poppycock! Powell as good as admits now, that he talked unsubstantiated rubbish (for one example of many: "Powell Calls U.N. Speech a 'Blot' on His Record".)
It is a Psyop, after all.
My message: Yeah, sure it's a good thing that Saddam is gone, but it did not need an all-out "Shock & Awe" slaughter, and if what B, B & H did was not strictly illegal, why the bloody hell not? Illegal invasions to control oil (i.e. 'Geopolitics'), is how different from illegal invasions for, say, Lebensraum?
Q: who makes the laws? A: the politicians. Q: who sent us to war? A: the politicians. Q: so, what's the moral point here? A: (answer this one for yourself.)
Worth it for the Conquerors
Ian MacDougall, what kind of doubletalk is it when Weintraub says, "it has long been clear that in 2002-2003 most Iraqis ... favored the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his regime", then qualifying this by saying "however ambivalently"?
What's Weintraub's source for making this claim? Is there some pre-invasion poll that has been kept from the rest of us?
The reality is that we have no real way of knowing how enthusiastic or not Iraqis were to become collateral damage in the US/British programme of conquest.
Of course, we now have apologists for this fait accompli leaping upon the recent surveys, as cited by Weintraub, in order to defend a debacle that has very little to show in terms of positive outcomes.
The deceit and equivocation that attended the lead up to the invasion has fractured global multilateral relationships, perhaps fatally. But it's alright, because Saddam has been deposed.
Iraqi losses arising from the invasion of 100K plus lives indicate a level of violence inflicted on civilian populations out of all proportion to the threat posed by a tin pot dictator (who, incidentally, the invaders knew posed no threat back in 2001). But it's alright, because Saddam has been deposed.
Reconstruction and recovery was and continues to be seriously hampered by mismanagement, corruption, and an overall failure of post-invasion planning. But it's alright, because Saddam has been deposed.
Even the US ambassador to Iraq has recently made a dire assessment of the outlook for stability and peace in the new Iraq. But it's alright, because Saddam has been deposed.
It's heartening to know that 77% of Iraqis believe that the pulverisation of much of their country was "worth it". Whether they'll take that same view after the full story emerges of what was done for their "benefit" remains to be seen.
I'm talking, for examples, about the effects of DU particulate dispersal in urban areas, the costs of which can only be guessed at; the long term, probably generational, effects of war trauma, the costs of which can only be guessed at; the sovereign wealth of the Iraqi people that has been denied them by the oil distribution arrangements that have been "negotiated" in their name, the costs of which do not require much guessing.
(Need I say anything about the way in which the costs/benefits of this catastrophe will be privatised or socialised?)
If after all of that Iraqis can say to us - "Well done!" - I'll begin to feel less disgusted with my country's part in this debacle.
But to paraphrase Weintraub, apologists for the war "should find another excuse". Holding one tin pot dictator "to account" because he presided over the second largest oil reserves in the world is not the message that I would have liked broadcast by the Free World to rest of the world.
Worth it for Iraqis
A ‘classified US military report is discussed in an article by Michael R Gordon and Bernard E Trainor in the New York Timesof Sunday, March 12, 2006 headed Hussein Saw Iraqi Unrest as Top Threat(Full text available here, on Jeff Weintraub’s blog).
Saddam was not the first megalomaniac to buttress his power through tight control of information. But WMD proved to be his undoing, because of his use of it against Iran, because he behaved to the UN inspectors as if he had it and was hiding it, and because it gave George Bush and the Coalition the excuse they wanted to knock over his regime.
Cynics like Neville can sneer as much as they like (almost certainly over latte or chardonnay), but in the course of reading and contributing to Webdiary since the start of the Iraq War, I have only ever encountered one person (name of Sid Walker) who thought the fall of Saddam was a bad thing. Everyone else welcomed it. They just opposed the only conceivable means whereby it could have been brought about. The following also from Wikipedia:
In short, the whole issue has been anything but trivial.
On February 14 this year, ie one month ago, Weintraub wrote the following:
Worth it for Iraqis - NOT
Firstly, I came late to the faux Howard speech, so I honestly don't know if I'd have been fooled. Too many sorries? Too much truth? Too much humanity? I despise the man so much I just may have been a bit too cynical.
Then I read your response, Ian MacDougall, and I saw red. Nothing you said makes sense. you don't know the utter chaos Iraq is in? You're not aware of the literally hundreds of academics and doctors assassinated, disappeared or run out of Baghdad? You're unaware that electricity has not yet reached pre-invasion standards - not by a long shot? Or that the Lancet estimated over a year ago that up to 100,000 Iraqi deaths had been caused by the invasion?
You honestly believe there was NO other way to displace Saddam Hussein? You really believe he was THAT great a monster (and no, he wasn't a "nice" man, but then nor is Bush, or Cheney, or JH for that matter), not even when we know how excellent the CIA is at creating monsters? Milosevic, of course, being another such monster, even though after four years of running his own case, they had yet to prove the genocide charge? From all I have read on this, death by murder seems entirely feasible with the case about to wrap up and Milosevic calling for the true genocidists (Clinton, NATO etc) to be charged. After all, 78 days and nights of constant bombing couldn't have been much fun...
Regarding Saddam's WMD, didn't you know he gave the inspectors full access in the end? The only reason they were kicked out at one stage was because he believed, correctly, that the CIA was secretly getting information through the inspections. And didn't you know that our own government was informed that there were no WMD in Iraq anymore? Nor in Iran as far as I know, though the western powers sold both countries enough during their agonising ten year war.
Perhaps you should read Andrew Wilkie's Axis of Deceit, written after he left politics, and intelligence, before war broke out? He knew there were no WMD, as did Mark Latham, a fact mentioned in his Diaries. He was informed of this by intelligence when they thought he may become our PM. Read that too.
And Ian, can you tell me please exactly when it became legal for the US to invade another country in order to depose its leader? (Then again, perhaps someone (anyone...?) may care to try this on our wee Johnnie Howard? But no shock and awe please. Bombs really, truly scare me... especially if the "precision" bombing, from all I hear, is just a sick joke.) And no snipers please, and no bombs placed in citizens cars to blow up in crowded places. And no destruction of hospitals, schools and all that... please...)
And I hear the US had another bombing spree in Iraq just the other day - the biggest since March 2003 - not that they'd ever actually stopped bombing. This was just more "full on" than usual. Couldn't get a civil war going, could they? Obviously those intractable Iraqis needed another lesson.
Seriously, the situation in Iraq now is so horrible that I am wondering how on earth these intelligent, decent people can stay sane. And Bush keeps raving on about "democracy... bringing democracy...".
Just so you know, Ian, that I am very aware of what's going on in Iraq, as I prefer going directly to the source, I am giving you a few leads to click on and read up. Three of the blogs are run by Iraqis - and yes, I've corresponded with each one occasionally. In fact Raed Jarer was the person who put me on to Webdiary in the first place - for which I am greatly indebted
I read several Iraqi blogs on a regular basis - Riverbend (a young Iraqi woman) at http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/, Raed Jarer at http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/, and Imad Khaddari's Free Iraq http://abutamam.blogspot.com/ on a regular basis. Others less frequently.
I also read the blog of Xymphora http://xymphora.blogspot.com/, and others who write frequently about Iraq.
Then there's Dahr Jamail, a US journalist who didn't believe what he'd read in the papers about Iraq and decided to go see for himself. He chose to "embed" himself with the Iraqis. He believed they knew more about their country than the trooops ever would. His site is here.
And there are many other places to go if you're really wanting the truth.
After the invasion of 1991, no Iraqi in their right mind would want American troops to stage another invasion. Shock & Awe would definitely convince them, if nothing else did. Some may definitely have wanted Saddam gone, but not at the expense they knew from bitter experience would accompany this overthrow.
I think Richard Neville, a long time "leftie" and protester, gave us an excellent piece of satire. I also find it entirely plausible that Howard's minders would remove such a site. I note the PDF file is also not working. Hopefully this is just my computer's problem. At least I was able to read what he wrote here, and forward it to others who may be interested. Thanks, Webdiary.
Brief initial response, Daphne.
Daphne O’Brien: Thanks for your post links and comments. I am sorry, but I have been flat out at work the last two days and will be for the next two as well. I hope to put a more detailed reply to all my respondees on Webdiary as soon as possible.
But you wrote:
I am not up on the latest commentaries on the Lancet study, but I recommend Fred Kaplan’s Oct 29, 2004 piece 100,000 Dead—or 8,000: How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war? Nonetheless, the fact I wanted to draw everyone’s attention to was the result of the University of Maryland study in the link I cited, where 77% of Iraqis polled in the most recent survey said, that despite everything, the war had still been worth it. No serious challenge to that has been offered on this thread, though there has been the odd raspberry blown.
Do I honestly believe there was NO other way to oust Saddam? I can only say that all previous attempts prior to the US led invasion which set out with "regime change" as a major goal failed dismally, including UN sanctions (which of course were attacked at the time by many present critics of the war – notably John Pilger) and internal Iraqi revolts. You will recall the tragic fate of the uprising by the Shi'ites and the Kurds that was called up by George Bush 1 in 1991. But while we are on the subject, Daphne, and with all due respect, (a) how would you suggest Saddam should have been toppled? And (b) do you think his fall was a good thing?
By the way, and for the record: I despise John Howard, and what he is presently about domestically. But in 1996, he was a better option than Keating by a country mile, and he went on to prove it over East Timor. Though I voted for him then, I voted ALP in every subsequent election. Not that it did much good, or would have made any difference on Iraq.
Have to go, but I will respond to your other points later.
Wonderful News.
Gee thanks Ian. I feel much better now.
I was starting to worry that I was being played for a mug by our illustrious Western leaders, but you've set my mind to rest. All those lies, all that ignoring of massive public opposition and all those hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars were all worth it according to a sample of Iraqis.
Ian, I'm wondering if you've come across any research outlining Iraqi public opinion on our new Industrial Relations reforms? You see, I'm not very comfortable with reducing a quarter of our population to the level of the working poor, but if the University of Maryland could tell me that Iraqis think that it will be worthwhile, then I'll be a happy camper.
In the future, I'll try to mend my ways and not be such a selfish little citizen. If Iraqis want their country bombed into last century, then who am I to offer dissent? My government has the right to act in the best interests of a foreign population on the other side of the world. I mean... that's why they did it, right?
Right?....
Why do I feel like a political cuckold?
No, of course not....
No, the whole thing had to be a hoax. There were too many elements of truth in it. First and most serious give-away.
Besides, haven't the last ten years been a giant hoax? Those elements of actual truth become even more apparent to the practised eye, against this reality. Those cognizant are well aware after all this time that John Howard (or those responsible for replacing the batteries), would never permit actual facts or an honest summation of a situation to genuinely appear for the sheer certainty that such material would contradict all the previous disinformation.
Fiona Reynolds mentions Demidenko, Ern Malley and the like, but even half-intelligent people have known for eons that Howard himself is the real hoax of the last decade.
The fact that Labor cannot land a blow is sad testament to the extent and duration of its self-inflicted enfeeblement.
Crikey worked it out
Crikey - via Ben Shearman - has it:
A satirical speech by John Howard called "Reflection on the situation in Iraq" has appeared on a website - www.johnhowardpm.org - which cleverly replicates the PM's real website - www.pm.gov.au.
Its author, social commentator and former Oz magazine editor Richard Neville, describes the fake speech and lookalike Prime Ministerial website as an act of "culture jamming." Neville told Crikey today that he created the website to provide "a frame for the satire" by making it look and sound as plausible as possible.
Neville's "Howard speech" begins with these words:
etc., etc.
I believe him!
It doesn't really matter who wrote the speech. It's an important public speech and it needs to be aired. Congratulations all.
It would be nice to spread it around on behalf at John Howard at the anti-war rallies around Australia this weekend. At least (some) people could believe that John Howard would make such a speech.
Who'd believe it could be Kim Beazley?
(On the strength of this speech - and of history - I'll be urging preferences for the Liberal Party in the next federal election).
Negativity
So much negativity here - I can feel the bad Karma. So little respect for the feelings and worth of others.
I hope we will all take a moment to reflect and perhaps come back with a more positive perspective.
The man who is never wrong ...
I have the benefit of hindsight, of course, but if the speech was real it would have reflected such a change of character as to make one wonder whether Daniel Smythe’s proposed gene change had actually occurred.
Remember when John Howard announced the “softening” of the Government’s mandatory detention policy in June last year? Howard said in his press conference that the changes were “long overdue”, which sounded almost like an admission of error. Then on the 7.30 Report, Howard said he thought he was being “rather ironic”! The day Howard apologises for a policy is the day we know we’ve gone into a parallel universe.
As Margo once said, Howard is a purely political animal. His ethics and his political life are indivisible. There is no moral centre to Howard because it shifts according to the political climate.
You got that right David
David I was at a migration forum in Adelaide with Andrew Bartlett, a police ethnic affairs co-ordinator, people who are migration agents and school teachers and others discussing what is still wrong.
1. Teachers report that newly arrived and invited refugees and migrants are being put into classes way ahead of their standards and failing because they have no intensive English and only have six months supplied. Then the schools have to do the entire job of dealing with utterly traumatised human beings.
2. Migration agents and NGO's are still reporting that people are living up to 10 years in the community with no means of support except charity and then going insane.
3. Many, many migrants cannot get their parents here because the "queue" is 10 years and the cost is $64,000 "bond" for health care. What is a parent is already in their 70's? Hundreds die without ever seeing their migrant children and some without ever seeing their grand-children. I don't comprehend the cruel viciousness of the organised "queue" jumping this entails.
4. Employment finders say that refugees on temporary visas are so distressed after years in limbo that they cannot find work even when they beg for it. Those on permanent refugee visas can't get work because they only have six months of English after living for up to 20 years in refugee camps. Don't understand the point of this madness either when we are so short of workers.
5. We are still locking up women and kids, pregnant women, forcing them to live on charity for months and months on end.
6. Making false travel documents without the person involved ever being interviewed or accepted by the country they are to be sent to. This is smuggling - I gave one set to the UNHCR rep. who has been anxious to get a set. They can now be circulated to the world's airports with warnings not to accept them.
On and on it went. Nothing changed.
Now Ian McDougall. The Iranian government decided three years ago that John Howard had nuclear capability, that he was torturing people, that he was locking up children and had been involved in the blowing up of Afghanistan. He puts together a co-alition with Iraq, Syria and Jordan and arbitrarily invades Australia.
Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra are reduced to rubble and tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children are slaughtered.
Then the Aussies become suicide bombers because they have no weapons to speak of, Iran got that wrong and ignored the whole world. "Insurgents" came from New Zealand to help and got squashed like bugs, mass graves were found by children in playgrounds, the water supply was destroyed.
There was less electricity, our children couldn't go to school or leave home to go shopping because it was too dangerous. The hospitals were destroyed and 2,000 people per month were being slaughtered just in Sydney, with no count for those in Melbourne or Canberra but we know from a brave reporter that Canberra has no population left, that most of the homes are flattened and people are forced to live in hastily erected tents.
Let's walk a mile in the shoes of the Shi'ite women who told Paul McGeough on the weekend that she wished Saddam was back.
Yeah, we were under sanctions for 12 years for locking up kids in the desert and refusing to help East Timor and West Papua while thousands were being slaughtered.
Was the cost worth it to get rid of one man?
When It Comes To Howard, "Sorry" Is A Dead Giveaway
"Sorry" was the giveaway that this was fraudulent.
Interesting writing however, it appears whoever frauded it went through some of JH's speeches and lifted out whole sentences and just changed around some words. There is a linguistic similarity to the phrasing.
But look, Webdiary, he's never going to back down or back off, you should realise this by now, there will be no second thoughts, no redemption, ever.
Howard will go to his grave believing that being a part of the War On Iraq effort was the right thing to do, and that even if 300,000 Iraqis have to die, it would be worth it for the other 20-plus-million to be able to buy Burger King, eat Australian wheat, go into massive debt to get an education and dress their children in the latest hooker wear that bizarre adults are now marketing at kids in US, UK and Australian stores.
Howard admitted on 7.30 Report he didn't even bother to finish reading the 280 or so pages of the final ASIS/ASIO reports on Saddam's WMDs before he told the Army to start preparing for the invasion in mid-2002.
He will never back down, he will never apologise, even when the bodies start being unloaded off the planes back from Afghanistan. It will just be more waffle, more clichés, more history-hole babble : "Finish the fight", "go the distance", "we will not cut and run".
You got done over by the fraud because you wanted to believe he had the ability to learn from his most terrible mistakes, and that this man, the leader of Australia, had a heart and a deep sense of empathy and compassion.
You were wrong.