Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Iraq’s Anti-Christian Pogroms
Charles Tannock is Vice-President of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the European Parliament and UK Conservative Foreign affairs Spokesman.
by Charles Tannock
The world is consumed by fears that Iraq is degenerating into a civil war between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. But in this looming war of all against all, it is Iraq’s small community of Assyrian Christians that is at risk of annihilation.
Iraq’s Christian communities are among the world’s most ancient, practicing their faith in Mesopotamia almost since the time of Christ. The Assyrian Apostolic Church, for instance, traces its foundation back to 34 A.D. and St. Peter. Likewise, the Assyrian Church of the East dates to 33 A.D. and St. Thomas. The Aramaic that many of Iraq’s Christians still speak is the language of those apostles – and of Christ.
When tolerated by their Muslim rulers, Assyrian Christians contributed much to the societies in which they lived. Their scholars helped usher in the “Golden Age” of the Arab world by translating important works into Arabic from Greek and Syriac. But in recent times, toleration has scarcely existed. In the Armenian Genocide of 1914-1918, 750,000 Assyrians – roughly two-thirds of their number at the time – were massacred by the Ottoman Turks with the help of the Kurds.
Under the Iraqi Hashemite monarchy, the Assyrians faced persecution for co-operating with the British during the First World War. Many fled to the West, among them the Church’s Patriarch. During Saddam’s wars with the Kurds, hundreds of Assyrian villages were destroyed, their inhabitants rendered homeless, and dozens of ancient churches were bombed. The teaching of the Syriac language was prohibited and Assyrians were forced to give their children Arabic names in an effort to undermine their Christian identity. Those who wished to hold government jobs had to declare Arab ethnicity.
In 1987, the Iraqi census listed 1.4 million Christians. Today, only about 600,000 to 800,000 remain in the country, most on the Nineveh plain. As many as 60,000, and perhaps even more, have fled since the beginning of the insurgency that followed the United States-led invasion in 2003. Their exodus accelerated in August 2004, after the start of the terrorist bombing campaign against Christian churches by Islamists who accuse them of collaboration with the allies by virtue of their faith.
A recent UN report states that religious minorities in Iraq “have become the regular victims of discrimination, harassment, and, at times, persecution, with incidents ranging from intimidation to murder,” and that “members of the Christian minority appear to be particularly targeted.”
Indeed, there are widespread reports of Christians fleeing the country as a result of threats being made to their women for not adhering to strict Islamic dress codes. Christian women are said to have had acid thrown in their faces. Some have been killed for wearing jeans or not wearing the veil.
This type of violence is particularly acute in the area around Mosul. High-ranking clergy there claim that priests in Iraq can no longer wear their clerical robes in public for fear of being attacked by Islamists. Last January, coordinated car-bomb attacks were carried out on six churches in Baghdad and Kirkuk; on another occasion, six churches were simultaneously bombed in Baghdad and Mosul. Over the past two years, 27 Assyrian churches have reportedly been attacked for the sole reason that they were Christian places of worship.
These attacks go beyond targeting physical manifestations of the faith. Christian-owned small businesses, particularly those selling alcohol, have been attacked, and many shopkeepers murdered. The director of the Iraqi Museum, Donny George, a respected Assyrian, says that he was forced to flee Iraq to Syria in fear of his life, and that Islamic fundamentalists obstructed all of his work that was not focused on Islamic artifacts.
Assyrian leaders also complain of deliberate discrimination in the January 2005 elections. In some cases, they claim, ballot boxes did not arrive in Assyrian towns and villages, voting officials failed to show up, or ballot boxes were stolen. They also cite the intimidating presence of Kurdish militia and secret police near polling stations.
Recently, however, there are signs the Iraqi Kurdish authorities are being more protective of their Christian communities.
Sadly, the plight of Iraq’s Christians is not an isolated one in the Middle East. In Iran, the population as a whole has nearly doubled since the 1979 revolution; but, under a hostile regime, the number of Christians in the country has fallen from roughly 300,000 to 100,000. In 1948, Christians accounted for roughly 20% of the population of what was then Palestine; since then, their numbers have roughly halved. In Egypt, emigration among Coptic Christians is disproportionately high; many convert to Islam under pressure, and over the past few years violence perpetrated against the Christian community has taken many lives.
The persecution of these ancient and unique Christian communities, in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole, is deeply disturbing. Last April, the European Parliament voted virtually unanimously for the Assyrians to be allowed to establish (on the basis of section 5 of the Iraqi Constitution) a federal region where they can be free from outside interference to practice their own way of life. It is high time now that the West paid more attention, and took forceful action to secure the future of Iraq’s embattled Christians.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.
www.project-syndicate.org
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 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. |
Oops. Almost Forgot. Moral Equivalence Noted.
It is not just the rigid and inflexible position you and Angela and others espouse on the whole Israel, Iraq, Palestine, Iran scene and issues that bothers me. I have the same response to C Parsons and Geoff Pahoff in regard to their equally inflexible viewpoints. I just wonder how people get themselves so cemented in.. What really drives them?
Jenny Hume [3 October 2006, 6-16pm]
Noted.
Me & Us
Roslyn: “Given the frequency with which terms like Left, particularly, but also Right, are used on threads to 'pigeonhole' posters I am curious as to how those who use the terms would define them.”
Got no idea Roslyn but simplicity can make it easy:
In general the Right is all about “me” the individual, while the Left is all about “us” the community.
Phil: There's an element
Phil: There's an element of truth to this but it is a bit too much of a sweeping generalisation. I think both sides have worked for the good of the community: it is just that the Right has tended to put more emphasis on the good of the wealthy and the Left has worked more for the rest.
Procrustes, Sergeant Schulz and the Frankfurt School
Roslyn Ross: "C. Parsons, the discussion was not about previous atrocities but about atrocities committed under Coalition rule."
You couldn't get a more startling demonstration of Roslyn's procrustean propaganda agenda than that, could you?
She probably doesn't even realise how funny it is to attempt limiting discussion of "atrocities" to those committed by one side only.
Try saying it out loud with one of those fake 'Cherman' accents used by the actors portraying camp guards in Hogan's Heroes and you'll see what I mean.
".. zer discussion vas not about prrrrreeeeevious atrocities, Hogan, but about zer atrocities committed under Coalition rule!"
Not to mention the facile arrogance of her presuming to structure the terms of discussion amongst Webdiarists on this or other topic.
In this respect, people like Roslyn are the contemporary custodians of a tradition of political intolerance dating back even before Stalinist-era communism.
A presumption of entitlement to engineer all political discussion toward outcomes consistent with their pre-formed political objectives.
It is perhaps indicative that Roslyn, whose authoritarian personality is an almost text-book example of the tendency, should have a reputation here for being a braying Jew-baiter, too.
After all, it was such types who in the 1930s inspired Adorno, Maslow, Fromm and the others to research that particular personality type.
Closer to Home
Should Australia provide 'anti-terrorism' training to Burma?
Same all round bar keep
“There is plenty of evil to go around and more evil being done today than Saddam and his sons ever did. That is the tragedy for the world. We point the finger at tyrants and then wade knee deep in blood ourselves, authorize torture, betray principles of international law and human rights, and justify death and destruction.”
Yes, Roslyn Ross, but the death and destruction we of the west inflict on others has, is and will always be for all the right reasons. Everybody knows that, don’t they?
“For whatever reason, Roslyn, people on the Left do not want to see the whole picture. They cite what suits their position which as I said has no flexibility.”
Jenny Hume, I would find the above far more realistic if you had included the term “some” before people, and added the words “and Right” after Left for as is stands it gives me the impression that “no flexibility” is a two way street.
The problem with barracking for one side or the other is you always inherit the undeniable indiscretions of your cherished team. The arguments and tactics used by both sides of politics to justify these indiscretions, are the same, surely everyone can see that.
You are right Garry, and no point Roslyn.
Garry, yes, you are right. I should have said some. And in my earlier post I did say that I see just as much inflexibility on the part of the so called Right as well. And it is inflexibility that prevents progress in disputes, both here, and out there in the real world. Imagine if Roslyn was negotiating for the Palestinians, and C Parsons for Israel. Could you see any possibility of any resolution of the dispute between the two?
Roslyn, I am not going to engage with you further because you have been making the same points over and again for the past year, with no shred of any flexibility in your thinking to my mind. I don't accept your broad pen condemnation of the West or your one eyed view of the issues that confront the Middle East and clearly you are unable to see any other point of view than your own. The more one responds to you, the more one gets of the same. You come across as being obsessed in your antipathy for the West and everything it stands for. I do not share that antipathy.
I am not a bigot. Call me one if you like, but that does not bother me. If people go about killing each other en masse with the deliberate intention of taking out as many as they can, irrespective of whether they are men, women or children, then I say it again loud and clear. Those people have no respect for human life. And that is what is happening in Iraq, as uncomfortable as you may be with that, and no attempt at laying the blame for those deaths at the feet of the Coalition will wash with most thinking people.
Tens of thousands dead due to Saddam Hussein you say Roslyn? And hundreds of thousands due to the Coaltion. Now I see the butcher is estimated to have brought about the deaths of up to 1.5 million in his, yes his, war with Iran. How many Marsh Arabs was it? Oh forget it Roslyn. These are inconvenient truths you seek to explain away and blame the West for yet again. If you keep going like this you might get Saddam's death toll over his thirty year rule down to hundreds and the West will be lumbered by you with the rest.
When we refuse to see the other side of an issue Roslyn, it is often because we do not want to and feel threatened if we give ground. I see that as about the need to be in control. Winning on points becomes a cause in itself. You seem to me to very much need to be in control. That does not surprise me, given what you have written here about yourself. I am not judging you negatively here. I actually can relate to where you might be coming from. But I see it as limiting your capacity to have an open mind and I cannot engage constructively with you for that reason. So I am going to call it a day.
Your position cannot be defended
Jenny: It is your call to choose not to discuss but of course it leaves the impression that you have no counter to the points made. I can take it then that you support the US in the building of its palaces and military bases while leaving the Iraqis without water, food, power and security? It's interesting though that you condemn Saddam and sons for selfishness but are happy to see such selfishness on the part of the Coalition.
And if you can interpret a 'broad condemnation of the West' then you have a more creative capacity for interpretation than most.
My criticisms of the West, of the actions done by developed nations is because they should hold to higher standards. It is because I support and defend the advances made by the West, by the modern world, that I find its betrayal of those principles so dangerous.
I am the one who is defending the West. You are the one who is allowing the West to squander any moral ground on which it ever may have stood. You are justifying the immoral, the illegal, the unjust and the 'fascist' elements which have crept into government in the developed world.
Having lived in the Third World for more than a decade, and I have said this before, I am utterly convinced that despite its flaws and failings the modern world, the developed world, the West as you would call it, is the best system we have developed so far because it is the only which (well it did) offers the greatest opportunity for a free and fulfilling life to the greatest number of people.
What I condemn is that loss or that dilution if you like of principles of democracy, rule of law, justice and human rights. Principles which you and many others seem to value as and when they are convenient.
My antipathy is to war, injustice, non-democratic actions, illegal, immoral and quite simply, unkind, attitudes and responses..... all things which have crept into our way of life in the Western world thanks to the likes of the Howards, Bush's and Blairs. Although they of course are not alone. They could not do what they do without the support of the people.
You are in no position to state who has or has not a respect for human life. That is sheer arrogance on your part. I may not like the way John Howard operates, nor Bush or Blair for that matter and there is a lot of blood on their hands but I would never claim they have no respect for human life.
I take it, since you so condemn those who kill women and children willny nilly, you are completely opposed to the recent slaughter in Lebanon..... mostly women and children, civilians pretty much all; and the women and children still being blown to smithereens by the Israelis in Palestine and the Coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan?
You don't have to answer that. You don't have an answer. You always ignore such questions. You condemn those you define as enemy and support the bloodletting of others. Hypocrisy. I would have more respect if you condemned the bloodletting on both sides. As things stand it is the Coalition which has killed most of the women and children in Iraq and which, as the occupying power, has responsibility ultimately for all the rest. That however may be an inconvenient fact but fact it remains.
By the way, the use of terms like 'these people' reveals prejudice whether you are aware of it or not.
And most thinking people, at least those with a conscience, do see the carnage in Iraq as being the result of the invasion and occupation and therefore the 'fault' of those who invaded and now occupy: the US and its allies, us.
You said: Now I see the butcher is estimated to have brought about the deaths of up to 1.5 million in his, yes his, war with Iran.
Yes, but you missed the bit about the war with Iran being supported and encouraged by the US so those million and a half are on our list as well. Bumps up the numbers I know. And the international community also supported the war by omission if not commission so that blood is on our sticky little fingers as well.
You said: When we refuse to see the other side of an issue Roslyn, it is often because we do not want to and feel threatened if we give ground.
I agree, but I am sure with some thought you can find your way to seeing something of the other side.
We may well have much in common. I have said that before. The difference is that I apportion blame where it belongs.... on more than one side and you delegate blame to where it suits you. I condemn Saddam Hussein for his atrocities, human rights abuses, war crimes and tyranny. As do you. But I also condemn the Coallition for its atrocities, human rights abuses, war crimes and tyranny and you support it. I find that odd. I find that unjust and immoral.
And that is where we have nothing in common. I condemn all actions of illegality, immorality, injustice and human rights abuses no matter who does them. You merely condemn them in those who are non-Western.
I am sure you are intelligent enough to know that is not a position which can ever be defended so it is not surprising you are calling it a day.
Little gems from you Roslyn
Roslyn: Your post to me simply confirms the impression I have of you. Sweeping generalisations and value judgements abound if people do not agree with your interpretations and views. You assume for yourself the moral high ground while your self righteousness knows no bounds. And you play with words.
Take this little gem from you for a start:
"You are in no position to state who has or has no respect for human life. That is sheer arrogance on your part. I may not like the way John Howard operates, nor Bush or Blair for that matter and there is a lot of blood on their hands but I would never claim they have no respect for human life".
Well, I see that statement as pure arrogance on your part, Roslyn. And the difference between me and you here is that I am prepared to call a spade a spade. If suicide bombers blow up innocent Iraqis in a market, then I say those persons have no respect for human life. If US soldiers rape and then murder an Iraqi family, then similarly I say they have no respect for human life. You would simply say "they have blood on their hands". And you would have us believe that my statement is a value judgement, bigoted, prejudiced (in saying "those"), and yours is somehow different and not. Good try, Roslyn, but I say dishonest and arrogant.
And another little gem from you:
"But I also condemn the Coalition for its atrocities, human rights abuses, war crimes and tyranny and you support it. I find that odd. I find that unjust and immoral".
I would suggest you take a close look at what you have written in such statements above, Roslyn, and therein you will find the reason I will not engage with you. First you assume that one accepts your broad brush generalised and predictably vitriolic description of the Coalition, then you make your value judgment against anyone who might not go along with that. That is prejudice and bigotry, Roslyn, pure and simple.
I did not miss points you made. I simply do not accept the sweeping generalisations and judgements you make. BTW: I suggest you read my posts about the recent bombings of Lebanon by the Israelis. You will find that the cap you try to place on my head might just not fit as snugly as you think. But I doubt I would have much trouble buying a hat for you, my dear. You are entirely predictable.
I suggest that once one has become predictable on some of the more contentious issues that are discussed on WD, then one has probably lost objectivity. And that goes for both sides.
Yes. I call it a day, but not for the reasons you would like to think.
You know, when I look back at all the posts you have posted, on fear, on the aboriginal issue, on women's issues, on aid to the third world, I find you always take a negative standpoint. I know there is much that is wrong in the world, but just as a matter of interest, is there anything in this world you actually feel positive about?
No spadework on AWB
Jenny: There is much I feel positive about. Perhaps you could read more carefully or do so in a less selective way. But it would be hard I guess to make the facts fit the theory.
It's fascinating how I make 'broad brush generalisations' when I talk about atrocities committed by the Coalition and yet you make 'broad brush generalistions' about the Iraqi people and that's okay. Pot - kettle.
My broad brush generalistion in regard to the Coalition is that it is involved in an illegal and immoral and unnecessary war. That's a view held by most people in the world actually and the number continues to rise.
I hold the Coalition, that means us, particularly responsible because we are meant to uphold standards of democracy and human rights and clearly we do not. If that is broadbrush then I am happy to be broad brush as you describe it.
And we are not talking about criminal behaviour by the military above and beyond the criminal behaviour in which they engage in this war of occupation .... we are talking about the criminal behaviour of the war itself. One may well condemn those Iraqis who blow themselves and others to smithereens but anyone of conscience must also condemn those aiding and abetting the Coalition as it blows Iraqis (and others) to smithereeens. As I said, a dismembered body is a dismembered body.
I merely take the position of condemning all atrocities, whoever commits them. That is the difference.
I suspect as Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians and Lebanese pick up the pieces of their dismembered relatives and friends they find it difficult to believe that we have any respect for human life. A dismembered body is a dismembered body whoever delivers the bomb. And we have attacked them for no reason, out of hand, happily shredding them into little pieces while we sit safely thousands of miles away.
It is ironic really. People are horrified by the thought of someone strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing themselves up and others along with them as part of whatever fight it is they are in, and yet they have no problem at all with America and its allies, the Israelis or the Russians, dropping massive bombs onto civilians and achieving the same end with far, far higher death tolls.
One could argue that at least the suicide bombers have the courage to sacrifice their lives in their 'war,' while we just happily sacrifice the lives of those we seek to occupy and control.
Raining death from the skies while our pilots play safe is okay but killing ourselves and others at the same time is not. Interesting concept. You know bombs made in the good old USA have decimated more market places than all the suicide bombers so far.... but you don't have a problem with that. I find that the hard part to understand for someone who purports to care.
That's where suspicions of prejudice and bigotry creep in. But there you go. We are all different. Thankfully.
IAnd if you are prepared to call a 'spade a spade' then why have you remained silent in regard to the Australian Wheat Board's culpable behaviour? Not much spade work there Jenny. I did raise it with you.
Find the spade yourself Roslyn
Roslyn: "I find that the hard part to understand for someone who purports to care. That's where suspicions of prejudice and bigotry creep in. But there you go. We are all different. Thankfully."
More shovelling of the same judgements, Roslyn, with you on the moral high ground as usual. Oh well, if it makes you feel good.
But you might just for a change come down for a moment and get your facts right.
You wrote: "And if you are prepared to call a 'spade a spade' then why have you remained silent in regard to the Australian Wheat Board's culpable behaviour? Not much spade work there Jenny. I did raise it with you."
The AWB? Silent was I? Seems you read selectively yourself, Roslyn, or in this case not at all. You might care to access the several lengthy comments I wrote on that matter, where you will find again the cap you would appear to want to put on my head will not fit. I forget the thread they were on, (you go find it). Looking back I suppose it was a bit foolhardy publicly attacking the Board at its AGM, and then appearing on national TV condemning the very company in which we had substantial share holdings. And there was Ian, in the Age and a few other rags as I recall, doing the same. I suppose it would have made sense to dump the shares before we spoke out. After all, they were worth twice as much before that.
I am not afraid to speak out very publicly, Roslyn, when I see wrongs being committed, even when I know that might be against my financial interest to do so. So again, get your facts right before you sling your judgements around.
BTW: There is not too much mention by you or anyone else here about the 2000 other companies who were ripping off the OFF program. 10 billion Saddam is estimated to have creamed off in kickbacks and his illegal oil sales. Not too many Cole inquiries going on around the world that I know of. Take a peek at who also had their fingers in the mud pie, and where certain countries stood in regard to the war Roslyn. But let us keep quiet about all that, shall we? Hush hush.
I am sure most here will just be happy if the AWB falls over, and to hell with the Aussie farmers. Oh well. If you want to end up in the future importing your bread that is up to you.
Ironic though that the country that stands to gain the most if that happens is what some of your ilk here term the Great Satan. It will be able to sell its already heavily subsidised wheat to the Iraqis and make a few more weapons. Yes, just a tad ironic.
As it is there will be damn all wheat this year anyway. But I doubt you or many others here have bothered to note that fact, let alone care.
Now, if you don't mind. I have better things to do from here on. As you say, thankfully, we are all different.
No-one reads everything
Jenny: No-one reads all threads and no, I did not read the one where you made comments in regard to the AWB. Then again, why would you not make a brief comment on this thread after I raised the issue with you? I do not think it is fair to expect people to know everything anyone has ever written on anything ... here, as they say, is where we are at. And so, good on you, if you were prepared to call a spade a spade on AWB. But you could just as easily have made it clear here, or, have given me a direct link to whatever you said in regard to it. To respond with silence is in effect a 'non-answering' of the question so to that end, my facts were right.
It is interesting that you define my position as the 'moral high ground.' I see it as merely defending principles of justice, law, human rights and democracy. If that's the moral high ground then I would recommend it to everyone.
You said: There is not too much mention by you or anyone else here about the 2000 other companies who were ripping off the OFF program.
I have said more than once that the international community in general was responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqis because despite sanctions they did business on the side. One can be specific about AWB because it is our own bit of corruption but take it as read that I condemn everyone who indulged in this corruption.
That has been one of my points. The sheer hypocrisy of nations and people who point the finger at the evil of Saddam Hussein when much of the time they have aided and abetted him in his evils.
And yes, it's great that Australia still has some integrity left and we are investigating kickbacks. So we should. So should others but particularly those nations which claim to be civilized democracies.
I agree with you about the hypocrisy of others but their lack of integrity does not justify any on our part. It matters what we do, not what others do not do.
You said: I am sure most here will just be happy if the AWB falls over, and to hell with the Aussie farmers.
I don't think that is true. They should be punished, though, and so should anyone who participates in such corruption. I feel a bit sorry for the AWB because I doubt it did what it did without covert permission from the Government; and Howard and his heelers get off scot-free. Also, many big corporations did and do the same thing. In a way they have been made a scapegoat but they were also incredibly stupid and sometimes that's life. We may not be alone in our corruption but we may carry more of the can for it.
I think most people would want to see the AWB continue but in more professionally rigorous form. I don't see why it should 'fall over' as you put it because of one mistake.
You said: As it is there will be damn all wheat this year anyway. But I doubt you or many others here have bothered to note that fact, let alone care.
I think many people are aware of it and many do care. One of the realities, however, having lived in a number of country towns, closely involved with farmers, and now having a farm myself, is that people who are not working the land or connected to the land don't think about it much. I doubt that farmers put much thought into how widgets are made or how restaurants are run. We all tend to focus on our own area.
But I do think, as someone city-born with now much country experience, that non-country people have a lot of sympathy for the farmers. I think they also consider them a bunch of whingers... which they are. I know many people on the land and I also know when they have good years and when they have fantastic years and make buckets of money, but all you hear about are the bad years.
Farming is hard. There is no doubt about that. And farming has changed dramatically in the past twenty years but there are still a lot of farmers who make a lot of money out of farming even with droughts. Farming is a business and I believe that every country is best served if we produce as much as possible on our own land ... but that does not mean that farmers should be supported or propped up.
Interestingly, one of the good things to come out of the 'recession we had to have' was the diversification which took place on farms. Sure, many farmers (along with others) went bust, but a lot took a long hard look at what they were doing and decided to do it differently. Many of them have been outstanding successes. Instead of sitting there whinging as they stood at the edge, they changed themselves and their habits and their farms and everyone benefited.
Sell them before you smell them
Roslyn: "Farming is a business and I believe that every country is best served if we produce as much as possible on our own land ... but that does not mean that farmers should be supported or propped up."
And they aren't. We are the least subsidised farmers in the world. Drought relief is little better than the dole, which they would get anyway if they lived in the city and had no income. It would be really nice to get a couple hundred dollars a tonne for our wheat from the Government before it even left the farm gate. Such is the level playing field we play on, with wheat markets one of the most corrupted in the world. AWB scandal, not very surprising really.
The old farmers are whingers cliché. Boring, and a generalisation again my dear. Might as well say city people are all whingers just because of the fuel price. I don't know what or where you farm Roslyn, but I suspect you are not dependent on it for a living. I was born onto the land and things have changed a whole lot in the past twenty years believe me. Sure, some farmers do well, provided they do not have much debt and can wear ten years of drought. They are decidedly in the minority.
Diversification is not an option for the vast majority of farmers in this country. Unless, of course, you have access to irrigation water, and that is by no means assured for much longer. I see rice is at an all time premium price, but the writer adds, "no water to grow it".
As this drought goes on the old saying in the bush: Sell them before you smell was headlines in a rural paper the other day. Record numbers of livestock are now flooding the markets everywhere. No, farming in this country is in a crisis, and everyone better get used to the idea that food is about to get a whole lot more expensive.
I actually missed your question to me on the AWB. Sorry. But I have not time to search back on the old threads to find my comments. They are there if you want to look for them.
But this all way off thread. If we are going to talk farming we should do it elsewhere.
Did you see that two women are about to be stoned to death in Iran? Am writing to Amhadinajed to protest. We should all do that.
Jenny: Yes, I know
Jenny: Yes, I know Australian farmers are less subsidised than others and so they should be. It does however make it difficult because there is not a level playing field in the US or Europe. But, at the end of the day it is a healthier system for Australia.
At least there is drought relief. People further on in the chain who are affected by drought don't get any relief. They may go broke as well because of the drought. But the world is not a fair place.
And farmers being whingers maybe a cliché but that doesn't mean it does not have substance. And no, I am not dependent on the farm for a living because we are happy to sell if it doesn't make a living. But I have many friends and relatives who were. Yes, it is different when you have a lifetime of farming but it is still insular, like any industry, and not many farmers do much talking when times are good and they are pocketing the cash ..... usually to buy more land which has been my experience of farmers. Maybe not these days though with more drought around and too many fences to mend with too little money.
You said: Diversification is not an option for the vast majority of farmers in this country. Unless, of course, you have access to irrigation water, and that is by no means assured for much longer. I see rice is at an all time premium price, but the writer adds, "no water to grow it".
Diversification means within the limits of what is available. Rice and cotton should not really be grown in most of Australia because they need too much water. There are many things which can be grown however, or raised, in a water short environment..... that was the point I meant by diversification.
And yes it is off thread. And no, I did not see about the women in Iran. Yes, it is good to write to the governments in these countries and petitions can help. I'm not sure my signature on petitions against capital punishment in the US have done much good, nor against female foeticide in India have done much good but it is certainly worth a try. One of the worst things about the Iraqi debacle is how much worse off women are now. Saddam for his sins was secular and women had almost unheard of freedom for the Arab world. No more. And the Afghani adventure is now turning on its head and the Taliban is back with force. Women are subject to more injustice in this world than men. Far more, and yet it never really ranks as a reason for Governments to act. But keep up the good work. At least if someone, somewhere is speaking out as and when they can it is better than nothing.
Hilarious, Roslyn.
"You are in no position to state who has or has not a respect for human life. That is sheer arrogance on your part."
OK so would it be supreme arrogance for me to claim that, say, Ivan Milat had no respect for human life? Hitler? Bin Laden? Jeffrey Dahmer? Saddam? Stalin? You are hilarious as usual, Roslyn.
Context, remember context
Mike, you keep missing context. My comment to Jenny was in regard to her assessment of Iraqis involved in violence, or believed to be involved in violence. She was, or appeared to be, in essence, dismissing a people, or judging a people, when in truth, she, like the rest of us, has no way of knowing what life is really like for them and what they do or do not respect.
And it is a somewhat limited view to suggest that anyone has 'no respect for human life.' One may say their crimes are indicative of a lack of respect or human life in that instance, but of course, they may well respect human life in other instances. It is all a matter of degree.
The Lebanese don't think we have much respect for human life following Israel's criminal blitzkreig and I am sure the Iraqis, Palestinians and Afghanis don't think we have much respect for human life either. We do, of course. Just not their lives.
Therein lies the rub!
Not true, Roslyn.
Post hoc propter hoc
In case you are wondering, C Parsons, your most recent posts have not been published because they are over the .05 – dear me, sorry – your limit of five for today.
I realise that that rule has been observed slightly in the breach in the last few days; but be warned, all: I have returned!
Left, right, right, left????
Given the frequency with which terms like Left, particularly, but also Right, are used on threads to 'pigeonhole' posters I am curious as to how those who use the terms would define them.
It seems that Left is often used to dismiss an opinion, despite the fact that that opinion is a defence of democracy, justice and human rights and Right, is used in the same way.
So what are the tick boxes which enable people to 'know' who is Left and who is Right?
My experience is that many people have views which carry across a spectrum. Apart from which the use of such terms is only ever used in a dismissive way and does not further debate.
But, an understanding of What is Right and What is Left after we have determined what is Right, or what is Right about what is Left would be interesting.
Time travel
Roger Fedyk: "C Parsons, I am curious as to what point are you are making with the reference to Bob Brown's question."
To contrast his call in 1991 with this remark by Roslyn:
Roslyn Ross: "It is hardly surprising that given the invasion and occupation of Iraq that internecine rivalries would emerge and become deadly.
Also, this remark by Roslyn:
"My point was that because of the illegal, immoral and unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq these injustices have intensified."
The Ba'athist regimes genocide against the Kurds had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, and indeed it was relieved by the No Fly Zones (which prominent leftists like John Pilger opposed), and since the overthrow of the regime, persecution of the Kurds has been reduced to the occasional deliberate bombing of defenseless civilians by the heroes of the Iraqi 'resistance'.
Not all beer and skittles
C. Parsons, the discussion was not about previous atrocities but about atrocities committed under Coalition rule.
By the way, you conveniently omit the fact that the Americans encouraged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein and then did nothing when he gassed them. The international community, including Australia, was also largely silent as this atrocity was perpetrated. So we share responsibility for that one too.
However, the point remains that an occupying power has, under international law and UN guidelines, responsibility for the welfare of those it holds under occupation. This means that the Coaliation, and that includes us, is responsible for whatever happens in Iraq just as Israel is responsible for what happens in Palestine.
Unfortunately there are responsibilities with being an occupier. It is not all beer and skittles. When the people you control suffer then the bucks stops with you.
In addition, the potential for internecine rivaly in Iraq following invasion and occupation was well known. No doubt at some point war crimes charges will be levelled at the US and its allies for completely failing to do all that it could to ensure that these rivalries would be kept to a minimum.
Hopefully, at some point the Coalition will have to pay compensation to the Iraqis for its failure as an Occupying regime. I am sure there will be a great deal of evidence to back up claims of failure.
Things like the fact that America's mammoth 'embassy,' biggest in the world..... military bunker actually to continue to rule the country from behind the scenes..... is on target and so too are a couple of military bases across Iraq. Amazing really. And Iraqis do not have reliable supplies of food, water, electricity or even jobs.
You could almost believe the Americans, and allies are doing their level best to ensure that life for Iraqis is as terrible as possible ..... a perfect environment for the worst of internecine rivalry.
But even if the Americans and their allies are merely arrogant, ignorant and incompetent, the fact remains that it is the occupying power which is held accountable for the wellbeing of the people they control. End of story really.
It is all far, far worse under the Coalition occupation
Jenny, of course there were injustices going on before the invasion and occupation of Iraq it is just that since that time there are more ..... injustice, if you like, has increased by gigantic proportions. Some 250,000 Iraqis are dead because of the Coalition of the Willing and the Killing and the levels of torture and death, are greater than anything under Saddam.
For this I hold the Coalition of the Killing and the Willing responsible. Just as I hold Saddam Hussein responsible for the injustices carried out under his regime.
You said: "I would recommend that you peruse some of the extensive material available on the persecution and massacres of the Armenians, the Assyrians and the Christians in Asia Minor, which has been going on for centuries. In particular you might like to consider the hundreds of thousands of Assyrians who were massacred between 1915 and 1923."
Absolutely. My point was that because of the illegal, immoral and unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq these injustices have intensified. It is these injustices that are the responsibility of the Coalition since it created the environment through invasion and as it fails as an Occupier to provide those it Occupies with security .... as it should.
I think your comment about Armenians was in regard to Assyrians otherwise it does not make sense.
The persecution of the Assyrians has intensified since the invasion and occupation. That is the responsibility of those who invaded and occupied. That was my point.
If you look at what I said, I used the word 'erupted.' By that I mean that while no doubt there were differences and disputes and even hatreds before the invasion and occupation, it is since that time that these rivalries have been able to 'erupt' in more deadly manner.
Saddam Hussein certainly did his fair share of killing ..... although he stands as something of an amateur when you look at the hundreds of thousands dead at the hands of America and its allies and the more than a million maimed and wounded, but, like Tito in Yugoslavia, he also kept a lid on a disparate and divided State.
No, that does not mean he should have stayed in power if the Iraqis did not want him but it does mean that he was able to 'control' such internecine rivalry in a way the Americans clearly cannot. Or perhaps do not want to.
I stand by my point that the injustices suffered by the Assyrians are equal to the injustices suffered by all Iraqis whether those injustices are at the hands of other Iraqis or at the hands of the Coalition with its campaign of killing, torture, house demolition and terrorising of the population.
Gary
C Parsons
No roads shall meet here
Roslyn, the point I was simply making was that persecution of minority groups in that whole region of the world, of Armenians, the Assyrian Christians, Christians generally and other more minor Ethnic Groups/Sects/Religions has been going on for centuries, and no doubt will continue to go on, long after the current war has ended. Sure, we hear a bit more about it now thanks to modern communications. No longer can a people or group be persecuted and massacred without the whole world knowing about it.
But there are dangers in trying to make comparisons of degree with the past and the present Roslyn, unless the past delivers up all its facts, (and its dead and tortured), which it rarely does. We will never know how many people were murdered or tortured under Saddam Hussein over 30 years, but I put it to you your body count is likely way out. Similarly the numbers you cite in regard to the current war. But I refuse to be drawn on that as we have been there before.
But I really get quite irritated with those here who persist in attributing the mass killings in Iraq by Sunnis and Shias of each other to the Coalition. The Coaltion is no more responsible for the tens of thousands that are being murdered each month than you or I. These people are killing each other Roslyn because of their hatred for each other and for revenge. They are not forced to do it by the Coalition. They just do it. They could stop it tomorrow if they valued human life, but they clearly don't. The only difference before the invasion and after is that the killing is just not quite so one sided now, and is not centrally controlled.
The biggest mistake the West made in going into Iraq, was any belief that the things we value, namely a democratic system of government, human rights, freedom of speech, religion and so forth, would be embraced as a result of the removal of the butcher of Bagdad. What we are seeing is the extent to which many of the inhabitants of that sorry part of the world do not hold those values and above all do not respect human life. Any belief that such values, and a democratic system of government could be just imposed by the West on them was a pipe dream. So (despite the cited reasons) the simple choice was to leave Saddam with his Patent on the killing and torture, with Shias the primary victims, or remove him, and let the free for all prevail. Sad but true.
Despite this war, in my opinion, those values we hold continue to be held by the vast majority of people in this country, no matter how much you and others try to convince us that they are dead in the water under Howard and Co. I simply do not accept that. I have said this before. You need to stop throwing around sweeping generalisations.
It is not just the rigid and inflexible position you and Angela and others espouse on the whole Israel, Iraq, Palestine, Iran scene and issues that bothers me. I have the same response to C Parsons and Geoff Pahoff in regard to their equally inflexible viewpoints. I just wonder how people get themselves so cemented in.. What really drives them?
Inflexibility. How it stands in the way of human progress and happiness throughout the world today. And how dangerous it is. And we see it on both sides. (Don't know why this post has decided to double space on me).
As an occupier you have complete responsibility
Jenny, I agreed with your point that persecutions have been onging and merely made the point that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased, not decreased those persecutions.
You said: "We will never know how many people were murdered or tortured under Saddam Hussein over 30 years, but I put it to you your body count is likely way out."
Given that we occupy Iraq I would have thought there was a pretty good chance that the figures for Saddam are close to correct. Give or take. And it is not my body count, it is the body count of organisations who did similar body counts in Kosovo. If it is out it is only because there are more dead, not less given attempts by the occupying forces to prevent such information being accessible and the difficulties of doing anything in Iraq.
You said: "But I really get quite irritated with those here who persist in attributing the mass killings in Iraq by Sunnis and Shias of each other to the Coalition. The Coaltion is no more responsible for the tens of thousands that are being murdered each month than you or I."
Ah, but it is, and so are we as citizens of a nation which supports this invasion and occupation. An occupying force has complete responsibility for those it occupies. Therefore, whatever happens in that country is the responsibility of the occupying force. They are in essence, the government and are accountable. This is international law. You occupy a country therefore what happens in that country is your responsibility.
Now, given the internecine rivalries in Iraq and given the fact that these potential 'splits' were well known before the invasion and occupation, it behoves the occupying power, even more so, to have done all that it could to prevent such conflicts breaking out.
The Coalition has completely failed as an occupying power both in protecting the Iraqi people and establishing a level of function to the country. Meanwhile the military bases and the massive American 'embassy' are spot-on target. That may not bother you but it bothers me.
When you invade and occupy you create dysfunction. A perfect environment in which rivalry can breed. When you allow a substandard and deadly 'quality' of life to become established for the people, you encourage, by omission, that dysfunction.
You said: "The biggest mistake the West made in going into Iraq, was any belief that the things we value, namely a democratic system of government, human rights, freedom of speech, religion and so forth, would be embraced as a result of the removal of the butcher of Bagdad."
The Iraqis do not have democracy. They do not have human rights and they do not have freedom of speech and that is not because of the Iraqis, that is because of the policies of the occupying power and its stooge government.
I am sure if the Americans had actually left infrastructure standing, beyond the Oil Ministry and had gone in quickly to restore power and water and had created an environment of employment, not unemployment and if the Americans had not set about killing Iraqis at will, imprisoning without trial, torturing and generally 'selling' off the country to its cronies, then the Iraqis would probably be as well behaved as you would like them to be.
They have swapped, sadly, for them and us, one thug for another.
You said: "What we are seeing is the extent to which many of the inhabitants of that sorry part of the world do not hold those values and above all do not respect human life."
What we are seeing is your bigotry and the appalling hypocrisy of the Americans and their toadying allies.
I never said we were dead in the water under Howard. I merely said we had betrayed the principles of justice and democracy on which this country was founded and squandered our children's heritage. But when we get rid of this immoral lot we can make amends. That is if Australians care enough about rule of law, justice, human rights and integrity.
And whether you support this occupation or not the fact is that p
A report from the Lowy Institute shows most Australians believe the invasion and occupation of
And just some reading material in regard to how the Coalition has completely failed the Iraqis and replaced one bloody tyrant with another:
Things are worse for Iraqis under the Coalition occupation:
Excerpt: National Public Radio foreign correspondent Loren Jenkins, serving in NPR's
When one considers what the people of
The
Excerpt: The invasion of
The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, documents a well-researched study, that had been released by The Lancet Medical Journal.
The report in the British journal is based on the work of teams from the
A similar methodology was used in the late 1990's to calculate the number of deaths from the war in Kosovo, put at 10,000.
The Coalition capacity for killing Iraqis far outstrips Saddam Hussein and the occupying forces seek to hide real numbers:
Saddam is said to have killed 300,000 over 30 years to get Iraqis to behave. The Coalition is racking up numbers as high as 1300 a month for the same reason.
Excerpt: President Bush's off-hand summation last month of the number of Iraqis who have so far died as a result of our invasion and occupation as "30,000, more or less" was quite certainly an under-estimate. The true number is probably hitting around 180,000 by now, with a possibility, as we shall see, that it has reached as high as half a million.
But even Bush's number was too much for his handlers to allow. Almost as soon as he finished speaking, they hastened to downplay the presidential figure as "unofficial", plucked by the commander in chief from "public estimates". Such calculations have been discouraged ever since the oafish General Tommy Franks infamously announced at the time of the invasion: "We don't do body counts". In December 2004, an effort by the Iraqi Ministry of Health to quantify ongoing mortality on the basis of emergency room admissions was halted by direct order of the occupying power.
Torture in
Excerpt: Torture in
Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Thursday.
Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, made the remarks as he was presenting a report on detainee conditions at the
A UN survey in 2004 found life for Iraqis is far worse under the Coalition than Saddam and things have gotten worse since then not better.
Polls show two thirds of Australians want troops out ofBigotry and shortchanging the Butcher.
Roslyn: I wrote: "What we are seeing is the extent to which many of the inhabitants of that sorry part of the world do not hold those values and above all do not respect human life."
I do not accept that that statement by me makes me, as you suggest guilty of bigotry. Bigotry is by the Macquarie Dictionary: Intolerant attachment to a particular creed, opinion, practice etc. But the word is like racism, a term that is bandied around so much that it has now lost precision, and can in effect mean virtually anything. But if it does reflect intolerant opinion, and is therefore bigotry, then there is an awful lot of bigotry of that sort on both sides of this debate on WD, and I would include you in that.
My statement is a statement of fact. If people respected each others' lives in Iraq they would not be blowing each other up in the way they are, including women and children trying to shop for the family. That does not mean all Iraqis have no respect for human life, but it takes more than a few to be involved in these mass killings.
Criminals are just that. Iraq has more than its share at present. The Coalition is not the Government of Iraq. If making the people safe is the responsibility of the Government then the Iraqis are responsible for not doing so. They have had time to get their act together. The Coalition is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If it goes after the killers on behalf of the Iraqi government and innocent civilians get in the way, then those casualties are what make the news headlines, not the fact that they are trying to bring criminals and murderers to account.
Getting into body counts is pointless and I do not accept the figures either side cites as being certifiable. But if you want to count bodies or cite sites that do, then let’s count all the dead that one can lay at the feet of the butcher of Baghdad. Let us not short change him. Let us include all the Kuwaitis and Iraqis who died or were wounded as a result of his adventure in Kuwait. And I am sure the Iranians would want their dead placed at his feet as well, as would the Iraqis who died in that adventure too. I am sure he did not ask the people if they wanted to go to war with Iran for ten years. Lets us get all the figures if we are to talk dead and wounded Roslyn. And what about those who died while Saddam and his evil sons built their dozen or so palaces and played cat and mouse with the UN during the years of sanctions. Remember all those images of children dying for want of medecines Roslyn, but I suppose that was all the West's fault as well. Well rubbish. Credit where credit is due I say.
And I will agree with C Parsons here. Without the flying bans between the two wars, the toll of the Kurds and the Shias would have doubtless been even more horrific than it was. People here seem to forget that.
For whatever reason, Roslyn, people on the Left do not want to see the whole picture. They cite what suits their position which as I said has no flexibility.
Yes, I am sure two thirds of Australians want troops out of Iraq. But you might get quite a surprise if you asked them why.
The new butchers of Baghdad
Jenny: Another definition of bigotry is: “One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
And this was the context in which I used it. You appeared to be suggesting that Iraqis were different, inference, inferior, because they did not value, or rather, in your eyes, did not appear to value, those things which we value (give or take) like democracy or the rights of others.
You said: “My statement is a statement of fact. If people respected each others' lives in Iraq they would not be blowing each other up in the way they are, including women and children trying to shop for the family.”
No, your statement is not fact but subjective opinion. You are assuming that Iraqis do not respect each other and you are assuming this is why there is violence in Iraq. You are judging by your own standards an environment of which you, and most of us, have little or no knowledge.
As Maslow's hierarchy of needs demonstrates certain basic needs, such as physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comfort and then security, must be met before human beings ( of all sexes, creeds and races) are able to move toward belongingness, esteem and understanding.
Under Coalition rule these basic needs are not being met. It is hardly surprising that they are concentrating on things like water, food, a roof over their heads and security – whatever that may mean to them – than the values you feel are lacking.
There is a level of arrogance involved in judging people who are living a nightmare of epic proportions which we can barely imagine. I have lived in war zones and lived amongst appalling poverty but I am sure none of those experiences are anything like the horror with which Iraqis live. And that is a horror which we have inflicted upon them.
Iraq certainly has its fair share of criminals but so does any society in chaos. That is the tragedy for them. In an environment like this criminals prosper.
In addition Iraq has hundreds, possibly thousands of mercenaries who are a force unto themselves and who, because of the Coalition, are not answerable in any way to Iraqi law. Iraqis see these mercenaries as responsible for much violence as well. In addition the Coalition forces in Iraq use 'tactics of terror' to try to control the people: demolition of homes, imprisonment without trial, bombs, bullets and barbarism.
And then there is the violence between Iraqis themselves. No-one denies this violence is a reality although because the Coalition refuses to allow journalists to work freely in Iraq it is difficult to assess the degree of this violence.
But all of the violence, that perpetrated by Iraqis, by mercenaries and by the military is the responsibility of the Occupying forces. That's the Americans and us, their allies. That is international law.
And the Coalition is the 'government' of Iraq because it is the controlling power. The Iraqi 'government' does not have the power to act autonomously. The Coalition, as an occupier is the real power.
You said: “Getting into body counts is pointless and I do not accept the figures either side cites as being certifiable.”
You do not have to accept the figures but that does not make them less real. I happen to think ten thousand is too many for this venal adventure let alone a quarter of a million.
You said: “But if you want to count bodies or cite sites that do, then let’s count all the dead that one can lay at the feet of the butcher of Baghdad.”
Are you sure you want to go there? If we do that then we have to tot up all those who have died at the hands of the Americans and their allies: Vietnam, various South American states, Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians (yes, the Americans supported Saddam's war against Iran and armed him for it so those millions go onto our list) and now Lebanese (we of course did nothing while the Israelis slaughtered civilians at will and in a last criminal act littered the country with cluster bombs.)
And while we are adding up the deaths let us also bear in mind that Saddam Hussein was a dictator and admitted to it...... whereas the US and its allies, that's us, claim to abide by standards of democracy, rule of law, human rights and international justice.
Not only have we killed more but we are the hypocrites. Certainly, let's add up Saddam's bodies but let's add up our own as well.
You said: “And what about those who died while Saddam and his evil sons built their dozen or so palaces and played cat and mouse with the UN during the years of sanctions.”
I take it then you are opposed to the fact that Iraqis are dying and suffering because the Americans are busily on target with their 'palace' in Baghdad and military bases across Iraq?
Let's not also forget that Saddam and his sons played 'cat and mouse' because for a lot of the time he was supported by the US and the international community. By all means condemn him but condemn us for our actions or lack of actions as well. He could not have survived as long as he did without that support.
Let's not forget either that one of his greatest atrocities, gassing the Kurds took place because the Americans told the Kurds to rise up against him and they did and the Americans then dumped the Kurds. Those deaths are our deaths. We did nothing about those dead children did we? Remember all those images of the bloated corpses.
And, as to children dying for want of medicines. Well, while that was going on the international community was busy doing business with Saddam. Even our own good old wheat board, handing over bribes which they knew would be used for tyrannical ends.
How do you dole out the blame in that regard? Or were the AWB minions innocent and no more than putty in the hands of that evil Saddam?
More to the point, the international community knew that Iraqi children were dying because of sanctions but we kept up the sanctions and kept doing business on the side. Ah, hypocrisy is alive and well.
There is plenty of evil to go around and more evil being done today than Saddam and his sons ever did. That is the tragedy for the world. We point the finger at tyrants and then wade knee deep in blood ourselves, authorize torture, betray principles of international law and human rights, and justify death and destruction.
When it comes to blame I believe it should go where it belongs. Saddam deserves his fair share but so do all those who aided and abetted him ..... that includes us.
You said: “For whatever reason Roslyn, people on the Left do not want to see the whole picture. They cite what suits their position which as I said has no flexibility.”
I would have said there was inflexibility in needing to categorise people. I would not class you as Right. I do not classify myself as Left. I have varying positions across the spectrum on many issues. I suspect you do too. It is simply a bid to dismiss the opinions of others which you do not like when you seek to typecast them in this way.
If it is Left to support principles of justice, law, democracy and human rights then I must be Left although I know many people who would never see themselves as Left who hold to similar principles. How can that be? How can people from both sides of a spectrum support the same things? Amazing really!
You said: “Yes, I am sure two thirds of Australians want troops out of Iraq. But you might get quite a surprise if you asked them why.”
Given that a majority of Australians were opposed to the invasion of Iraq in the first place I suspect it is because they have become even more convinced it was an utterly disastrous idea. It is also a sign that Australians do believe in principles of justice and law. They know this invasion and occupation are wrong and can never be made right. They feel guilty because we are betraying the principles upon which our nation and culture is founded.
Being an occupier, particularly one who wreaks such death and destruction makes most people feel guilty. Even the Americans who were ready to believe the lie that Iraq was involved in 9/11 have changed their minds and most now want out. The Brits were also against it from the start and are even more so now as we see the reality of war and occupation. Blair and Bush are both suffering for this ghastly and immoral adventure and in time Howard will too. Just desserts for the new butchers of Baghdad.
It's unanimous, stupid
What a truly idiotic observation. I would be surprised if less than 100% of Australians wanted the troops out. And 100% of Americans as well.
A man who lies to the people,condemned by parliament,decides war
Geoff, that is an acute observation. So why do you think that our government is no longer Of the people, For the people, By the people, and ignoring the wishes – the apparently overwhelming wishes – of the people?
Is this how a democracy should function? I would feel a lot happier if any war of invasion required a bit more than the less than 50% mandated elected PM to decide. Preferable something like two thirds of parliament. Preferably little Howards/Downers/Bush twintwerps in the front lines. It would almost, make a war worthwhile.
I wonder if we really are meant to give a carte blanche when they are elected on platforms with nothing to do with such events. Would it really be so handicapping to a nation if the leadership required plebiscite/change for an invasion action? I think not. Cheerio
Over the top
Howard and Downer in a shooting war, Angela Ryan? Dangerous stuff. You might let them go over the top but you wouldn't follow and the danger they pose is just inconceivable. Keep our lads safe from our leaders I say.
Fiona: Malcolm, I think (if I understand her correctly) that Angela Ryan was referring to participation by their offspring.
Offspring , a truism. How can we now keep them safe?
True enough, Fiona, "twin twerps" was not Howard and Downer but Bush’s off offspring. Is it true they were in Saddam’s hot tub once? What a juicy blog rumour. Love to see Howard's drip son, who helped the Diebold election Republican Party team recently. Let us hope he doesn't import his skills home.
And Malcolm, "follow them over the top"? We did worse; we let them tell us to go over, while they had their tea and counted their stock options. Even Beazley has just come out saying the Iraq war was a mistake and made us in more danger and the troops would be withdrawn.
Amazing. He must be smelling the death stench from Washington to change horses. I cannot find the Hansard debate just before the war but I thought he was one of the supporters of the war, despite knowing just as we do now, that the data was false and the advice was: don’t do it. All except the fake OSP Feith deception group. No accountability there for deceiving the nation. Gosh whatasurprise. It is the nation that will hold the account. So will Beazley now call for an enquiry into what the government knew about the torture scandal of Habib and Hicks? Will he have a Senate enquiry into what the intelligence was in the lead up to the war? In the lead up to the Bali bombing? SievX? In the East Timor independence vote carnage? Will he now call for Hicks’s repatriation? He didn't when he had the power in the Senate to do so. Will he call for an enquiry into the alleged war crimes committed by our soldiers in Afghanistan when over a hundred Afghanis were slaughtered recently, including women and children?
That is the problem with the company we keep: eventually we too are tarnished and damned by the deeds that we supposedly condone in our allies, and our own are trained to do likewise.
As Mick Keelty said, our involvement in the War against Terror has made us a greater terror target ...thanks, Johnny.
Thanks a lot.
Cheers
Well written Angela.
I agree with the basic principle of your article that a government should only be able to exercise the mandate for which they have been elected. And it should disclose all of it's planned future legislations in print for all of the "shareholders" to see, BEFORE they are elected.
Since the Howard U.S. era, only negative politics is practiced, they denigrate the opposition and call on their "record". How many have chronicled their "record" ? Certainly not the Corporate media.
Then Angela, your idea of a plebiscite or referendum would certainly be the responsible way for any real Democratic Government to obtain the permission of the people - not the Military/Corporate.
"....handicapping to a Nation" definitely not Angela - look at the time spent with the U.S. continually threatening "you are either with us or against us". Look at the time spent with sanctions against Iraq, North Korea et al. Would that be enough time for a "what if" referendum? Of course it would.
Your comment on the typical "big mouthed, courageous and steely minded" leaders (my description not yours), who choose to go to war, should lead as was the system before the 20th century. That too is indisputable. There would be far less wars I can assure you. And because of the profits to be made by big business, this no longer happens.
However, Gough Whitlam's Labor Government tried to change the "profitable" attitude to war when he changed the name of our Armed Forces to the Australian Defence Force. Meaning of course, that as long as there are countries like the United States, Nations should have some organised resistence to invasion - i.e. "Defence".
This was trashed by the U.S. and their client states when they wanted Iraq invaded under any circumstances and Australia was involved - for the first time in our Sovereign history - in the pre-emptive invasion of another Sovereign Nation.
Prior to that American led ("coalition of the willing") illegal invasion against the United Nation's Security Council resolution, "New Order" Liberal P.M. Howard boasted that his SAS troops were the first into Iraq and gleefully announced that they had already killed Iraqis.
This is just another disgraceful legacy of the "New Order" Howard Liberals. They must ALL carry the blame for that behaviour - not just the wealthy of Bennelong.
NE OUBLIE.
Roslyn's figures are incorrect, as usual
"Saddam killed tens of thousands. The Coalition has killed hundreds of thousands. Saddam tortured many but the Coalition tortures more."
No, Roslyn, Saddam killed and tortured more than the Coalition forces have. If you insist on your line of falsehood then please cite valid sources that demonstrate otherwise, i.e., that show that Coalition forces have (1) killed and (2) tortured more people than Saddam did. You will not be able to do so.
Marketing the Message - the Left's monopoly on virtue
Roger Fedyk: "Charles Tannock makes an impassioned plea on behalf of the Assyrian Christians. Interestingly, he strives hard to make everything a homogenous, single issue question, namely; will the West step forward to save their Christian brothers and sisters. And that my friends, is "marketing the message".
"The House calls on the Prime Minister Bob Hawke to act immediately to put pressure on Australia's allies to intervene in Iraq to stop the slaughter of the Kurds and establish their right to self-determination ... we're in the disgusting position of sitting on our hands while these people are absolutely slaughtered - the least we can do is get our Prime Minister to speak up and put the full weight of this country towards the protection of these innocents."
- Senator Bob Brown
Roslyn Ross: "It is hardly surprising that given the invasion and occupation of Iraq that internecine rivalries would emerge and become deadly. The suffering of the Assyrian Christians is equal to but not greater than the suffering of all Iraqis, whatever their cultural or religious heritage."
So, Roslyn, you are satisfied that the former regime's genocide against the Kurds didn't "emerge and become deadly", are you?
And You Meant?
What Is The Distinction?
Charles Tannock makes an impassioned plea on behalf of the Assyrian Christians. Interestingly, he strives hard to make everything a homogenous, single issue question, namely; will the West step forward to save their Christian brothers and sisters. And that my friends, is "marketing the message".
Now, I agree with Tannock that the members of this group of individuals should not be persecuted. The idea that we kill each other in the name of all our fictitious gods is abhorrent and intrinsically mentally flawed.
Let us assume that Geoff and Jay and mike and Roslyn and all of the contributors are good, decent and empathetic people. Let us assume that not a single one of us would ever take another human being's life. Let us assume that each and everyone would lay down their lives for their friends and maybe even your enemies. How about Matthew 5:44, if you profess to follow Jesus Christ; "But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you". Let us assume that each and every one of us would gladly emulate Pastor Martin Neimoller.
On the basis of all those assumptions, the writings so far have been a poor reflection of everyone's best intentions.
If we want the killing of all innocents to stop , we need to resolve the parsimonious and selfish bickering that passes for reasoned argument with good will and a generous accomodation that comes from the heart.
Roger, nobody here is killing anyone.
And none of our mere words here can do anything at all for those persecuted Assyrians, so your comment is meaningless. This is just a discussion forum, nothing more.
Perhaps you should repeat a well-known nursery rhyme to yourself, which goes like this: sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me.
(No, I don't follow Jesus or any other imaginary figure, FYI.)
Are You So Sure?
Hello mike lyvers. Please take the subject title as a rhetorical question.
You say "And none of our mere words here can do anything at all for those persecuted Assyrians, so your comment is meaningless. This is just a discussion forum, nothing more."
I therefore ask you this question; where in the ordinary discourse of decent people in Australia and elsewhere in the world do we have an opportunity to do more than just babble words? Is it your position that we have absolutely no power and no influence? Do you accept without reservation that nothing can be done to influence events politically and materially?
Your answer is keenly awaited. While you are framing your response perhaps you can factor in your understanding of what the meaning and purpose of Mahatma Gandhi's words and actions were.
Thank you also for the FYI. Is your rejection of religious figures a consider opinion? Do you believe that a person can develop a mature and suitable life philosophy without the influence of the mystical? What would be the salient points of such a life philosophy?
Sorry, I think I missed the point of your second paragraph.
Rogerian reply
Roger, we can vote, influencing some events in that way. But our chattering on the net does pretty much nil for beleagured Assyrians in Iraq.
I don't get your reference to Gandhi.
A person can indeed develop a mature and suitable life philosophy concerning one's relation to the cosmos, but beliefs in nonexistent things or beings are irrelevant at best, and impediments at worst, to this process.
Give Reason And Morality A Chance
mike, if it is nothing more than hot air why do it? It seems to me that a voice for reason can gather power and influence if there is consistency in morality and logic. For example, Tim Costello carries a good deal of weight in political circles because of his reasoned articulation of a consistent moral position and not because of his brother.
It is in that vein that I mentioned Gandhi. MG created no political party and cultivated no power base. His consistency and application of a practical peaceful morality brought about India's independence from the British and the betterment of his countrymen. Surely that is a model that we should be using rather than ossified, artificial political differentiation.
For the same reasons that I agree with your repudiation of invisible gods who interfere and influence the affairs of mankind, I profoundly disagree with the parochialness of a conservative/socialist duopoly. Whoever supports a world system that cleaves the world of people into Left and Right ignores the potential richness of a creative co-operative interplay between people.
I am only guessing here but I assume that neither you nor I nor most of the WD respondents are people of wealth and power. Doesn't it strike you as incongruous that one or more of us regard ourselves as vicariously bound to the cause of the privileged? What difference is there in believing that piece of fiction and not believing in supreme beings?
"the cause of the priveleged"?
Very Much So
mike, I would find it hard to make the connection that you do so readily. I can't say that I have ever considered bin Laden's wealth and privilege in making my own assessment of him. To my mind he is a dangerous, murderous psychopath.
The point I was making, obliquely it seems, goes back to what I wrote initially; namely, my criticism of a debate that is frozen into a pattern of "I'm Right therefore I'm right, your Left therefore you are wrong" and vice versa.
There is nothing so simplistic in the relationship between people that it conveniently boils down to what I have called the Conservative/Socialist duopoly. However, it suits the true power brokers and wealth holders within our society to help us maintain that fiction.
There is an ongoing and ancient game that is played out in each generation. It is called "divide and conquer" and its devotees are gathered from those who have little more than a miniscule stake in the outcomes of the game. Like the Roman "bread and circuses", it confuses most peole as to why their life circumstances are closer to the poverty-end of the good life scale while their aspirations are far higher.
And in case you might exercise your predilection for filtering what I say as a ready appeal for a socialist cause, I can set you straight. I believe that being a Conservative or being a Socialist are two sides of the same coin, "Wealth and Privilege".
Like believing in a beneficent God, those that subscribe to the duopolist view are dupes engaging in the fiction that following someone else's path is the way to achieve a meaningful life. In the plainest and simplest terms, I would not be arguing or endorsing either John Howard's or Kim Beasley's view of the world. Neither one can tell you the truth, that they both faithfully serve their own masters, and it is not us.
Roger, with all due respect
With Apologies
Killing is personal
"The Coalition, both of the Willing and the Killing, is responsible for all of these injustices and atrocities because they have erupted because of the invasion and because of the occupation."
A long bow Roslyn Ross, I always thought the decision to take up arms and kill was a person one. The COW simply lifted the lid and can’t get it back on. What they need now, more than ever, is Saddam.
Even easier
And now we can ignore anything Geoff Pahoff posts as well.
Soon, Webdiary will be as easy to read as the Herald Opinion page.
Easiest Of All
It is likely we will never know how safe it is to ignore everything that Malcolm B Duncan posts here. We would have to find a volunteer to read it first.
Judging from the number of comments his lastest chapter of "The Scion etc" has attracted, that seems very unlikely.
A lost cause
Geoff Pahoff : "A fantastic thing, the twenty-first century. A golden era to be a psychopathic killer."
I disagree Geoff. Very few people take these radical leftist lunatics seriously. They are far from any real power and the chances of them ever gaining any, get less everyday with their stupidity.
It is a pity because I do agree with a free and open society with alternative views. The "real" left do have interesting things to say even though I may disagree with them on issues. The radical anti-American, anti-Jewish facsist apologists in their ranks bring them nothing but disgrace.
The right has always had problems with the lunar brigade and measures need to be taken from time to time. It is about time the left went about taking similar measures.
"Not My Fault. My Bloody Knife. But I'm Not An American Or Jew.
These people make the best British or Jewish comedy look dry and stale. What did I say less than two hours ago?
There is a lesson here of course. If you want to commit murder make it as cruel and ugly as possible. But make sure you convert to Islam first. That way the clowns of this branch of the "left" will always hold your victims responsible for the crime. Or at least the Americans or Israelis. No doubt offer a good press and sanctuary as well.
A fantastic thing, the twenty-first century. A golden era to be a psychopathic killer.
We are responsible
I read something on the Assyrian Christians the other week which was interesting and was looking for it again as a post to this thread. No success. The Assyrian Christians are an interesting lot, although I suspect not many people were even aware of their existence. Although it is hardly surprising given that this part of the world is made up of a great variety of races, creeds and cultures.
The Assyrian Christians seem to be mainly settled in northern Iraq and their biggest 'enemy' appears to be the Kurds, or Kurdish Iraqis. I suspect if the Assyrian Christians were being attacked by Iraqi Moslems the issue may have gained greater media coverage.... the Kurds being staunch US allies and being considered the 'good guys' in Iraq.
The Kurds are also, it seems, most active in seeking to deny the Assyrian Christians, and other minority groups, their rightful representation in Iraq.
http://www.aina.org/releases/20050328112133.htm
http://www.christiansofiraq.com/attack8275.html.
Excerpt: (AINA) -- Assyrian protests against the proposed Iraqi constitution (English, Arabic) have resulted in deadly reprisal attacks against Assyrian Christian civilians by forces loyal to Masoud Barazani, the tribal chieftain of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). On August 24, several hundred Assyrian (also known as Chaldean and Syriac) protestors demonstrated in the two Northern Iraqi Christian towns of Qaraqosh (Bakhdeda) and Telsqof (Tel-sqeepa) against the constitution's splintering of the Assyrian Christian community into separate groups identified as either Assyrian or Chaldean. The Assyrian community in Iraq had previously been referred to singly as "ChaldoAssyrian" in the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL, English, Arabic) to reflect the community's desire to be recognized as one.The demonstrations was also intended to send a strong signal of opposition to KDP's continued illegal expansion into Assyrian areas.
Two days later, the KDP struck back with deadly force. On August 26 37 year old Nabil Akram Ammona, a resident of Bartilla, was shot twice in the head by KDP paramilitaries while filling his automobile with gasoline (AINA, 8-27-2005).
http://www.nineveh.com/Who%20Are%20We/Index.htm
Excerpt:
The world’s 4.5 million Assyrians are currently dispersed with members of the Diaspora comprising nearly one-third of the population. Most of the Assyrians in the Diaspora live in North America, Europe, and Australia. The remaining Assyrians reside primarily in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and Turkey.
The Assyrians are not to be confused with Syrians. Although the name of Syria is directly derived from Assyria and the land was once a part of Assyria the people of Syria currently maintain a separate Arab identity. The Assyrians are not Arabs, but rather have maintained a continuous and separate identity, language, and culture that predates the Arabization of the Near East. Until today, the Assyrians speak a distinct language, Syriac, the language spoken by Jesus Christ. As a Semitic language, the Assyrian language is related to Hebrew and Arabic but predates both.
http://www.aina.org/articles/assyrians.htm
It is hardly surprising that given the invasion and occupation of Iraq that internecine rivalries would emerge and become deadly. The suffering of the Assyrian Christians is equal to but not greater than the suffering of all Iraqis, whatever their cultural or religious heritage.
The Coalition, both of the Willing and the Killing, is responsible for all of these injustices and atrocities because they have erupted because of the invasion and because of the occupation.
Oh Roslyn
Oh Roslyn: "The Coalition, both of the Willing and the Killing, is responsible for all of these injustices and atrocities because they have erupted because of the invasion and because of the occupation."
I would recommend that you peruse some of the extensive material available on the persecution and massacres of the Armenians, the Assyrians and the Christians in Asia Minor, which has been going on for centuries. In particular you might like to consider the hundreds of thousands of Assyrians who were massacred between 1915 and 1923.
The genocide of these groups has been going on long before the current Iraq war. I am sure you know that, so let us have a little balance on this issue and see the current persecution of Armenians for what it is, ie simply more of the same. You do draw some very long bows at times my dear.