Nonsensical comments, abuse, baiting, ranting and leftist stupidity will not be tolerated.
Happy is a scumbag, period.
A scumbag indeed, and one with friends in many low, low places.
Run along now Deke, go and help your boyfriend out, he's smarting from all the rejections he's getting. I'm sure he could use your 'unique' talents.
And did you notice those very nasty allegations he made. Now if it was a Hicks or some murdering terrorist, he'd be braying about rule of law, evidence and international law, but for a Conservative blogger, no worries. No need for any of that, just throw about any allegation or slur under the guise of free speech.
So you are deke happy wanker, my oh my, one and the same or is it split loser personality. Typical of leftists i suppose, hiding in the shadows throwing out insults and slurs.
All because we're allowed to have opinions and share them with like minded people, can't stand it ey, keep sucking that lemon in the shadows son, it's all losers like you can do, you can't stop us.
His nom de blog "Happy Revolutionary" ought to tip anyone off that he is just another Che T-shirt wearing,anti everything democratic -loser.
Yawn......Don't you people ever get tired of name-calling and agreeing with each other?
Banhammering failed trolls is funny, but not news.
I just love taking the fight to the enemy trenches guys.
Cheers
I just love taking the fight to the enemy trenches Guys
Cheers
Don't you people ever get tired of name-calling and agreeing with each other?
Don't you get tired of repeating fallacious ideas that have been consigned to the garbage bin of history?
"Yawn..."
That was also my reaction on reading your blog, 17whatever.
1735099, don't you ever get tired of coming here and asking stupid questions and making stupid observations?
"Yawn......Don't you people ever get tired of name-calling and agreeing with each other?"
No.
Next question?
"No" - It figures.
I guess not.. it figures..
Ay Caramba this 1735099 is actually an adult.
He is also a teacher which explaines the leftist crap on his incredibly boring site.
"...his incredibly boring site."
Well, I'm really shocked at that. With such an intriguing number for a name, who would have thought that!!
Shocked i tell you, just shocked.
Get a life - don't you know an army number when you see one? FYI - 1735099 was my regimental number - (5 Platoon B coy 7RAR - SVN 1970). Back then I was fighting to keep you twerps safe from the leftists you waffle on about - apparently.
"If you can read this - thank a teacher; if you can read it in English - thank a soldier".
Kman
"Explaines??"- It's actually "explains".
Can't help it - being a teacher etc.
Spelling - poor.
Oh sorry 1735099, didn't know that, where do we line up to worship you, pray tell.
Sorry, us twerps don't have a life as rich and fulfilling as yours, isn't that why you're here, to guide us oh great warrior 1735099.
How blessed we are that you never tire of gracing us with your presence..
1735099 - instant abuse, I see.
And you actually stoop, at the last, to picking on a typo in a comment post. . .
A teacher? And what do you teach, I wonder?
No - I actually don't.
17... don't tell me - it's your teacher's union serial number. Your spelling may be excellent, but your punctuation is hopeless. I guess you really are a teacher, hey?
"fighting to keep you twerps safe from the leftists you waffle on about - apparently"
Apparently? That's a telling word. Too bad you didn't believe in what you were doing.
Oh no, ar - now he gets to tell us how 'disillusioned' he was by 'what he did back then'. . .
Thanks for setting us up for a right snore-fest, mate!
My friends dont want to play soggy biscut, dey dont wat me bekos i like finish last an i like to help them, when i at skool they cal me freak & beat me when i peeping thru crak in wall at otha boys. My mommy says I go weewee an to bed but I kant play with my peepee. Youse wait till mommy go sleep, I hate ruber sheet, I com baak an tell youse abot my sheeps.
I likes sheepz, they're so soft...1 days afters gaayz mariaage is alooud, i will fite for me and youse sheepz to tie nots.
I'm a sour wannabe french commie with a useless blog that nobody wants to visit, so i'm just here acting like a weak and cowardly wanker trying to get your attention in the hope that you might visit my blog. if that happens maybe we can exchange details, and you know i could like shake it for you.
By the way my sex change operation is scheduled for next month, i'm not going to turn into a big girl, i'm thinking maybe i should have two of each, that should get enough attention from everyone, right?
Absolutely, Happy! And may I say, you're far more coherent than usual. . .
You've been taking special AWH tablets, right?
"fighting to keep you twerps safe from the leftists you waffle on about - apparently"
And insedentuly-what battle was that?
East Timor dont count!
Has anyone here thought of "outing" Crappy Pollutionary? I'd love to see someone turn the tables on him and publish photos of him with pedophile captions on it.
In his case, it could well be true.
AWH should put a bounty out for his photo and address.
Nah, he's a coward Panday, you know what these sniveling curs are like, all talk about revolutions and social justice, but deep down inside, he's just a weak sniveling coward, hiding in the shadows and throwing slurs around. I know it would be richly deserved, to brand him a pedophile but i certainly don't do that sort of thing without proof, that would mean we're the same as that scumbag.
What if some other person did go around to his place and rearranged his ass based on it, i'd feel bad, well not too bad, i mean i won't be reaching for tissues or anything.
What dumb clucks like him don't get is that, the more he tries to tear us down the more we want to forge ahead and the more publicity we get. Unfortunately that's beyond his brain capacity, a bit like trying to teach a common housefly to pilot a 747.
Thought I'd try to lift the tone a bit - complete waste of time, obviously. It's a bit like poking a wasps' nest with a stick.
It's hard to accept failure, but look at it this way, at least you tried.
"It's a bit like poking a wasps' nest with a stick."
Having trouble with plurals are you, teach? Unnecessary use of apostrophe, too.
173etc if you wish to lift the tone a bit you can do it. Effortlessly.
By not commenting further.
Possessive plural - apostrophe required.
I did not see a response from number boy on just where he was battling the enemy on our behalf. If he is so gung-ho re bragging about his military service and displaying his military serial number as a blog monicker, why does he not answer a very simple question?
East Timor still doesn’t count.
Second question: Why does a supposedly educated adult and former member of our defence force with a family act so childishly by making asinine comments on a conservative blog?
If AWH contributors posted garbage on his blog, he would not be a happy camper that's for sure.
Something is very strange about this fellow. He certainly is not setting a very good example to his kids or to his students, and their parents should be aware of this.
"Thought I'd try to lift the tone a bit"
With what you posted?
You really are a teacher, aren't you. . .
ar, the possessive apostrophe is correct.
Just saying.
I'm a sour wannabe french commie with a useless blog that nobody wants to visit, so i'm just here acting like a weak and cowardly wanker trying to get your attention in the hope that you might visit my blog. if that happens maybe we can exchange details, and you know i could like shake it for you.
For a while i used to post stupid, irritating comments here as Deke, they thought he was just another loser, but it was me pretending to be someone else, i don't know what the big deal is, i was just being a lying sack of shit. i like being deke, my ex-boyfriend used to be called that, it reminds me of him, at night i go by many other names, so many men to please.
But the common usage form is 'wasp nest'.
The modifier for "nest" should have been "wasp" as JO points out. Singular. Adjectival. Not requiring apostrophe.
Fair call on that, guys. I do tend to use the plural, though.
God help us - teach' has got us talking syntax. . .
They're in our minds, I tell you!
Normally I don't give a shit, it's just that teach came on this blog and pointed out someone's bad spelling. And superciliously declares himself a teacher. So from now on he'd better be on his game.
I agree, ar. Fact is, it wasn't even bad spelling - it was a typo'.
And that was the sum total of the contribution from teach.
'Lift the tone', indeed.
"I did not see a response from number boy on just where he was battling the enemy on our behalf. If he is so gung-ho re bragging about his military service and displaying his military serial number as a blog monicker, why does he not answer a very simple question?
East Timor still doesn’t count. "
The reason you didn't see a response was that I was banned from commenting on this blog - so much for free speech.
My response - now that the ban appears to have been lifted - is that I was a member of 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. My posting was rifleman - Infantry. I served in SVN from Jan 1970 until Dec 1970. I have seen the endgame of the politics of fear and loathing. That's why I post on blogs like this.
What was your service, kman?
Banned and then suddenly unbanned? Let me assure you: had you been banned, you'd have stayed banned.
And as for the endgame of the politics of fear and loathing? I guess a communist march through SEA would have been just fine with you, would it? Or are you arguing it wasn't happening?
Funny that – there was a tag telling me that I could no longer post. You’d better complain to the moderator.
The Domino theory had been discredited by the mid sixties. What I saw happening in 1970 was a war as much about National Liberation as it was about a Communist takeover. The Communists were defeated by Doi Moi in the eighties, and the country is now a free enterprise haven masquerading as a Marxist state.
I've been back twice in the last two years, and the rate of growth is phenomenal.
We were there because the Americans were there – it had nothing to do with our national security. Can I suggest you travel to Vietnam? Have a look at the reality – you might have a rethink.
You should also read Paul Ham’s "Vietnam - The Australian War".
"The Domino theory had been discredited by the mid sixties."
By who? Oh, that's right - the left. . .
"Have a look at the reality – you might have a rethink."
We were there because Vietnam is close, and the threat was perceived to be real. After the Malayan Emergency, it could not be ignored. Nor could the dominos.
"I've been back twice in the last two years, and the rate of growth is phenomenal."
And you tell yourself why in the previous sentence: '. . .a free enterprise haven masquerading as a Marxist state.'
And let me guess 173... you're also against the Iraq and Afghan involvement?
I'm not against what was done, but how it was done. Removing Saddam was a good outcome - the chaos that resulted was not. American military incompetence is alive and well - that hasn't changed since Vietnam.
Afghanistan should always have been a priority - and the problems we see now are a result of making Iraq the major issue. You can't blame the Europeans for wanting out of Afghanistan after the initial debacle in Iraq. It's still on a knife-edge.
The problem with both these conflicts is how the campaigns have been conducted - essentially by the neocons, and the US military has buckled under. It's only now that Rumsfeld has gone, that common sense has been engaged.
As for Vietnam - Paul Ham says it well - "The human cost of the war, in terms of personal grief and moral degradation. is immeasurable. In our helplessness, we surrender to statistics: 520 Australian soldiers dead and about 3,000 wounded; 58,193 Americans dead and about 300,000 wounded; 220,357 South Vietnamese troops dead, missing in action and 1.17 million wounded; 666,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops dead, with the possibility that a third were civilians mistaken for enemy troops or deemed legitimate targets. Of South Vietnamese civilian casualties, about 325,000 were confirmed killed (rising to a million, depending on your source and definition of a 'civilian'), 30 per cent of whom were children younger than 13. In total, an estimated 65,000 North Vietnamese civilians died as a result of US bombing. The Viet Cong assassinated 36,725 civilians between 1957 and 1972;the North Vietnamese and/or Viet Cong assassinated 166,000 South Vietnamese civilians. About three million Vietnamese people are believed to have suffered herbicide poisoning. In total, 3.5 million people died in Vietnam over fifteen years".
Worth it - I don't think so. Just ask the millions of survivors, particularly those who lost loved ones.
What these conflicts have in common is the horrifying consequence of American arrogance and incompetence. Back in 1970, the biggest risk we ran when conducting operations was (after land mines lifted from our own barrier minefield) from American Artillery - self-propelled guns) whose operators were frequently stoned.
From my understanding the failure in Vietnam was largely initiated by the incompetence of Democratic presidents.
I also read a book recently about the initial stages, from what i understood, the Americans (leftists really) wanted an American style democracy created in Vietnam, they were given the option of getting around 70% of what they wanted, they rejected that and instead got 0%.
As for Iraq, yes in hindsight mistakes were made, but they are being corrected now and there is real progress now. As for the Europeans wanting out of Afghanistan, i don't think they ever wanted in, the people in Europe don't strike me as being interested in it whether its working or not. In my opinion they don't have the will to fight anymore.
Having said all this, when things were going bad in Iraq, John Howard stuck it out, he never wavered. Afghanistan is going to get worse in the coming months, much like Iraq.
Kevin Rudd has repeatedly said he'll be cutting from Iraq but won't from Afghanistan, presumably this was because things were bad in Iraq, well i'm not sure anymore that when things go south in Afghanistan, he will stick it out, as we already know the Taliban are targetting our diggers.
What do you think is going to happen when the Taliban hear the one who didn't have the stomach for Iraq is now leading the country?
"I also read a book recently about the initial stages, from what i understood, the Americans (leftists really) wanted an American style democracy created in Vietnam, they were given the option of getting around 70% of what they wanted, they rejected that and instead got 0%"
I'm not sure what you read - but Ho Chi Minh often quoted the American Declaration of Independence in his speeches. Maybe the reference is to that.
What gives the Americans the right,then or now, to determine how another country is governed? It sounds eerily like Iraq - we'll create "democracy" whether they like it or not - the irony is lost on everyone except the Yanks.
Without denying the courage and professionalism of our diggers, our presence in Iraq is political rather than military. Having participated in a war which was fought under the same constraints, I can assure you that this is demeaning of the same
courage and professionalism. Rudd would, as I understand it, maintain a presence in Iraq. The reality is that what we do will depend on what the Americans do no matter who is in power in Canberra.
As a proud Australian who believes that our fighting soldiers are the best in the world, and far superior to the Yanks, I'd prefer that we had an independent foreign policy.
We can't even get decent trade deals from the Americans. Again, the same was true in the seventies, although the issue then was primary industry. Despite our commitment of blood and money, the American farmers remained protected.
". . . and the problems we see now are a result of making Iraq the major issue."
I disagree. It's a popular meme among the anti crowd, but without substance and never backed up, from what I've seen. Afghanistan was always going to be difficult, and that's entirely down to where the Taliban (and their supplies) come from.
Clue for you: not Afghanistan.
". . .we'll create "democracy" whether they like it or not. . ."
The arrogance! And entirely born out by the legions of dictators and tinpot wannabes who hate democracy with a passion.
Fact: democracies do not tend to war on other democracies. So do forgive us for wanting to build a more stable world on that basis (as irksome as it appears to be to you).
That meme is popular because it has a solid basis in fact. Read "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix for the detail. The decision to invade was made first, and a reason (any reason) to justify came later.
Most of the wealth behind the Taliban is generated in Saudi Arabia. Why weren't they invaded? It would have made as much sense strategically.
"Democracies do not tend to make war on other democracies" - The system of government is not the prime factor relating to war. It correlates more closely with security based on economic stability. That universally comes before political stability. The philosophy of government is far less important.
The "democracy" that has made war on other countries with greatest frequency is the USA, although they tend to do it by proxy (Nicaraguan Civil War, Resistance to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, etc). This often comes back to bite them as it did in Afghanistan.
You'll notice the quotes around democracy above. I don't regard the USA as a true democracy for the following reasons - Voting is not compulsory; candidates need to be very wealthy to stand a chance; there is an industry in lobbying which unfairly influences policy, and at the presidential election which saw Bush defeat Gore, the electoral system was exposed as inept - bit like their military.
The key to a stable world is education, tolerance, and economic planning based on free and fair trade. I don't see much reference to these factors on this blog.
Earlier you said that removing Saddam was a good outcome, but you're unhappy with things since then and America imposing a democratic system in Iraq, did you want Iraq to be left alone after removing Saddam, perhaps to another dictator then?
"As a proud Australian who believes that our fighting soldiers are the best in the world, and far superior to the Yanks, I'd prefer that we had an independent foreign policy."
They may or may not be better, but our soldiers cannot stand on their own, without the Americans we cannot defend ourselves, by ourselves. I'd much rather our foreign policy was closely allied with the Americans than anyone else.
"The "democracy" that has made war on other countries with greatest frequency is the USA, although they tend to do it by proxy .... Resistance to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan"
Did you think that was a bad thing, did you prefer Russia ran Afghanistan?
"I don't regard the USA as a true democracy for the following reasons - Voting is not compulsory.."
I think a real democracy should allow people the choice. And just because you think it's not doesn't make it so.
"I don't see much reference to these factors on this blog."
It's pretty obvious we don't see eye to eye, if you feel those are important in a blog, you are welcome to bang away on your own one. What we say and write here is our choice, if you don't like it, just don't read it.
Where do we begin?
"That meme is popular because it has a solid basis in fact."
It hs no basis in fact. That's why the arguments are so often shunted off to be dealt with by someone else - like Blix.
"Read "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix for the detail."
Must I? No grasp of the essence of the Blixian doctrine yourself?
Stun me.
"The decision to invade was made first, and a reason (any reason) to justify came later."
Ahh - no - the Taliban were supporting Al Qaida. And they were given the option to give that allegiance away. They chose not to. The rest is history.
"Most of the wealth behind the Taliban is generated in Saudi Arabia. Why weren't they invaded? It would have made as much sense strategically."
Most of the 'wealth' (military aid) behind the Taliban came directly via Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and ultimately from a variety of different sources. Invading Saudi Arabia would not have touched the Taliban.
"The system of government is not the prime factor relating to war."
You need to read your history a little more, in that case.
"It correlates more closely with security based on economic stability."
Which true democracies promote and guard and via precisely the mechanisms you have nominated: "free and fair trade".
"That universally comes before political stability."
Sorry - political stability (and most importantly, a respect in law for free and fair title) is what gives rise to free and fair trade; not vice versa. Centuries of recorded history, and economic history in particular, support the conclusion.
"The philosophy of government is far less important."
You're kidding yourself. Russia under Stalin should do nicely as exhibit number one.
"The "democracy" that has made war on other countries with greatest frequency is the USA, although they tend to do it by proxy (Nicaraguan Civil War, Resistance to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, etc).
The USA did not wage a war against Nicaragua.
"Resistance to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan" This is a country? US aid to the then version of the Northern Alliance, via the Pakistani military, is not a case I'd be putting forward of the USA making 'war on other countries', if I were you.
"This often comes back to bite them as it did in Afghanistan."
And here we go with the 'US created Osama/the Taliban' line. I'm sorry - that's simply not true.
"I don't regard the USA as a true democracy for the following reasons - Voting is not compulsory;"
It's not compulsory in Britain, either. In fact, Australia is one of the few democracies where it is.
To sum up, though: compulsion to vote = democracy?
You'll have to explain your logic there. The spirit of the freedom to speak, associate and vote doesn't tend to have a lot of compulsion attached to it - and that's rather the whole point, actually.
". . .candidates need to be very wealthy to stand a chance; there is an industry in lobbying which unfairly influences policy, and at the presidential election which saw Bush defeat Gore, the electoral system was exposed as inept - bit like their military."
Your view of the American electoral system is pretty simplistic. But if by inept, you are referring to the fact that they discard informal votes, well you'd better toss most of the. . .
. . .the other democracies into the bin, too.
"The key to a stable world is education, tolerance, and economic planning based on free and fair trade."
You won't get much argument there. Your route to your 'ideal world', however, is paved with good intentions.
"I don't see much reference to these factors on this blog."
You rather love to generalise, don't you. . .
”Stun me.”
Hardly stunning – surely there is some interest in hearing from the man who by the time of the invasion knew better than most that Iraq posed not the remotest threat to you and me, and indeed to the “stability” of the Middle East. Blix demolishes the legal arguments for war. His only “doctrine” was to conduct a thorough and meticulous search. The US had a rationale for the invasion. Blix was expected to find WMDs. When he didn’t – and he above all others was determined to find them if they were there - they went ahead anyway, and rewrote the script.
”Ahh - no - the Taliban were supporting Al Qaida. And they were given the option to give that allegiance away. They chose not to. The rest is history.”
I’m talking about Iraq. There is no solid proof that Al Qaida was engaged in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Talk of Al Qaida in Iraq back then is substantially a product of State Department spin. It may now have become a self-fulfilling prophecy in that Al Qaida uses the American presence as a lightning rod to attract a range of thugs to attack the Americans and destabilize Iraq.
In response to a question in an interview in June 2007, Mike Drummond, an independent American reporter on his second tour, answered a question about the issue this way -
“Al Qaeda in Iraq was rarely mentioned, and now it's mentioned multiple times daily. Over the last week, even, they've mentioned it 33 times in a barrage of press releases, whereas just last month they mentioned it all of 9 times.”
This is a person who has been in the country for a long time, and has no axe to grind. The simple fact is that Al Qaida’s involvement is a convenient narrative linking 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq, so it is used. The narrative about “Weapons of mass destruction” has been discredited, after all.
My point is a simple – the reason given for invading Iraq was a lie. The fact that the egg cannot now be unscrambled is the only reason for staying. Two things remind me of Vietnam – the fact that the catastrophic casualty toll is substantially ignored by the administration, if not the American public, and the American disregard of casualties so long as they’re not American.
In July 2005, a Treasury official testified before Congress that Saudi Arabia-based and funded organizations remain a key source for the promotion of ideologies used by terrorists and violent extremists around the world to justify their agenda. In addition, according to State's 2005 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Saudi donors and unregulated charities have been a major source of financing to extremist and terrorist groups over the past 25 years. In July 2003, a former State Department official testified before Congress that a Saudi-based charity, al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, had financed assistance to the Egyptian terrorist group Gamma al-Islamia. In May 2004, the same former State official also testified that some half dozen of the most visible charities, including tw
two of Saudi Arabia's largest, the International Islamic Relief Organization and the World Muslim League, have been linked to supporting Islamic terrorist organizations globally. In addition, a former Treasury official identified Wa'el Hamza Julaidan as a senior figure in the Saudi charitable community who provided financial and other support to several terrorist groups affiliated with al-Qaeda operating primarily in the Balkans. Moreover, the 9-11 Commission report states that al-Qaeda raised money in Saudi Arabia directly from individuals and through charities.
"You need to read your history a little more, in that case.”
I’ve lived history – just as my father did in New Guinea in WW2. Plugging around the Long Green thirty-five years ago dodging mines and bunkers taught me that political ideology is used as a rationale for war, it’s never a cause. The Vietnamese I knew were neither Communists nor Capitalists; they were human beings trying to survive, exactly as I was. War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy. It’s a very poor means to convert someone from one philosophy to another. What disturbs me is the aggressive rhetoric I often see expressed by contributors to this blog, promoting war as a first means to improve our national security, rather than a last resort. That is why I post.
Any reading of the history of the last century shows that war begets war.
”The USA did not wage a war against Nicaragua.”
They didn’t declare war, but as I’ve said before, they set up a proxy war. The Iran Contra affair was a political scandal occurring in 1987 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy, and illegally used the profits to continue funding anti-Communist rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua. Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.
”To sum up, though: compulsion to vote = democracy?”
Two issues emerge here – the strength of a democracy relates most directly to the level at which citizens participate. There’s a strange libertarian argument that the right to choose overrides this concept. It makes as much sense as the notion that people shouldn’t be forced to wear seatbelts in cars. It’s simply thick.
In addition, Australian culture abhors the notion of hierarchy. It’s a feature of British and American culture that some people should have more say than others. By virtue of the remnants of the class system in the UK and the power of money in the USA, they continue to be comfortable with voluntary voting. To me, it means we have a superior and more enduing democracy. We can teach them a thing or two about democracy, just as we can about soldiering.
”Your view of the American electoral system is pretty simplistic.”
There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that has to go to the courts to elect a president.
"The narrative about “Weapons of mass destruction” has been discredited, after all."
You're forgetting the mass graves, the scuds fired at Israel, the invasion of Kuwait, the gassing of the kurds and oppression of the shiites. Not to mention 10 years of no-fly zones, but you know what, i really don't want to get into an argument with you over all that, some people won't be convinced and are frankly not worth convincing.
So in summary 173... invading & liberating Iraq was wrong, but good because Saddam was kicked out.
The US military that did this in in a few weeks is simply inept and a bunch of morons, oh and we really should have invaded Saudi Arabia, presumably with the same US military, perhaps you could train them better so we can have zero casualties on both sides.
I get the feeling you're not a big fan of America, the same America that is so inferior to us, but yet is somehow vital to our security.
Perhaps being in a platoon harbour when a salvo of 155mm came in within killing range, fired into the wrong coordinates by yank gunners high on left-handed tobacco, has something to do with my view of the American military.
Or perhaps it relates to the day we encountered bunkers, called in the USAF, and they napalmed the wrong side (our side) of the Song Rai.
Or perhaps it relates to the day an overweight American NCO pointed a loaded M-16 at me, and called me a "mutha-f**king thieving Aussie" because he woke from a sound midday snooze to find me and a few others helping ourselves to a pile of rusting corrugated iron we were using to build a boozer at the Horseshoe. You're absolutely right - I have no time for the US military.
Incidents such as these leave a deep and lasting impression.
They have left the same impression in Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan to name a few trouble spots. We need to keep them at arms length, as they don't give a proverbial for anyone else unless they see their financial interests at stake.
No worries 1735099, you're entitled to your opinion of them, i and i think many others here don't share that view.
Sin loi.
Alright then.
I'll have to reply to all of this later, but in response to this bit:
"Incidents such as these leave a deep and lasting impression."
A vast military, outnumbering, by many orders of magnitude, all others present on those particular battle fields, is bound to incur *higher* friendly fire incidents, and by a similar order of magnitude. And don't tell me we didn't have our own. We did. There were just a hell of a lot fewer of us than them, and absolutely no one fields the range that the US does, in terms of all arms (foot, armor, artillery, air, navy, etc).
Your views are unencumbered by objectivity, however, so it's no great surprise to me that this little detail has entirely passed you by.
As for your personal experiences - you'll not mind me making similar generalisations, I assume?
So, the long and the short is, you don't much like Americans - we get it.
We judge your general objectivity accordingly.
I have no problems with individual Americans. As an ex school principal, I employed a few when we recruited them with a vengeance back in the eighties. Their value system is much like ours. I still have many American friends.
What I object to is an American administration that is characterised by extremism and fundamentalism. I call it as I see it, and I have a perspective shaped by real life, not spin.
A survey conducted by the Sydney University based United States Study Centre recently found a continuing decline in Australians’ opinion of America, based largely on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
(reported in The Canberra Times 4/10/2007, p.
.
My view is pretty close to mainstream Australia.
How can any real Australian, holding the values of a fair go, honesty and integrity have any respect for Bush and co?
Lets be clear; they went to Iraq to find weapons that weren't there, to confront Al Quaida, who weren't there (but are now), to create democracy, and finished up with anarchy, and to remove a tyrant. Irrespective of how it ends in the Middle East, this is a sorry history. One out of four is not good enough. I reckon I'm more objective than those who support the USA - right or wrong.
" I have a perspective shaped by real life, not spin"
Uh huh. And then you say this:
". . .an American administration that is characterised by extremism and fundamentalism. . ."
What rot.
"My view is pretty close to mainstream Australia."
People with prejudices as solid as yours, banging on relentlessly about 'extremism and fundamentalism', helped to form that view - who are you kidding.
As for the rest, just like so many who visit here, spouting similar, your ability to recall what was going on in the fifteen odd years leading up to this conflict is staggeringly poor.
". . .they went to Iraq to find weapons that weren't there. . ."
Nope - they went to Iraq to find out what they did or did not have, because no one knew (including Blix, which is why he was there).
". . .to confront Al Quaida. . ."
This was never said; it's just more leftist crap. As for Iraq's support for terrorism, that's a matter of record (not spin).
". . .to create democracy. . ."
Which they have.
". . .and finished up with anarchy. . ."
Not reading the news lately, I see.
". . .and to remove a tyrant."
Which they did.
Real life? You really are kidding yourself.
”Nope - they went to Iraq to find out what they did or did not have, because no one knew (including Blix, which is why he was there).”
If they didn’t know, they were saying they did –
Some of Bush's statements, in chronological order, are:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations address, September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio address, October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
This was one of literally hundreds of statements made at the time by the President. Many other members of his administration made similar statements, claiming certainty. It’s interesting to examine how many of them are still in the positions they held at the time.
"This was never said; it's just more leftist crap. As for Iraq's support for terrorism, that's a matter of record (not spin). "
It was said – on many occasions. Two examples –
On Monday June 14th, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.
(Washington Post, June 17, 2004)
an
and
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.
(Washington Post, June 18, 2004)
". . .to create democracy. . ."
It depends what you call “democracy”. The first element of democracy is security. It’s absent in Iraq.
”Not reading the news lately, I see.”
Depending on which figures you believe, deaths in Iraq since the invasion vary from the 655000 reported in the Lancet (an over estimation) to the 30000 that the White House promotes ( a gross underestimation), I’d be hard pressed to find a word other than “anarchy” to describe a state of civil disorder that results in this scale of casualties.
What description would be used if say, 30000 had been killed in armed conflict in Australia since 2003? But of course, they’re only Arabs.
As for recent figures, are these recent enough? -
Thursday 8 November 2007: 40 dead Baghdad: policeman killed in ambush; 4 bodies.
Falluja: roadside bomb targeting police patrol kills 6 policemen.
Mandali: gunmen kill 3 policemen; 9 bodies.
Baquba: 2 members of Awakening Council killed by gunmen; policeman killed during clashes.
That Thar: 7 bodies.
Mahaweel: 2 bodies.
This has been a pretty quiet week.
"Which they did.”
Yes, they removed Saddam. “Getting square” was what we called it when I was a kid.
As I said, one out of four isn’t good enough. Re-writing history puts holes in your credibility.
"It was said – on many occasions. . .
'On Monday June 14th, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.
(Washington Post, June 17, 2004)'"
Oh really. . .
You're a spin master extraordinaire, pal. And who's re-writing history here, I'd like to know.
You said: 'they went to Iraq. . .to confront Al Qaeda.'
Your 'evidence' (above) are noth statements made in 2004. The invasion happened one year earlier - 2003 - by which time Al Qaeda in Iraq had started to appear.
I repeat - Al Qaeda was not a pretext for invading Iraq (read those words carefully). That was never claimed. Links to terrorism, however, are another matter, as I said.
As for your list of statements, every single one is hedged. As they were at the time. There were doubts, of course, although our very own Richard Butler, ex-head weapons inspector, apparently had none at all - at the time.
Blix sealed the deal in his first report to the UN, when he announced that they were still being stalled by the Iraqis.
Time up.
"But of course, they’re only Arabs."
And right on cue with the slurs. What a winner.
"It depends what you call “democracy”. The first element of democracy is security."
You think so, do you? And how many fledgling democracies in recent history were assailed even as they were being formed?
Plenty. Far from being secure, they were still democracies.
"It’s absent in Iraq."
And they were so much more secure under Saddam, weren't they. . .
Maybe you, as one lefty I know, think it takes a monster to rule these people. Then again, you did say 'they're only Arabs', so maybe that's not too far off the mark.
Yep, the invasion took place in 2003, and the White House has been trying to rationalise it ever since.
You're right, AQI began to develop after the invasion - classical case of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The irony is stark, but obviously lost on many. Your original statement was that the US administration never claimed that Al Quaida was there "This was never said; it's just more leftist crap" - now you're saying the reason was links to terrorism. This very fine distinction was never made by Bush and crew at the time. It's well used since by his apologists.
"Blix sealed the deal in his first report to the UN, when he announced that they were still being stalled by the Iraqis".
In fact, Blix reported that -
"UNMOVIC does not assert that that there are proscribed items or activities in Iraq, but the absence of any finds at inspected sites was no guarantee that such items and activities could not exist elsewhere." (p111 - Disarming Iraq - Hans Blix).
In other words he didn't know for sure. The Americans had already written the script for invasion, but UNMOVIC wasn't following it.
Blix also says -
"In a now famous interview, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz said that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were chosen as the rationale for the war for 'bureaucratic' reasons, implying that while there were many other reasons, this was the only rationale that could rally broad support in U.S. public opinion and that stood a chance at having appeal outside the U.S. and inside the United Nations." (p 266)
So the invasion took place according to the script, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans died and were maimed as a consequence.
There's a couple of your statements that are revealing -
"fledgling democracies" what a wonderful cliche - such pathos.
Democracy is not a delicate flower. It is a robust weed that thrives on tough times. In Australia it grew from the shearers strikes in the late nineteenth century. It was never imposed from outside - it won't be in Iraq or anywhere else.
".. to rule these people" - My understanding of democracy is that the people rule - essentially an active, not a passive process.
I've seen enough of military conflict to understand that it can never be nation building.
Incidentally, the notion of "left" and "right" has lost its relevance in the twenty first century. It's an outmoded and discredited dispensation - a march to nowhere.
Right, then. . .
"classical case of a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Situation normal. It's rather like some of the nutters we've had in here, screaming about Bush doing nothing to prevent 9/11 (and so being to blame for it), while in the very next paragraph slamming him for taking the required measures to prevent it from happening again (so making him a fascist dictator).
No, I originally said:
'As for Iraq's support for terrorism, that's a matter of record (not spin).'
You're clearly implying I'm sliding in a curve ball - again, right on cue – which is entirely untrue. That is what I originally said, and it's absolutely true. Links to terrorism were certainly asserted, and were entirely supportable. Saddam was a loose cannon in every sense of the word.
‘This very fine distinction was never made by Bush and crew at the time.’
You’re the one making that claim – unsupported, I might add.
‘It's well used since by his apologists.’ No it isn’t – case in point, right here, right now (though Bush apologist I am not). That it might be a matter of fact now is an entirely different matter.
Now - Blix.
Rather than reading his version after the event, why don't you try reading his crucial report to the UN at the time - January 27, 2003 - where Blix said things like: '. . .Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.'
And where he also said things like this:
'The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.'
The close-to-closing paragraphs are the most interesting, though: a litany of concealment, particularly and pointedly revolving around Iraq’s nuclear activities. And they were more advanced on that front than even Hans guessed; information very carefully brushed away by opinion-holders and shapers that you’d get on famously with, I think.
“There's a couple of your statements that are revealing –“
Uh huh. I very much doubt it, actually.
“"fledgling democracies" what a wonderful cliche - such pathos.”
Such cynicism. What would you prefer? In this case, ‘Satellites of Imperialist US Military Industrial Complex Hegemonic Capitalism’?
Better?
“I've seen enough of military conflict to understand that it can never be nation building.”
Clearly not enough, if you discount the democracies that exist to this day and that grew from precisely those beginnings.
“Incidentally, the notion of "left" and "right" has lost its relevance in the twenty first century. It's an outmoded and discredited dispensation - a march to nowhere.”
In your not so humble opinion. The ideological war of the previous century is being fought as we speak – it’s just being dressed in slightly different clothes. It is every bit as dangerous, though.
Some questions - What WMDs have been found in Iraq since 2003?
Which nations have had their democratic system of government delivered though invasion via force of arms?
The most dangerous development facing peace and prosperity in 2007 is American unilateralism.
A discredited ideology (neo-conservatism) continues to threaten world peace. Most of what has developed in the Middle East is a reaction to this ideological fundamentalism.
I saw American unilateralism in stark close-up in Vietnam in 1970. There is a fundamental flaw in a national culture that listens to no-one, cares for no-one but its own, and believes, beyond any hope of contradiction that it has a God-given right to shape the world according to its view.
This is fundamentalism in its purest and most dangerous form.
I survived it - by the skin of my teeth. I now see it threatening my children and my country.
So I'm sorry if you're hurt by my lack of humility. I had it knocked out of me thirty seven years ago by American 155mm howitzers.
"What WMDs have been found in Iraq since 2003?"
None, as we both know. Two aspects to this, though (and I intend nothing slippery by this response):
First - Saddam was playing a dangerous game in 2003, with a significant likelihood that he was feeding intelligence to suggest that he had WMD for the consumption of his local neighborhood, and Iran in particular. It backfired - badly. That said, I believe it's highly likely that a good deal of what had been preserved is either still hidden, or was sent through into Syria. Iraq had something of a prior history of doing things like that.
Second aspect, and that was the Iraqi nuclear program. There was one, which is also a matter of record, the full extent of which was discovered after invasion. It was also highly advanced. We also have record of the hierarchy's intention to supply terrorist groups for strikes against the West. Put all of that together, and that particular potential future is not rocket science.
"Which nations have had their democratic system of government delivered though invasion via force of arms?"
Hmm - pretty narrow question you've got going there. . .
Okay - off the top of my head. . .
Japan and to a lesser extent Germany, for a start, though Germany had the trappings of democracy prior to its dictatorship, so that's a line ball. Then there's South Korea. Widening the scope, there are the other earlier European examples of both France and Britain. And America itself, of course.
"A discredited ideology (neo-conservatism) continues to threaten world peace."
Of course. Military adventurers like Saddam, or proto-nuclear states like Iran (or North Korea), have absolutely nothing to do with it. Interesting that you should say this, though, when only a little while ago you said: " I'm not against what was done, but how it was done. Removing Saddam was a good outcome".
Hardening your stance after this exchange, are you? How was Saddam to be removed otherwise?
"There is a fundamental flaw in a national culture that listens to no-one, cares for no-one but its own, and believes, beyond any hope of contradiction that it has a God-given right to shape the world according to its view."
Oh dear. . . I could reel off so many examples of precisely the opposite, but I doubt it would dent your bigotry one jot. But try taking a long hard look at the US foreign aid program for a start.
"So I'm sorry if you're hurt by my lack of humility. I had it knocked out of me thirty seven years ago by American 155mm howitzers."
You know - you've pretty clearly got some issues. Have you considered rethinking that whole 'realistic world view' thing you've got going there?
”Hmm - pretty narrow question you've got going there. . .”
”Japan….”
Japan progressed toward a democratic system of government in a movement known as 'Taishō Democracy'. However, parliamentary government was not rooted deeply enough to withstand the economic and political pressures of the late 1920s and 1930s, during which military leaders became increasingly influential. I doubt that establishing democracy was the main thrust of the allied occupation of Japan. It followed, but not as a direct result of the application of military power.
“Then there's South Korea.”
South Korea's history is marked by alternating periods of democratic and autocratic rule. Civilian governments are conventionally numbered from the First Republic of Syngman Rhee to the contemporary Sixth Republic. The First Republic, arguably democratic at its inception, became increasingly autocratic until its collapse in 1960. The Second Republic was strongly democratic, but was overthrown in less than a year and replaced by an autocratic military regime. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Republics were nominally democratic, but are widely regarded as the continuation of military rule. With the Sixth Republic, the country has gradually stabilized into a liberal democracy. How was democracy imposed by an army of occupation?
“Widening the scope, there are the other earlier European examples of both France and Britain.”
None of these countries had democracy imposed by an army of occupation. With the exception of the UK, the European nations involved were democracies before liberation from Nazi occupation. Who invaded Britain and imposed democracy?
“And America itself, of course.”
On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, declared the independence of a nation called "the United States of America" in the Declaration of Independence. The structure of the national government was profoundly changed on March 4, 1789, when the people replaced the Articles of Confederation with the United States Constitution. The new government reflected a radical break from the normative governmental structures of the time, favoring representative, elective government with a weak executive, rather than the existing monarchical structures common within the western traditions of the time.
Where did the foreign army of occupation imposing democracy come from? Are you saying that the Civil War was the foundation of American democracy? That’s a big call.
“I’m not against what was done, but how it was done. Removing Saddam was a good outcome".
Destroying Iraq was not. It belongs to the same historical narrative as the US general in Vietnam who said “We had to destroy the village to save it”
”But try taking a long hard look at the US foreign aid program for a start.”
The USA ranks 14th in terms of foreign aid per head of population of the twenty-one wealthiest countries. Australia’s not much better (13th). Norway, Denmark and Sweden provide ten times
Sweden provide ten times as much aid per head of population as the USA. (University of Arizona - Per Capita Foreign Aid Assistance by World's Wealthiest Countries, 2002)
”You know - you've pretty clearly got some issues.”
Thanks for the on-line analysis James. Do you charge the common fee?
If I have issues, I must manage them pretty well. Ask my wife and kids and the people who have employed me for the last forty three years. Obviously anyone who disagrees with you needs analysis.
The Asian countries I cited, and you have provided a potted history for, have an important thing in common. They've been stable democracies ever since a single and powerful stamp was placed upon them. As for Japan, and your doubts about American motives in terms of military occupation - well, that hardly surprises me.
My words: 'Widening the scope. . .'
You were supposed to read something into that.
"The USA ranks 14th in terms of foreign aid per head of population. . ."
Cop out. How does it rank in real terms? Double the next cab off the rank. And how ironic that US aid has actually been boosted so significantly in the last few years - under the evil Bush. . . Facts are, though, that the top countries, per capita, are also amongst the highest taxing. An imnportant difference, because there's government aid, and then there's private aid. There's also funding provided to organisations such as the IMF, the UN and the World Bank, not to mention the costs born as a result of actions and operations undertaken under the UN's banner (as one other example).
All off your radar, I suspect.
"Do you charge the common fee?" You wish. My fee is highly uncommon. The invoice is on its way.
"Obviously anyone who disagrees with you needs analysis."
Not at all. However, people who say 'I have no problems with individual Americans. . .' in one breath, and then go on to say (rant) 'We need to keep them at arms length, as they don't give a proverbial for anyone else unless they see their financial interests at stake. . .' or 'There is a fundamental flaw in a national culture that listens to no-one, cares for no-one but its own, and believes, beyond any hope of contradiction that it has a God-given right to shape the world according to its view. . .' in the next, don't come across to me as having a particularly balanced view of the world, and of the Americans in particular (in this case).
Commenting by HaloScan
