NationStates Jolt Archive

From this mornings Sydney Morning Herald:
"One of the best points John Kerry made in his debate with George jnr. was that, when writing of the first Gulf War, George snr revealed he had not sent troops into Baghdad back in '91 for the very good reason that they would soon find themselves as occupiers in a hostile environment with no obvious ext. George jnr stonewalled in response.
And whatever else you say about Kerry and Bush, nothing can change one central fact. For men of passion of their generation, there were two great causes they could have embraced in their formative adult years : to go to the Vietnam War or to protest against it.
Kerry did both.
Bush did neither."

Now, I no that some of our American posters will construe this as a "flip-flop" (which is a word I dislike anyway). I see it as a passionate man commiting to a cause, and then having the wisom and courage to realise his error, and to again commit to a cause.

Far better to recognise when you are in error, and to take corrective action, that to continue in pursuit of folly.

From this mornings Sydney Morning Herald:
"One of the best points John Kerry made in his debate with George jnr. was that, when writing of the first Gulf War, George snr revealed he had not sent troops into Baghdad back in '91 for the very good reason that they would soon find themselves as occupiers in a hostile environment with no obvious ext. George jnr stonewalled in response.
And whatever else you say about Kerry and Bush, nothing can change one central fact. For men of passion of their generation, there were two great causes they could have embraced in their formative adult years : to go to the Vietnam War or to protest against it.
Kerry did both.
Bush did neither."

Now, I no that some of our American posters will construe this as a "flip-flop" (which is a word I dislike anyway). I see it as a passionate man commiting to a cause, and then having the wisom and courage to realise his error, and to again commit to a cause.

Far better to recognise when you are in error, and to take corrective action, that to continue in pursuit of folly.
I quite agree, I think most Australians (except our prime minister for some reason) dislike George, yet this board will probably reach a climax and then have a right winged extremist say "I'm glad Australia can't vote on our president" yet if I could, Kerry all the way. Even if he's not the greatest, I'd rather be jabbed with a shiney spoon then prodded with a rusty fork.

Interesting analysis of the artificial elections taking place in America between Bush and Kohn.

Interesting analysis of the artificial elections taking place in America between Bush and Kohn.

Not assisted in any way by a pointless one-liner without any basis.

If you are going to comment, some sense of logic or basis in fact may be of assistance.

"I'm glad Australia can't vote on our president" yet if I could, Kerry all the way.

Actually, they can. Well... some can. American citizens can vote, no matter what country they live in. I'm sure my uncle will place his Australian vote in the Kerry column for you.

Rupert Murdoch is an Australian with one hell of an influence on popular thinking.

Who would have thought that most Australians and most Germans would one day agree on something: Bush needs to be kicked out of the oval office. A few years ago it would have been impossible to even know this. Australia just rose on my sympathy list.

Who would have thought that most Australians and most Germans would one day agree on something: Bush needs to be kicked out of the oval office. A few years ago it would have been impossible to even know this. Australia just rose on my sympathy list.

I didn't see any link to anything stating "most Australians" thought anything about George W Bush. I was never much good at reading between the lines though....

I didn't see any link to anything stating "most Australians" thought anything about George W Bush. I was never much good at reading between the lines though....

:P honestly it's not hard to find, Australia did host one of the largest protests against Bush down the middle of the QVB (Big city place). Australia reaaaalllyyy doesn't like him, all our papers have something bad to say about him. And though it's not our country to decide, I must say that Australian voters and political figures (I.e leader of opposition and even some of Mr Howards own members (Besides Secretary of Defence) notes that we seem to to easily drift along with all Bush's idea's without concidering what Australia wants. I really hope Latham gets in a the troops are home by christmas.

:P honestly it's not hard to find, Australia did host one of the largest protests against Bush down the middle of the QVB (Big city place).

I do not count protestors as a representation of Australia's views. Bob Brown would be Prime Minister if that were the case, trade unions would be the "majority" of Australians if that were the case.

Australia reaaaalllyyy doesn't like him

Some people in Australia do not like him. I personally have no opinion of the man.

, all our papers have something bad to say about him.

So what? Newspapers print stories to sell papers. Most newspapers print anti-impotence ads, does that mean the majority of Australians are impotent?

And though it's not our country to decide, I must say that Australian voters and political figures (I.e leader of opposition and even some of Mr Howards own members (Besides Secretary of Defence) notes that we seem to to easily drift along with all Bush's idea's without concidering what Australia wants. I really hope Latham gets in a the troops are home by christmas.

For the sake of our country I hope Latham does not get elected and that our troops remain in Iraq untilt he job is done. Pulling troops out when Iraq is months away from elections is inviting disaster. Even Kerry has acknowledged this.

The question is.. would you like the disaster to happen while your troops are there so they are in the middle of it or would you like the disaster to happen with your troops safely at home, husbands with their families, wives caring for their husbands and possibly children? Iraq is a disaster already and it will grow worse, the longer the occupation forces stay there.

The question is.. would you like the disaster to happen while your troops are there so they are in the middle of it or would you like the disaster to happen with your troops safely at home, husbands with their families, wives caring for their husbands and possibly children? Iraq is a disaster already and it will grow worse, the longer the occupation forces stay there.

And what of the Iraqi citizens left to pick up the pieces of their husbands, wives and children? The job has been started, regardless of which government is elected (Australian or US) then job must be completed.
Iraq will become far worse if the coalition troops leave. I don't think it takes too much to see that.

I do not count protestors as a representation of Australia's views. Bob Brown would be Prime Minister if that were the case, trade unions would be the "majority" of Australians if that were the case.

So what? Newspapers print stories to sell papers. Most newspapers print anti-impotence ads, does that mean the majority of Australians are impotent?

For the sake of our country I hope Latham does not get elected and that our troops remain in Iraq untilt he job is done. Pulling troops out when Iraq is months away from elections is inviting disaster. Even Kerry has acknowledged this.

Wow you don't count thousands of protestors as a representation of Australia's view. God then nothing does. For the sake of our country I hope Latham does get elected so we don't have a prime minister with a direct connection from his mouth to Bush's ass.

Iraq is never going to experience democracy or freedom while the United States plays a prominent role in it's affairs. This is evidenced by the amount of military bases being built, American corporate influence and control of local resources and industries, and involvement in the formation and operation of the government. Situations similar to this one have repeated themselves many times over throughout the Caribbean and the Americas. The people of these nations struggled for decades upon decades for basic human rights, representative government, and acceptable living conditions. Iraq is on it's way to forging a similar history, unless something drastic occurs.

Wow you don't count thousands of protestors as a representation of Australia's view.

No, because last I checked we had over 20 million in our population.

God then nothing does.

Yes, a survey with a representative statistical set would be sufficient.

For the sake of our country I hope Latham does get elected so we don't have a prime minister with a direct connection from his mouth to Bush's ass.

You do realise there is more to the election than our alliance with the US?

Iraq is never going to experience democracy or freedom while the United States plays a prominent role in it's affairs. This is evidenced by the amount of military bases being built, American corporate influence and control of local resources and industries, and involvement in the formation and operation of the government. Situations similar to this one have repeated themselves many times over throughout the Caribbean and the Americas. The people of these nations struggled for decades upon decades for basic human rights, representative government, and acceptable living conditions. Iraq is on it's way to forging a similar history, unless something drastic occurs.

Such as the elections scheduled for January, the plans for which, if you are unaware, are only being hindered by insurgents.

Such as the elections scheduled for January, the plans for which, if you are unaware, are only being hindered by insurgents.America is already finding way to rig it. Such as the "Some areas may not be able to vote" nice democracy ya got there. Reeaaallll nice.

Insurgents that wouldn't be attacking if the troops were there. Yeah it's a big friggin what if that one isn't it.

Thousands of protestors doesn't mean anything. They are more vocal about the matter because they are the ones supporting change. The other thousands who like the fact that George Bush is the U.S president aren't going to do anything. I don't think you will see a protest of people waving banners about keeping Bush in the office, and that's because they're not asking for change. Personally, I think that sucking up to George Bush is one of the best things we can do. I don't care if our Prime Minister has to physically suck his dick, as long as we are under the protective wing of the Americans, we are always correct, even when we are dead wrong. So George Bush didn't do anything in Vietnam. So George Bush probably shouldn't have invaded Iraq. It's a far sight better than being invaded by Indonesia.

Such as the elections scheduled for January, the plans for which, if you are unaware, are only being hindered by insurgents.
The elections in Iraq, much as in any US supported totalitarian regime (which Iyad Allawi will without doubt install) - Pakistan comes to mind - are only conducted to give the installed puppet government (an extension of Washington's reach into the middle east) a democratic and legitimate appearance. Nothing at all hints towards the forming of a true democracy from the people themselves. Instead, we see an artificial government structure being stamped out of the ground and filled with US slave politicians. This is not democracy. It is a colony given the fake image of democray and legitimacy.

America is already finding way to rig it. Such as the "Some areas may not be able to vote" nice democracy ya got there. Reeaaallll nice.

The reason some areas may not have a ballot is because of safety concerns for those who are going to vote. Makes sense to me. Hopefully the safety concerns will be reduced and the people of these regions can vote safely.

Insurgents that wouldn't be attacking if the troops were there. Yeah it's a big friggin what if that one isn't it.

The insurgents wouldn't be attacking, Saddam would. That is, under the current situation Iraqis will get a chance to decide their government. Under Saddam that was never going to happen. The freedom to protest was denied to the people of Iraq..something we in Australia take for granted.

The elections in Iraq, much as in any US supported totalitarian regime (which Iyad Allawi will without doubt install) - Pakistan comes to mind - are only conducted to give the installed puppet government (an extension of Washington's reach into the middle east) a democratic and legitimate appearance. Nothing at all hints towards the forming of a true democracy from the people themselves. Instead, we see an artificial government structure being stamped out of the ground and filled with US slave politicians. This is not democracy. It is a colony given the fake image of democray and legitimacy.

Wow, so much rhetoric in one post. Yet, not a shred of anything of any merit or consequence, just another rant based on your blind hatred of the US. Personally, I await the elections in January and look forward to Iraq electing their own leader and government. I also look forward to the election in Afghanistan on October 9th. I'll leave you to drown in your pool of bile and bitterness.

Wow, so much rhetoric in one post. Yet, not a shred of anything of any merit or consequence, just another rant based on your blind hatred of the US. Personally, I await the elections in January and look forward to Iraq electing their own leader and government. I also look forward to the election in Afghanistan on October 9th. I'll leave you to drown in your pool of bile and bitterness.
Who do you think the "fairly elected leader" will be? You guessed right: Iyad Allawi. An ex-US CIA asset in Iraq.


A former Ba'athist, Allawi set up and leads the CIA-supported Iraqi National Accord which carried out bombings in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the INA provided intelligence about alleged weapons of mass destruction to MI6. Allawi is also alleged to have personally executed six Iraqi prisoners in June 2004 to "send a clear message to the police on how to deal with insurgents".

Allawi has lived about half of his life in the UK and retains British citizenship.

And some more interesting details:

Allawi was appointed to the Iraqi Governing Council following his return from exile after the fall of Saddam in 2003. He held the rotating presidency of the interim governing council during October of 2003. In April 2004, Allawi reportedly resigned as head of the IGC security committee over concerns for US bombing of Fallujah, according to a letter published in INA's newspaper.[10] (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=agdsULUSsCdo&refer=europe)

In December 2003, he flew to CIA headquarters in Langley together with fellow INA official Nouri Badran to discuss detailed plans for setting up a domestic secret service. The agency was to be headed by Badran, a former Ba'athist who served Saddam as an ambassador until 1990, and, controversially, recruit many agents of Saddam's Mukhabarat. [11] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A54518-2003Dec10&notFound=true) When the Iraqi National Intelligence Service was set up in March 2004, its designated director was Mohammed Abdullah Mohammed al-Shehwani, another former Ba'athist exile with ties to INA.

Allawi is related to Ahmed Chalabi, another prominent former exile and now disgraced U.S. ally, through his sister. The interim minister of trade Ali Allawi is Chalabi's sister's son as well as Iyad Allawi's cousin. The relationship between Chalabi and Allawi has been described as alternating between rivals and allies.[12] (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/29/1085641749684.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true) In addition, Nouri Badran, interim Minister of Interior, is married to Iyad Allawi's sister.[13]

And why do you think that he will be the "fairly elected leader of Iraq"? Because the US want him to, the US treat him like he is, the US have a stake in Iraq being ruled by a lapdog and Allawi is so far the only candidate up to be elected.

Who do you think the "fairly elected leader" will be? You guessed right: Iyad Allawi. An ex-US CIA asset in Iraq.


And some more interesting details:

And why do you think that he will be the "fairly elected leader of Iraq"? Because the US want him to, the US treat him like he is, the US have a stake in Iraq being ruled by a lapdog and Allawi is so far the only candidate up to be elected.

Thanks for those irrelevant quotes and links. The election has not been held. Allawi is not the elected leader of Iraq, nor has he ever been labelled as such. The current government is an interim government. The election in January will decide the ELECTED government.

Oh and in January you will rub your eyes when I tell you: "Told ya so".

Here's another nice quote btw to explain why democracy in Iraq is extraordinarily difficult:


...in Iraq where you have the Kurds in the North who have been autonomous. You have a majority of the country being the Shias, which the U.S. is trying to avoid having take over the country, which is something they might have thought about before they were calling for democracy in Iraq.

Then, of course, you have the Sunnis who have been discredited by their association with Saddam. So it's a very difficult and different process, but I think what you'll see is a decision to have a process that involves the leaders of the Iraqi political process, less reliance on the external forces of Chalabi that Washington has been relying so closely on and engaging with the political leadership in Iraq to come up with some formula. It will not be a perfect process that does this quickly and transfers power over to them.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/iraqelections_01-27.html

Oh and in January you will rub your eyes when I tell you: "Told ya so".

Here's another nice quote btw to explain why democracy in Iraq is extraordinarily difficult:


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/iraqelections_01-27.html

Maybe, maybe not. Whoever the Iraqis elect, they have decided for themselves. What they do with that freedom is their prerogative. I have never said that bringing democracy to Iraq would be easy but I think it is worth the effort.

"Such as the elections scheduled for January, the plans for which, if you are unaware, are only being hindered by insurgents."

You must be unaware that elections existed under Saddam.

Perhaps you missed this?

"Time Magazine has revealed that the White House had developed a secret plan where it would covertly use the CIA to help pro-U.S. candidates win in the upcoming Iraqi election. The plan was reportedly discarded after protests from lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Time reports House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to voice her opposition. Some officials within the Bush administration have defended the plan saying it is needed to counter outside influence from other countries including Iran. This comes as the Los Angeles Times is reporting that in Afghanistan numerous Afghan presidential candidates have complained that U.S. officials are pressuring them to drop out of the race against the U.S.-backed Hamid Karzai."

The rationale behind this isn't new. We had to play a role in Dominican elections to counter Castro influence, for example. As a matter of fact, we spent a great deal of time staging elections to "counter outside influences" that were deemed to be wrong, bad, or evil, depending on the buzz word at the time.

At the same time, you can also look at it from the point that it just doesn't make sense. We invade this country, overthrow this bad, bad man, costing ourselves brave men and women (and lots of tax dollars), and are now going to just turn it over to the people do what they will? Maybe they aren't "intelligent" enough to decide for themselves, due to their "color", like Puerto Rico (and we know how that turned out, don't we). Or, maybe it's just that we can't afford for them to set up a government that, while not dangerous, is hostile to us.

"Makes sense to me. Hopefully the safety concerns will be reduced and the people of these regions can vote safely."

I guess you'd have no problem with, for example, people in Florida and other southern areas being unable to vote due to safety issues because of hurricane damage?

"Such as the elections scheduled for January, the plans for which, if you are unaware, are only being hindered by insurgents."

You must be unaware that elections existed under Saddam.

Perhaps you missed this?

No, I am well aware of the "elections" run by Saddam.

"Time Magazine has revealed that the White House had developed a secret plan where it would covertly use the CIA to help pro-U.S. candidates win in the upcoming Iraqi election. The plan was reportedly discarded after protests from lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Time reports House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to voice her opposition. Some officials within the Bush administration have defended the plan saying it is needed to counter outside influence from other countries including Iran. This comes as the Los Angeles Times is reporting that in Afghanistan numerous Afghan presidential candidates have complained that U.S. officials are pressuring them to drop out of the race against the U.S.-backed Hamid Karzai."

The rationale behind this isn't new. We had to play a role in Dominican elections to counter Castro influence, for example. As a matter of fact, we spent a great deal of time staging elections to "counter outside influences" that were deemed to be wrong, bad, or evil, depending on the buzz word at the time.

At the same time, you can also look at it from the point that it just doesn't make sense. We invade this country, overthrow this bad, bad man, costing ourselves brave men and women (and lots of tax dollars), and are now going to just turn it over to the people do what they will? Maybe they aren't "intelligent" enough to decide for themselves, due to their "color", like Puerto Rico (and we know how that turned out, don't we). Or, maybe it's just that we can't afford for them to set up a government that, while not dangerous, is hostile to us.

Every nation has their own self-interest at heart. I truly do not care if the US is or isn't pressuring people not to run or looking to influence the result. What else would opposition candidate to the US's preferred candidate say? At the end of the day, the Iraqis will elect who they want to elect. Same goes for Afghanistan. If you look at it as not making sense then you do not understand the concept of liberation. I hope that once the elections are held and the nations are secure (that is, their own domestic defense and police forces are sufficient to ensure law and order) that the coalition forces will withdraw. Time will tell but I remain optimistic.

"Makes sense to me. Hopefully the safety concerns will be reduced and the people of these regions can vote safely."

I guess you'd have no problem with, for example, people in Florida and other southern areas being unable to vote due to safety issues because of hurricane damage?

Hmm...let me see if I can see any glaring difference between hurricane damage and armed insurgents blowing up polling booths? For one, a damaged area could have temporary polling booths put up to vote in. A polling booth that is the target of insurgents is a target whether temporary or permanent in structure. I think your comparison is, at best, feeble.
Would I expect delays in polling in an area currently in the midst of a hurricane? Yes. Unless you expect people to go out in the middle of a hurricane to vote?

I agree with a comment early that there is more at stake in the Australian election that the Bush question.

I will be registering an anti-Howard vote not an anti-Bush vote.

I am angry about:
1. the treatment of refugees.
2. the series of government mistakes, refugees overboard, torture in Iraq, sivX where our government has denied all knowledge - they weren't told.

Howard scares me, I find his lack of compassion really frightening.

Regards
Humbug political advisor to Lord Oz.

Maybe, maybe not. Whoever the Iraqis elect, they have decided for themselves. What they do with that freedom is their prerogative. I have never said that bringing democracy to Iraq would be easy but I think it is worth the effort.

When will you learn to stop pretending?

The war with Iraq was called on a lie, regarding non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Bush, Blair and Howard either deliberately lied, or were so poorly informed that they are incompotent.

You choose - liars or incompotents.

"Bringing democracy to Iraq" is a poor line used since WMDs were never found.
Most Australians are not so stupid that they can believe the contradictory positions fed to them by their government.

The best value in democracy is that you have the opportunity to peacefully rid yourself of a government that is either dishonest or incompotent - fortunately Australia, Britain and the US will all have this opportunity.

"Hmm...let me see if I can see any glaring difference between hurricane damage and armed insurgents blowing up polling booths? For one, a damaged area could have temporary polling booths put up to vote in. A polling booth that is the target of insurgents is a target whether temporary or permanent in structure."

You're going to set up a temporary polling booth in the middle of a hurricane? I don't think that's too wise...

" I think your comparison is, at best, feeble."

Translation: Explain it to me again, I don't get it.

Here is what I am trying to say. Do you really think that it would be acceptable to hold elections in the United States, if part of the country was unable to participate due to an ongoing storm and/or extensive storm damage?

Or how about this, if your only able to stare at the insurgent/hurricane aspect and unable to comprehend the point that is trying to be made. Would you accept elections that did not have the entire country participating? Would you consider them legitimate and representative?

"At the end of the day, the Iraqis will elect who they want to elect. Same goes for Afghanistan."

And how is that going to happen if the U.S. is pressuring people to run or not run?

"If you look at it as not making sense then you do not understand the concept of liberation."

Obviously you do not, when you talk about not caring about the U.S. pressuring people to run/not run or the U.S. trying to influence the result. You see, if a people are free, if they have been "liberated", they aren't going to have a foreign country determining who is eligible to run for office, or who wins said office.

I'm very Australian and Very Anti-Bush..is there a connection..vote 1# Somebody Else

Mr Johnny Coward and King George I has to go. If we apathetic Australians give Howard another term, he'll be following the US around the world to find new wars to fight.

Sure, the economy is great condition but who's benefited the most. The average Australian? Sure we got tax cuts and lower interest rates, but the GST sent the cost of living up and we pay GST on petrol which is priced with 50% tax as a component already.

The billions which could be spend on health and education have been diverted to overseas deployments in the South Pacific and of course Iraq. There's nothing wrong in helping poor neighbours restore stability and democracy (East Timor), but Iraq is a tragic mistake in judgement or grand deception.

Ok the war in Iraq was stupid and the GST sucks, but beside that, I like Howard, more then Latham anyway, that guy just gives me the creeps...

Ok the war in Iraq was stupid and the GST sucks, but beside that, I like Howard, more then Latham anyway, that guy just gives me the creeps...

Obviously you do not mind being lied to, provided the liar's opponent doesn't "give you the creeps".

I just hope that someone with your lack of insight is not eligible to vote.

Some people in Australia do not like him. I personally have no opinion of the man.
You sure? From what I've seen here you're firmly pro-Bush.

You sure? From what I've seen here you're firmly pro-Bush.

Haha.

Yes, Tygaland has often made it obvious that he is very pro-Howard, and therefore pro-Bush.

However, conservatives generally expect that others will quickly forget their lies and distortions.

Iraq, of course, being the classic example.

The Iraq war, we were told at the time was about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

It was only when these were never found, that we were told it was about removing Saddam and installing democracy.

our troops remain in Iraq untilt he job is done. Pulling troops out when Iraq is months away from elections is inviting disaster. Even Kerry has acknowledged this.
Truly. I know a couple of Vietnam veterans who were in Vietnam when Whitlam was elected. Although they were glad to come home, they still complain that the sudden pullout did enormous damage, because there were numerous projects which had to be abandoned.
If we have to pull out, then a gradual pullout, at whatever pace is recommended by the troops on the ground, would be the way to go.

However, I don't know how seriously to take Latham's rhetoric. Remember how anti-US Bob Hawke was directly before being elected? That changed the moment he was in office. I suspect that Latham will be the same.

When will you learn to stop pretending?

The war with Iraq was called on a lie, regarding non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Bush, Blair and Howard either deliberately lied, or were so poorly informed that they are incompotent.

You choose - liars or incompotents.


And this has to do with the Iraqi elections, how?

"Bringing democracy to Iraq" is a poor line used since WMDs were never found.
Most Australians are not so stupid that they can believe the contradictory positions fed to them by their government.

The best value in democracy is that you have the opportunity to peacefully rid yourself of a government that is either dishonest or incompotent - fortunately Australia, Britain and the US will all have this opportunity.

Yes, thats why I want Iraqis to have that opportunity too.

"Hmm...let me see if I can see any glaring difference between hurricane damage and armed insurgents blowing up polling booths? For one, a damaged area could have temporary polling booths put up to vote in. A polling booth that is the target of insurgents is a target whether temporary or permanent in structure."

You're going to set up a temporary polling booth in the middle of a hurricane? I don't think that's too wise...

No, you said hurrican damage, not in the middle of a hurricane.

" I think your comparison is, at best, feeble."

Translation: Explain it to me again, I don't get it.

No, I think your comparison was feeble. I understood it.

Here is what I am trying to say. Do you really think that it would be acceptable to hold elections in the United States, if part of the country was unable to participate due to an ongoing storm and/or extensive storm damage?

Now you have changed it to comparison that makes more sense. If in the misdt of a hurricane the voting in that area could be postponed until after the storm and temporary voting booths erected. The glaring difference which I tried to point out to you is that you can wait or move the polling booths in insurgent trouble spots in Iraq and it makes no difference. The insurgents can change their plans and move the locations of their attacks. A hurricane cannot alter itself intentionally to disrupt elections. Understand?

Or how about this, if your only able to stare at the insurgent/hurricane aspect and unable to comprehend the point that is trying to be made. Would you accept elections that did not have the entire country participating? Would you consider them legitimate and representative?

They would not be entirely representative. I guess it comes down to whats more important. Is the holding of elections (where as many citizens as possible can safely participate) in January a significant sign that Iraq is moving forward and therefore a higher priority? Or do you delay until the other areas are safe and have a longer reign by the interim government? Either way, people like you are going to whine about it.

"At the end of the day, the Iraqis will elect who they want to elect. Same goes for Afghanistan."

And how is that going to happen if the U.S. is pressuring people to run or not run?

There are 7 candidates for the Afghan elections on October 9, how many candidates are in the US election?

"If you look at it as not making sense then you do not understand the concept of liberation."

Obviously you do not, when you talk about not caring about the U.S. pressuring people to run/not run or the U.S. trying to influence the result. You see, if a people are free, if they have been "liberated", they aren't going to have a foreign country determining who is eligible to run for office, or who wins said office.

The Us can pressure, but the people do not need to listen. As I said, there are 7 candidates in the Afghan elections so the people have spoken and stood up.

You sure? From what I've seen here you're firmly pro-Bush.

Well, you haven't been paying too much attention. I was in favour of the removing of Saddam's regime, I support the war on terror and I support the efforts of the US and their allies in trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Does that make me pro-Bush or does that mean I agree with Bush on these issues? Bush is irrelevant to me, he is the leader of the US at present, thats the only status he has in my eyes. His internal politics and policies I truly know nothing about and to be honest could not care less. I find it hard to call myslef pro-Bush when I know so little and care so little about his policies.

Haha.

Yes, Tygaland has often made it obvious that he is very pro-Howard, and therefore pro-Bush.

No, I am pro-Howard. As I said in the post above, I couldn't care less about Bush as a politician and do not know him as a person. I support some of his policies, particularly the war on terror.
I support Howard because his government has maintained our economic growth which means more jobs and higher wages for all. I do not want another Labor government stuffing things up again.

However, conservatives generally expect that others will quickly forget their lies and distortions.

Which lies would they be? Show me whwere I have lied.

Iraq, of course, being the classic example.

The Iraq war, we were told at the time was about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

It was only when these were never found, that we were told it was about removing Saddam and installing democracy.

As I have said many times. I do not care what the published reason for the war in Iraq was. I support it because it deposed a murderous tyrant and gave Iraq a chance to decide their own destiny.

Truly. I know a couple of Vietnam veterans who were in Vietnam when Whitlam was elected. Although they were glad to come home, they still complain that the sudden pullout did enormous damage, because there were numerous projects which had to be abandoned.
If we have to pull out, then a gradual pullout, at whatever pace is recommended by the troops on the ground, would be the way to go.

However, I don't know how seriously to take Latham's rhetoric. Remember how anti-US Bob Hawke was directly before being elected? That changed the moment he was in office. I suspect that Latham will be the same.

Latham's attitude to the US has already tempered from before he was elected Labor leader.
What people have to recognise is that we are now in the situation we are. Whether you agree with what has happened or not no longer matters. Decisions need to be made based on the current situation and in my opinion the pulling out of troops from Iraq will lead to a disaster for the Iraqi people. The job has been started, it needs to be followed through to completion.

I agree with a comment early that there is more at stake in the Australian election that the Bush question.

I will be registering an anti-Howard vote not an anti-Bush vote.

I am angry about:
1. the treatment of refugees.
2. the series of government mistakes, refugees overboard, torture in Iraq, sivX where our government has denied all knowledge - they weren't told.

Howard scares me, I find his lack of compassion really frightening.

Regards
Humbug political advisor to Lord Oz.

Since the tougher stance was taken against illegal immigrants, how many people have risked their lives and paid people smugglers their life savings for a trip in a leaky boat from Indonesia to Australia? When was the last time you heard of any boats full of illegals heading for Australia?
By removing the incentive less people are placing their lives at risk. Unless you call encouraging such a dangerous disregard for life compassion?
In fact, many true refugees are now returning to Afghanistan and Iraq to help rebuild their nations. What a terrible thing that is....

If Iraq continues to go down the shitter, at what point will it be 'right' for Australia to pull out?

No, I am pro-Howard. As I said in the post above, I couldn't care less about Bush as a politician and do not know him as a person. I support some of his policies, particularly the war on terror.

The war on terror - I support the war on terror - its just that I believe that the war should be being fought against al Qaeda, bin Laden and JI - it has nothing to do with Iraq, which is a foolish sideshow.

I support Howard because his government has maintained our economic growth which means more jobs and higher wages for all. I do not want another Labor government stuffing things up again.

Yes, you obviously believe that a high taxing government, that claims it cannot afford to properly fund health and education can miraculously find plenty of cash to splash around just in time for an election, and can therefore label itself as good economic managers. You must also believe that the government of the day has a far greater impact on inflation rates than does either the Reserve Bank of Australia or the international money market.

As I have said many times. I do not care what the published reason for the war in Iraq was. I support it because it deposed a murderous tyrant and gave Iraq a chance to decide their own destiny.

Yes, you obviously do not care if you are lied to by John Howard and co. Some of us do object to that.

Finally, I commenced this thread with the express purpose of discussing Bush and Kerry - please refer to the title of the thread.

If you truly "couldn't care less about Bush " - then kindly do not waste everyone's time by posting to a thread that you do not care about - or is this yet another example of conservative doublethink??

If Iraq continues to go down the shitter, at what point will it be 'right' for Australia to pull out?

They should not pull out until the elections are held and the Iraqi security is sufficient to maintain law and order. The US and their allies started a job, let us finish it. If the UN decided to help out on the security side and/or to supervise the election process then thats fine by me also.

The war on terror - I support the war on terror - its just that I believe that the war should be being fought against al Qaeda, bin Laden and JI - it has nothing to do with Iraq, which is a foolish sideshow.

In your opinion. I do not share that opinion.



Yes, you obviously believe that a high taxing government, that claims it cannot afford to properly fund health and education can miraculously find plenty of cash to splash around just in time for an election, and can therefore label itself as good economic managers. You must also believe that the government of the day has a far greater impact on inflation rates than does either the Reserve Bank of Australia or the international money market.

I believe all factors influence the economy. A government that manages the economy well creates the environment for lower interest rates and therefore a strong economy. Labor has a history of financial mismanagement at Federal and State level and I do not want to run the risk of their poor judgement again.



Yes, you obviously do not care if you are lied to by John Howard and co. Some of us do object to that.

Finally, I commenced this thread with the express purpose of discussing Bush and Kerry - please refer to the title of the thread.

If you truly "couldn't care less about Bush " - then kindly do not waste everyone's time by posting to a thread that you do not care about - or is this yet another example of conservative doublethink??

If you look back, I did respond to others posts at the beginning of the thread and have been replying ever since. Since my comments are continually being questioned I will continue to respond.
Good to see you are still the same. Run out of anything useful to post (do you ever post anything useful or interesting?) and then start trying to bleat about what I am posting. Looks like you might go down your well-worn path to the Moderation branch to have another whinge session.
Doublethink? Have you even read your beloved thread? I suggest you do, then get back to me.

They should not pull out until the elections are held and the Iraqi security is sufficient to maintain law and order. The US and their allies started a job, let us finish it. If the UN decided to help out on the security side and/or to supervise the election process then thats fine by me also.

The "job" was to remove weapons of mass destruction - there are none.

Or the "job" was to remove Saddam Hussein from power - he's gone.

Bush has already announced "mission accomplished" - why are our troops in Iraq when the most obvious terrorist threat to Australia is from JI?

Neither Bali nor Jakarta are located in Iraq. Kindly consult an atlas.

The "job" was to remove weapons of mass destruction - there are none.

Or the "job" was to remove Saddam Hussein from power - he's gone.

Bush has already announced "mission accomplished" - why are our troops in Iraq when the most obvious terrorist threat to Australia is from JI?

Neither Bali nor Jakarta are located in Iraq. Kindly consult an atlas.

I believe he announced "mission accomplished" after the fall of Saddam. He spoke too soon because in order for the mission to be truly accomplished Iraq needs a democratically elected government and to have a domestic security force that is capable of maintaining law and order. Therefore, the job is not done.

Your mind-numbing insistence on attempting to insult me over things that have not been mentioned never ceases to amuse. Are you saying we should invade Indonesia instead?

Doublethink? Have you even read your beloved thread? I suggest you do, then get back to me.

I posted the thread as a discussion of Bush and Kerry, from an Australian viewpoint, sparked by an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. What part of that do you have difficulty underrstanding?

You claim to have no interest in the subject matter, yet continue to post. And you deny that this is a form of "doublethink"?

You either are or are not interested in the thread - you choose, and try to be honest. I don't really care what your answer is, but your attempting to simultaneously hold to two contrary positions is amusing. Careful, you could do yourself a nasty head injury.

I posted the thread as a discussion of Bush and Kerry, from an Australian viewpoint, sparked by an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. What part of that do you have difficulty underrstanding?

You claim to have no interest in the subject matter, yet continue to post. And you deny that this is a form of "doublethink"?

You either are or are not interested in the thread - you choose, and try to be honest. I don't really care what your answer is, but your attempting to simultaneously hold to two contrary positions is amusing. Careful, you could do yourself a nasty head injury.

I know it is difficult for you to grasp such as simple concept but let me try one more time to try and explain.

You created this thread, people replied saying "all Australians" hated Bush. I said this was not true. People tried to use a few thousand protestors as evidence that the majority of Australians hated Bush. I was then accused of being pro-Bush by a number of people, including you. Keeping up so far?
I explained that I am not pro-Bush and care little about his politics which is a stance on the topic you claim to have created. If people, including yourself, continue to question my posts then I will continue to respond to those posts. I did not say I did not care about the topic, I said I was not "pro-Bush". Understand?

I didn't think so.

I know it is difficult for you to grasp such as simple concept but let me try one more time to try and explain.

You created this thread, people replied saying "all Australians" hated Bush. I said this was not true. People tried to use a few thousand protestors as evidence that the majority of Australians hated Bush. I was then accused of being pro-Bush by a number of people, including you. Keeping up so far?
I explained that I am not pro-Bush and care little about his politics which is a stance on the topic you claim to have created. If people, including yourself, continue to question my posts then I will continue to respond to those posts. I did not say I did not care about the topic, I said I was not "pro-Bush". Understand?

I didn't think so.

Your exact words, that I have already quoted were : "I couldn't care less about Bush". The topic is about Bush and Kerry. Am I going too fast for you?

I understand that there are many differing viewpoints of Kerry-Bush in particular Bush. I can see both sides to the coin but I shudder at seeing Bush getting in again. It could be said that if the world voted for president Kerry is a shoe-in. Anyway, one thing I want to raise is the Greens complete disrespect for Bush. As I have stated I am by no means Bush's biggest fan but I was appalled that a Senator of our great nation would treat a foreign dignitary in such disgust. If we sent a dignitary to the US how would we feel with such an event. If Bob Brown and his party want to be a part of Australia's government and representatives of Australia it is about time they acted as they should. No matter what you think of George Bush you should agree.

I for one hope the Greens fail at these elections and that they are in no position to embarrass the great nation we are.

Your exact words, that I have already quoted were : "I couldn't care less about Bush". The topic is about Bush and Kerry. Am I going too fast for you?

Actually, the full quote was "I couldn't care less about Bush as a politician and do not know him as a person."

One last try. My "Australian perspective" of Bush is that I am neither pro-Bush nor anti-Bush. That is my perspective which is entirely relevant to this thread. Therefore, if people wish to discuss my perspective in more detail, I will oblige and reply to their posts.

So, my replies have been on topic and expressing my views on Bush. Why is it so hard for you to understand. If you did not want people with differing opinions to post then why not create the 150th "Bush sucks" thread and preach to the choir?

I for one hope the Greens fail at these elections and that they are in no position to embarrass the great nation we are.

I totally agree. The Greens are disgrace.

With regard to the thread: as an Australian living in a country likely to be under Howard's rule for another few years, I truly shudder at the thought of blindly following another 4 years of totally inept and dangerous Bush doctrine. I think the recent debate clearly proved Kerry's vastly better understanding and ability when it comes to foreign policy.

On another point:
It never ceases to amaze me how we always say "democracy is such a wonderous thing" (or indeed, words to that affect), and yet in our own country our next PM will be either Mark "couldn't-run-a-council" Latham or John "deputy sheriff" Howard. Truly, with such appalling choices one has to question the why above contention is so frequently used.

Why oh why can't we get some decent candidates (you know, where the one with a decent foreign policy can run the economy and the one with the fair economic policy adopts a sensible foriegn policy)

My Revolutions teacher best summed it up: Democracy is not a good system. It is merely the *Least Worst* system we've got.

On another point:
It never ceases to amaze me how we always say "democracy is such a wonderous thing" (or indeed, words to that affect), and yet in our own country our next PM will be either Mark "couldn't-run-a-council" Latham or John "deputy sheriff" Howard. Truly, with such appalling choices one has to question the why above contention is so frequently used.

Why oh why can't we get some decent candidates (you know, where the one with a decent foreign policy can run the economy and the one with the fair economic policy adopts a sensible foriegn policy)

My Revolutions teacher best summed it up: Democracy is not a good system. It is merely the *Least Worst* system we've got.

I agree with your teacher. Democracy may not be perfect, but it is the best and fairest system we have.

I support Howard because his government has maintained our economic growth which means more jobs and higher wages for all. I do not want another Labor government stuffing things up again.


If your going to vote for someone based on who can build a stronger Australian economy you would vote for the Australia Labor Party. The ALP built the modern Australian economy. The Liberals have done nothing remarkable for the Australian economy except to spend less and tax more.

If your going to vote for someone based on who can build a stronger Australian economy you would vote for the Australia Labor Party. The ALP built the modern Australian economy. The Liberals have done nothing remarkable for the Australian economy except to spend less and tax more.

I'll stick with the government that has continued to maintain a strong economy despite recessions in other parts of the world. I will stick with a government that has maintained low interest rates which has further encouraged growth.

To bring this little topic of ours back to that which it was meant to discuss, the question I now pose is: forget about Bush, what do we think about Kerry?

Personally, I like him a hell of alot more than dumb and dumber (Latham/Howard)...

I'll stick with the government that has continued to maintain a strong economy despite recessions in other parts of the world. I will stick with a government that has maintained low interest rates which has further encouraged growth.

A government that can thank its success to the Australian Labor Party and all the economic reforms in undertook in the 80s and 90s.

Now, now, no bagging the Deputy Sheriff of the Asia Pacific. I'm sure John Howard will fulfull his duties for his boss George Bush, and destroy terrorism in Asia. :p

...
Iraq will become far worse if the coalition troops leave. I don't think it takes too much to see that.It is just an excuse to stay...I don't think it takes too much to see that.

It is just an excuse to stay...I don't think it takes too much to see that.

Not an excuse, a legitimate reason.

To bring this little topic of ours back to that which it was meant to discuss, the question I now pose is: forget about Bush, what do we think about Kerry?

Personally, I like him a hell of alot more than dumb and dumber (Latham/Howard)...

What do you like about Kerry? What makes him better than the others? I am interested to hear your reasons. This is a polite enquiry.

What do you like about Kerry? What makes him better than the others? I am interested to hear your reasons. This is a polite enquiry.
Fair enough
First of all, if you haven't read/seen the debate recently between the two, may I most strenously suggest you do so, I found it particularly liberating.

Personally, I think that Kerry's position on Iraq was particularly admirable. I don't hold it against him at all that he believed the intel that Bush and co fed to Congress (it seemed pretty convincing at the time). However he was entirely correct regardin his criticisms of the conduct in which the situation has been 'resolved'. Inspectors were certainly in there, finding very little (albiet this was not helped by Saddam acting like an idiot and denying some access to potential weapons sites- he always was a nut job).

Still, when your head inspectors say practically "I very much doubt there is so much as a smelly firecracker in there", one has to question the...sanity of then proceeding to rush to war (NB: I beleive that the answer to "why" the neo-cons in the administration were so particularly happy to go to war is held within the link in my sig- there is no better argumentative technique then using their own words to prove a point imo).

Kerry on the other hand suggested that diplomatic efforts could have been used (I won't bother outlining everything he suggested: I think he outlines it on his site and/or during the debate) to reach the objective. Most importantly of all, from my point of view, was the necessity of gaining far more support. We are currently fighting a "war on terror", and to most effectively do this, western countries in particular stand the best chance of derailing arguments used by terrorist groups to the effect that we are the "great satan" and crap like that by showing a willingness to take a civilized, intelligent approach to dealing with the problem, ESPECIALLY when dealing with Moslem countries. Describing this War on Terror(imo completely legitimate operation) as a "crusade" (which has a similar effect on Moslems as "Jihad" has on Christians) does NOT accomplish this aim. Also, sending a perception of infinate arrogance by attacking virtually unilaterally (Bush and co themselves expressed in no uncertain terms a willingness to go into Iraq alone), with some exceptions, a predominantly Moslem country based on increasingly dubious information AND a willingness to isolate even non-Moslem allies in the process, from some points of view, would at least lend some weight to assertions that America is Evil. This is especially so given the reasonably close support that Bush has continued to give Isreal

I know this has turned a bit more onto what is wrong with Bush, but I am using this to highlight what I percieve to be a stark contrast between the two. Kerry seems to have an infinately greater grasp of the concept of terrorism, and in particular the best ways to deal with it, by identifying the above and suggesting different manners of doing so. Bush was right to go after Afghanistan (although the US military fucked parts of that up too, mainly regarding the limited numbers they sent in), but Afghanistan was more or less an exception to the rule- it was unique in that it was conveniently displaying plainly its' harbouring of al Queada. However, the rest of the War on Terror is not going to be like this, and Iraq, unrelated to the War on Terror (I say this basically because there have been no substantial, PROVEN links to terror groups, only information of varying reliablilty, and absolutely nothing to indicate even a moderate WMD program)

Basically, Kerry's approach in using diplomacy to secure more support for the war in Iraq would have meant that even if (as it turned out), the US was wrong, everybody else would have been wrong too, and thus the US alone (effectively)could not be held accountable for the mistake.
Edit: I just realize the inevitablity of someone sooner to later meantioning that painful term: Flip Flop. Kerry did not flip flop at all- voting for a funding bill before voting against it because the second version was fiscally irresponsible imo, is a perfectly legitimate position.

As for Bush- the biggest 'flip-flopper' of them all anyway: how about "I don't really think you can win (the War on Terror)".

Then later saying

"We will win...Blah Blah Blah"- what the hell kind of message is that supposed to send?

Not an excuse, a legitimate reason.

I hardly think our tiny contingent makes that much difference. It's just a token force so that the US will continue to say they will support us if we are involved in military campaign.

I hardly think our tiny contingent makes that much difference. It's just a token force so that the US will continue to say they will support us if we are involved in military campaign.


Whether the reasons for going in or not are just. It must now be seen to what is happening is worth it. While Australia's numbers are small (which should please those who just want our troops safe) it is more the symbolism if us being there. By staying we are sending a message to Iraqis that we are here to help you and rebuild you, we also send a message to terrorists saying we are not getting to get bullied into leaving so that civil war can break out in Iraq and that we are commited to stopping terrorism.

To those who think the war was wrong that maybe the case, we will never be able to answer those "what if's"and "but's" but what you must realise is that we have made a committment to those in Iraq. If we leave we are sending a message. Please allow us to fulfil our committments to them.

I hardly think our tiny contingent makes that much difference. It's just a token force so that the US will continue to say they will support us if we are involved in military campaign.

The most powerful of avalanches is made up of tiny snowflakes.

Fair enough
First of all, if you haven't read/seen the debate recently between the two, may I most strenously suggest you do so, I found it particularly liberating.

Personally, I think that Kerry's position on Iraq was particularly admirable. I don't hold it against him at all that he believed the intel that Bush and co fed to Congress (it seemed pretty convincing at the time).

So, you are saying, based on the information that Bush acted on, Kerry would have invaded Iraq? Regardless, this is talking about history. I am interested in hearing what you think Kerry will do.

However he was entirely correct regardin his criticisms of the conduct in which the situation has been 'resolved'. Inspectors were certainly in there, finding very little (albiet this was not helped by Saddam acting like an idiot and denying some access to potential weapons sites- he always was a nut job).

I agree, the Iraq situation could have been handled much better. Nonetheless, Saddam was a "nut job", an unpredictable nut job at that. The only reason I can see for Bush acting as quickly as he did was to prevent something disasterous happen rather than wait and see what happened.

Still, when your head inspectors say practically "I very much doubt there is so much as a smelly firecracker in there", one has to question the...sanity of then proceeding to rush to war (NB: I beleive that the answer to "why" the neo-cons in the administration were so particularly happy to go to war is held within the link in my sig- there is no better argumentative technique then using their own words to prove a point imo).

Kerry on the other hand suggested that diplomatic efforts could have been used (I won't bother outlining everything he suggested: I think he outlines it on his site and/or during the debate) to reach the objective. Most importantly of all, from my point of view, was the necessity of gaining far more support.

How? Russia and France had the same intelligence as the US suggesting Iraq had WMD but vetoed any action under the UN banner. Information gathered during the invasion cast an unsavoury light on France and Russia's reasons for veto. I think that just saying "we will use more diplomatic channels" is just words. How would Kerry have convinced France, Russia and China not to veto? If elected, how will Kerry react to a veto of a UN resolution to stop the genocide in Sudan?

We are currently fighting a "war on terror", and to most effectively do this, western countries in particular stand the best chance of derailing arguments used by terrorist groups to the effect that we are the "great satan" and crap like that by showing a willingness to take a civilized, intelligent approach to dealing with the problem, ESPECIALLY when dealing with Moslem countries.

We aren't dealing with Muslim countries, we are dealing with Muslim extremists that operate terrorist networks. How do you negotiate with terrorists? What will Kerry's civilised and intelligent approach to dealing with Al Qaeda be?

Describing this War on Terror(imo completely legitimate operation) as a "crusade" (which has a similar effect on Moslems as "Jihad" has on Christians) does NOT accomplish this aim.

Agreed, the use of the term "crusade" was stupid.

Also, sending a perception of infinate arrogance by attacking virtually unilaterally (Bush and co themselves expressed in no uncertain terms a willingness to go into Iraq alone), with some exceptions, a predominantly Moslem country based on increasingly dubious information AND a willingness to isolate even non-Moslem allies in the process, from some points of view, would at least lend some weight to assertions that America is Evil. This is especially so given the reasonably close support that Bush has continued to give Isreal

This has nothing to do with Kerry. How will Kerry act differently? How will he make is policies work? Policies look great on paper but how will they be implemented? Are they workable?

I know this has turned a bit more onto what is wrong with Bush, but I am using this to highlight what I percieve to be a stark contrast between the two. Kerry seems to have an infinately greater grasp of the concept of terrorism, and in particular the best ways to deal with it, by identifying the above and suggesting different manners of doing so. Bush was right to go after Afghanistan (although the US military fucked parts of that up too, mainly regarding the limited numbers they sent in), but Afghanistan was more or less an exception to the rule- it was unique in that it was conveniently displaying plainly its' harbouring of al Queada. However, the rest of the War on Terror is not going to be like this, and Iraq, unrelated to the War on Terror (I say this basically because there have been no substantial, PROVEN links to terror groups, only information of varying reliablilty, and absolutely nothing to indicate even a moderate WMD program)

How does Kerry have a better concept of terrorism? What different manners of dealing with terrorists? These are empty words unless there is some proposed procedure in place.

Basically, Kerry's approach in using diplomacy to secure more support for the war in Iraq would have meant that even if (as it turned out), the US was wrong, everybody else would have been wrong too, and thus the US alone (effectively)could not be held accountable for the mistake.

France and Russia were NEVER going to support the war in Iraq. We know why. So, even based on the early intelligence suggesting Iraq had WMD, France, Russia and China vetoed. Assuming that this intelligence was all the information at hand and these nations dug their heels in, what would Kerry have done? Left Iraq alone and hoped nothing happened?

Edit: I just realize the inevitablity of someone sooner to later meantioning that painful term: Flip Flop. Kerry did not flip flop at all- voting for a funding bill before voting against it because the second version was fiscally irresponsible imo, is a perfectly legitimate position.

I'm not really interested in the whole "flip-flop" thing. One thing I want to know is. Seeing as Kerry supported the war based on the information that Bush had, then opposed it as the chances of WMD being found faded, is it safe to assume Kerry would have left Iraq as soon as the WMD search looked destined to find nothing leaving the nation of Iraq in turmoil? What i am getting at is one candidate had zero consequence for his change of mind, the other had a serious situation to think about if he changed his mind.

As for Bush- the biggest 'flip-flopper' of them all anyway: how about "I don't really think you can win (the War on Terror)".

Then later saying

"We will win...Blah Blah Blah"- what the hell kind of message is that supposed to send?

As I said, the flip-flop thing is a smokescreen to occupy morons. I will not entertain it as a reason to be for or against either candidate.

Now, I know you will probably see my posting as anti-Kerry. That is not true. I want to know what he will do to be true to his promises. I have been around long enough to hear endless promises from politicians only to see these promises fade to nothing once elected.

On another point:
It never ceases to amaze me how we always say "democracy is such a wonderous thing" (or indeed, words to that affect), and yet in our own country our next PM will be either Mark "couldn't-run-a-council" Latham or John "deputy sheriff" Howard. Truly, with such appalling choices one has to question the why above contention is so frequently used.

Why oh why can't we get some decent candidates (you know, where the one with a decent foreign policy can run the economy and the one with the fair economic policy adopts a sensible foriegn policy)

Because people vote for parties instead of individuals! Stop worrying about little Johny and Latham and have a look at the candidates in your *own* electorate! Is your local member any good? If not, vote the beggar out!
The leaders of the parties are selected from the MPs - if you elect a decent MP, you may have given us a decent potential PM (a few years down the track).

Just to let you Aussie know, I'm an American, and I've been involved with grassroots organizations working their butts off to register people to vote, with the sole purpose of kicking Bush to the curb in November. The things Bush has done to our country both domestically, and overseas is a major embarrasment. I'm ashamed to admit this guys my president.

I'm not saying Kerry's the best man for the job, he's miles better than the Cro-Magnon we have now. So, there's hope.

Pint of Fosters to you all. ;) Cheers.

France and Russia were NEVER going to support the war in Iraq. We know why. So, even based on the early intelligence suggesting Iraq had WMD, France, Russia and China vetoed. Assuming that this intelligence was all the information at hand and these nations dug their heels in, what would Kerry have done? Left Iraq alone and hoped nothing happened?

Umm, few points here, there was no vote, though France threatened to veto, Russia hadn't made any definitive staments, and China had stated they would abstain (they only veto if the issue is perceived as a concern to their national interests, Iraq was not. They tend to keep themselves out of the world of white man politics if they can :P).

The problem with Kerry is he really doesn't hold much of a stance other than "I'm not Bush", even the debate was driven by I'm not Bush, I'd do things this way instead rhetoric, does he even have his own policies?

As for the other stuff

If your going to vote for someone based on who can build a stronger Australian economy you would vote for the Australia Labor Party. The ALP built the modern Australian economy. The Liberals have done nothing remarkable for the Australian economy except to spend less and tax more.

ahahahahahahahahaha

Yeah, let's ban logging in tasmania to pander to the greens and cost people their livelihood. Rational limiting of the area to be used isnt appropriate, you must protect it all! and spend 800 million to retrain those workers to do something else....

While we're at it, let's promise free health care and no waiting lists for people over 75, at the cost of people under 75 of course, they can wait longer no worries, and also let's make sure we throw out our favourite word "liar" when someone challenges it. Even though the AMA has stated we simply lack the medical staff, what would they know about Australia's medical growth limits? Economic analysts in a quick runover have said he's probably about 2 billion short, and the internal costing department have labelled Latham's policies fluff as they were deliberately timed so they wouldn't have enough time to properly cost them. Did you miss that? I'll say it one more time. He released his policies at a time so they couldn't be properly costed before the election....


Then there's his university policy, another 1.2 billion there.

You know, I first thought Latham would be quite held back, and try to push towards finally getting rid of our national debt, instead he just wants to spend and spend and spend and spend, and for what? So we can be pulled back into the grip of free giveaway Euopean socialism....yay

So, you are saying, based on the information that Bush acted on, Kerry would have invaded Iraq? Regardless, this is talking about history. I am interested in hearing what you think Kerry will do.

Basically, what I am saying is: from what I have seen (admittedly not as much as I would have liked to), Kerry MAY have invaded Iraq, but only after pursuing other options first. Given that about 13,000 Iraqis have died (www.iraqbodycount.com) at the very least, I would have certainly suggested looking at the option of diplomacy first.

I agree, the Iraq situation could have been handled much better. Nonetheless, Saddam was a "nut job", an unpredictable nut job at that. The only reason I can see for Bush acting as quickly as he did was to prevent something disasterous happen rather than wait and see what happened.

Again, I (and Kerry it would seem) are not angry at Bush for acting, but the manner in which he acted and the reasons why he acted are, for me, the reasons to hold him responsible (NB: just to clarify when I say "Bush" I also include the members of his administration which supported/suggested the course of action he took). Now while the evidence back in early 2002 suggested the possibility of Iraq re-arming, it was never conclusive. There were always doubts (esp: his relying on dodgy testimony: Ahmed Challabi in particular- the man hadn't set foot in Iraq for years anyway). He shouldn't have dismissed the information, but certainly an objective observer would have asked more questions about it then the administration did. This is mainly the problem of having neo-cons like Cheney, Wolfie and Rumsfeld constantly talking in your ear (as president)- they were ALWAYS going to suggest war (check out the sig link, they've wanted this one for years).

[/QUOTE]How? Russia and France had the same intelligence as the US suggesting Iraq had WMD but vetoed any action under the UN banner. Information gathered during the invasion cast an unsavoury light on France and Russia's reasons for veto. I think that just saying "we will use more diplomatic channels" is just words. How would Kerry have convinced France, Russia and China not to veto? If elected, how will Kerry react to a veto of a UN resolution to stop the genocide in Sudan?[/QUOTE]

I think Voldavia dealt with this.

[/QUOTE]We aren't dealing with Muslim countries, we are dealing with Muslim extremists that operate terrorist networks. How do you negotiate with terrorists? What will Kerry's civilised and intelligent approach to dealing with Al Qaeda be?

How does Kerry have a better concept of terrorism? What different manners of dealing with terrorists? These are empty words unless there is some proposed procedure in place.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! The most difficult feature to deal with when fighting terrorists is that they are somewhat like multinational corporations: they do not need to be a state with say, a large army, to be powerful (9/11- best example of this: 20 dumbass fanatics flying planes: rendered the full arsenal of the US military completely useless). Thus, invading countries to combat terrorism rarely works unless the regime of said country is giving large amounts of support (directly: many training camps in the country, logistical/financial support, political support etc etc) as military operations are designed to deal with enemy armies: clearly defined armed enemies who are prepared to utilize a conventional method of warfare. Terrorists, by there very nature, do not do this- they fight guerilla warfare (at best) which afghanistan), iraq, vietnam and others have clearly proven to blunten the otherwise enormous disparity in firepower.

Why am I saying this? Basically, because I am making the point that Bush's technique hasn't worked. He is trying to fight an unconventional enemy using conventional means: only works in exceptional cases such as afghanistan, where the terrorist groups and the government forces were close enough to negate much of a distinguishment. Unfortunately, this is not the case in most other countries.

Now, the question: how will Kerry be different (sorry it took me so much longer to get around to this as possible). From what I have read from his speeches, his website and during the debate, his approach is much more based around the concept that the best way to deal with terrorists who dislike you ('you' being the US/west) involves getting as much support for your cause as possible, specfically governments in countries in which terrorists may be lurking in order for the respective governments to deal with said terrorists themselves. How will he do this: Economic/strategic incentives for countries which support anti-terrorism actions, threats of military action against countries/governments suspected of links to terrorism(similar to what Bush has used to placate Libya- imo one of the administrations better moves), UN sanctions/resolutions for action and other forms of international pressure (as per Afghanistan) and as a last resort, military action when necessary- again along the lines of Afghanistan- because if by this stage the government has refused to co-operate, and the intelligence indicates a likelihood of it supporting anti-US/west terrorist groups then it is entirely reasonable to use military action. He himself stated that he was more than happy to use pre-emptive military action, but only when other, more effective methods of fighting terrorism were exaughsted.


France and Russia were NEVER going to support the war in Iraq. We know why. So, even based on the early intelligence suggesting Iraq had WMD, France, Russia and China vetoed. Assuming that this intelligence was all the information at hand and these nations dug their heels in, what would Kerry have done? Left Iraq alone and hoped nothing happened?

France China and Russia weren't the important allies to have in Iraq. Turkey and other regional Muslim countries would have been the best, but Bush etc did not make a sufficient enough effort to gain their support. Far more economic and/or strategic incentive could have been offered in order to gain their support, and CERTAINLY more to promote the image the war was NOT about attacking Islam, which unfortunately some opposition groups used to drain support from the war in these countries. The Muslim nations' support is really what defined '03 Iraq from '91 Iraq and Afghanistan- because this would have completely outflanked any opposition (in particular terrorist and post-war Iraqi insurgent claims that the US was waging a war on Islam, which has been a motivation for some Muslims, particularly those who have lost family members to the US attacks, to join up said groups).

I have concluded that this in particular means Kerry would have taken the above approach, rather than what Bush has done, if he (Kerry) were to go in. Again, I think Kerry may have still gone into Iraq (ie- his reaffirmation of the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes), but the method in which he would have done so would have been better.

Also to note about Kerry (or so it seems) was that he decided that ultimately the war was wrong once it had become clear that the intelligence used to justify the war was shown to be hugely erroneous (WMDs, Links to 9/11, Links to Al Queada). I see this to be a pragmatic, sensible approach based upon a clear revelation: he was wrong, so admit it. I see Bush's very slippery change of emphasis from the imminent threat of WMD's to the democratisation of Iraq and obdurate refusal to admit the errors of the war to be a blatant example of how poor his leadership on the issue is (this is the cadets CUO in me talking here)

Now, I know you will probably see my posting as anti-Kerry. That is not true. I want to know what he will do to be true to his promises. I have been around long enough to hear endless promises from politicians only to see these promises fade to nothing once elected.

Actually, no, I understand your position completely, and indeed respect it. Asking questions, imo, is THE most important aspect of democracy- are we doing the right thing? what are the alternatives? etc etc.

I totally agree. The Greens are disgrace.
I agree with most of the Greens policey but I don't like how they flip flop between who they'll support by who says they'll cut down less tree's. But then again I couldn't care much less about the lives of people who blatantly ruin our once beautiful environment I.E Logging, Fishing and Mining in this country are poorly governed and should be reduced to recognize there devastating effect. I know greens will still get votes no matter what, I just hope they support labor.

The most powerful of avalanches is made up of tiny snowflakes.
Snowflakes like the Free Trade Agreement will cause an avalanche upon our society, we will become Americanised, it's already happening in a film industry. Why on earth did he pass that.

Snowflakes like the Free Trade Agreement will cause an avalanche upon our society, we will become Americanised, it's already happening in a film industry. Why on earth did he pass that.

Hehe. the emigration and evolution of the Murdoch influence. If anything, Murdoch has had a very distinct effect in aligning the American conservative viewpoint with our own, or do you honestly it was just some fluke, that the current American conservative president has very similar policies to our own? Most of his american critics will actually point to the fact that he is still very Australian in his attitudes, which is trie if you've ever heard the man speak.

Our unique brand of don't-give-a-f***-what-you-think-or-if-i-hurt-your-feelings is still going strong. The most distinct difference between Australia and America culturally is we are not polite or overly concerned with how others feel. THAT is our culture.

Hehe. the emigration and evolution of the Murdoch influence. If anything, Murdoch has had a very distinct effect in aligning the American conservative viewpoint with our own, or do you honestly it was just some fluke, that the current American conservative president has very similar policies to our own? Most of his american critics will actually point to the fact that he is still very Australian in his attitudes, which is trie if you've ever heard the man speak.

Our unique brand of don't-give-a-f***-what-you-think-or-if-i-hurt-your-feelings is still going strong. The most distinct difference between Australia and America culturally is we are not polite or overly concerned with how others feel. THAT is our culture.
Actually I think the Americans claim that as much as ours. Our accent just sounds meaner lol. The world generally brands Australia as a country were it's people (of many cultures I'm glad to say) are generally good willed and relaxed. We're often compared to Canadians, and having met many Canadians and always becoming friends, I'd agree. So although our sub-societies in Australia (Like the horrid Suburbanite Area of east coast) can sometimes be a bit "Head up the ass" it's America that takes the cake for not caring, if only for the politicains they put forward.

Snowflakes like the Free Trade Agreement will cause an avalanche upon our society, we will become Americanised, it's already happening in a film industry. Why on earth did he pass that.

The real trouble with the free trade agreement is that we have given away all our bargaining power, agreeing to nearly everything except some changes to the PBS. In return the US is still allowed to subsidise their agricultural products to keep us out of there market.

Actually I think the Americans claim that as much as ours. Our accent just sounds meaner lol. The world generally brands Australia as a country were it's people (of many cultures I'm glad to say) are generally good willed and relaxed. We're often compared to Canadians, and having met many Canadians and always becoming friends, I'd agree.

Being "don't-give-a-f***-what-you-think-or-if-i-hurt-your-feelings" without being relaxed is an oxymoron, Americans are uptight and concerned with how they might insult others. Do you know what the biggest complaint of Americans working here is? Being insulted and abused in the laxodaisical way we do, I kid you not, that's actually their biggest complaint.

The real trouble with the free trade agreement is that we have given away all our bargaining power, agreeing to nearly everything except some changes to the PBS. In return the US is still allowed to subsidise their agricultural products to keep us out of there market.

They are using quotas not subsidies, because they can't subsidise enough to still beat us, lol. One thing often missed with their subsidies is that since land costs are so high realistically and socially due to their population, a lot of those subsidies go to funding strict environmental policies we simply don't need due to our great expanse of land. What's truly going to hurt them though is the incoming ban on subsidising agricultural exports, which will basically give us free reign on the lower grade import meat markets of countries like Japan, where the only real sway we have is the premium grade from the "fully organic" region in the SA/NSW/Qld border quadrant.

Being "don't-give-a-f***-what-you-think-or-if-i-hurt-your-feelings" without being relaxed is an oxymoron, Americans are uptight and concerned with how they might insult others. Do you know what the biggest complaint of Americans working here is? Being insulted and abused in the laxodaisical way we do, I kid you not, that's actually their biggest complaint.

Haha are you for real. That's hysterical, Americans seriously can't understand sarcasm can they? I think Americans just like to make sure there insulting the right people like Jews, gays, Muslims and non-republicans. It's done in this blatant yet somehow subtle way that says "If your not like this than F- off". There's this silence that cannot be broken, yet it is beleived the silence will keep them safe when it's killing them.

Basically, what I am saying is: from what I have seen (admittedly not as much as I would have liked to), Kerry MAY have invaded Iraq, but only after pursuing other options first. Given that about 13,000 Iraqis have died (www.iraqbodycount.com) at the very least, I would have certainly suggested looking at the option of diplomacy first.

Such as the 10+ years of diplomacy through the UN?

Again, I (and Kerry it would seem) are not angry at Bush for acting, but the manner in which he acted and the reasons why he acted are, for me, the reasons to hold him responsible (NB: just to clarify when I say "Bush" I also include the members of his administration which supported/suggested the course of action he took). Now while the evidence back in early 2002 suggested the possibility of Iraq re-arming, it was never conclusive. There were always doubts (esp: his relying on dodgy testimony: Ahmed Challabi in particular- the man hadn't set foot in Iraq for years anyway). He shouldn't have dismissed the information, but certainly an objective observer would have asked more questions about it then the administration did. This is mainly the problem of having neo-cons like Cheney, Wolfie and Rumsfeld constantly talking in your ear (as president)- they were ALWAYS going to suggest war (check out the sig link, they've wanted this one for years).

Didn't Kerry vote in favour of the war based on the information that Nush had? So is Kerry not also responsible in some way?

How? Russia and France had the same intelligence as the US suggesting Iraq had WMD but vetoed any action under the UN banner. Information gathered during the invasion cast an unsavoury light on France and Russia's reasons for veto. I think that just saying "we will use more diplomatic channels" is just words. How would Kerry have convinced France, Russia and China not to veto? If elected, how will Kerry react to a veto of a UN resolution to stop the genocide in Sudan?[/QUOTE]

I think Voldavia dealt with this.[/QUOTE]

Not really, even if China abstained and Russia was undecided, France was still going to veto. Therefore, UN support was never going to happen.

We aren't dealing with Muslim countries, we are dealing with Muslim extremists that operate terrorist networks. How do you negotiate with terrorists? What will Kerry's civilised and intelligent approach to dealing with Al Qaeda be?

How does Kerry have a better concept of terrorism? What different manners of dealing with terrorists? These are empty words unless there is some proposed procedure in place.

Exactly! The most difficult feature to deal with when fighting terrorists is that they are somewhat like multinational corporations: they do not need to be a state with say, a large army, to be powerful (9/11- best example of this: 20 dumbass fanatics flying planes: rendered the full arsenal of the US military completely useless). Thus, invading countries to combat terrorism rarely works unless the regime of said country is giving large amounts of support (directly: many training camps in the country, logistical/financial support, political support etc etc) as military operations are designed to deal with enemy armies: clearly defined armed enemies who are prepared to utilize a conventional method of warfare. Terrorists, by there very nature, do not do this- they fight guerilla warfare (at best) which afghanistan), iraq, vietnam and others have clearly proven to blunten the otherwise enormous disparity in firepower.

Yet the common line trotted out by those opposing force in the fight against terror say we must remove the oppression that generates the ill-will that makes people volunteer to become suicide bombers. So, by removing Saddam and trying to bring freedom and democracy to a nation like Iraq, does this not remove a source of that oppression?

Now, the question: how will Kerry be different (sorry it took me so much longer to get around to this as possible). From what I have read from his speeches, his website and during the debate, his approach is much more based around the concept that the best way to deal with terrorists who dislike you ('you' being the US/west) involves getting as much support for your cause as possible, specfically governments in countries in which terrorists may be lurking in order for the respective governments to deal with said terrorists themselves. How will he do this: Economic/strategic incentives for countries which support anti-terrorism actions, threats of military action against countries/governments suspected of links to terrorism(similar to what Bush has used to placate Libya- imo one of the administrations better moves), UN sanctions/resolutions for action and other forms of international pressure (as per Afghanistan) and as a last resort, military action when necessary- again along the lines of Afghanistan- because if by this stage the government has refused to co-operate, and the intelligence indicates a likelihood of it supporting anti-US/west terrorist groups then it is entirely reasonable to use military action. He himself stated that he was more than happy to use pre-emptive military action, but only when other, more effective methods of fighting terrorism were exaughsted.

How much time would you have given Saddam? He has had since 1991 to comply with UN resolutions and played cat and mouse games throughout that time. Sanctions did not weaken his hold, it just punished the civilians.

France China and Russia weren't the important allies to have in Iraq.

No, but they did need to support any UN sanctioned action against Saddam. Therefore they would have been very important allies.

Turkey and other regional Muslim countries would have been the best, but Bush etc did not make a sufficient enough effort to gain their support. Far more economic and/or strategic incentive could have been offered in order to gain their support, and CERTAINLY more to promote the image the war was NOT about attacking Islam, which unfortunately some opposition groups used to drain support from the war in these countries.

Turkey did not want to help out because of the possibility of the formation of a Kurdish homeland which may or may not have incorporated some of Turkey itself.

[QUOTE=Morroko]The Muslim nations' support is really what defined '03 Iraq from '91 Iraq and Afghanistan- because this would have completely outflanked any opposition (in particular terrorist and post-war Iraqi insurgent claims that the US was waging a war on Islam, which has been a motivation for some Muslims, particularly those who have lost family members to the US attacks, to join up said groups).

The difference was that Saddam invaded another Muslim nation in the 1991 war. Therefore Muslim nations helped out to help out Kuwait rather than any real stance against Saddam. The war today is to rid the entire world of the threat posed by Islamic extremists.

I have concluded that this in particular means Kerry would have taken the above approach, rather than what Bush has done, if he (Kerry) were to go in. Again, I think Kerry may have still gone into Iraq (ie- his reaffirmation of the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes), but the method in which he would have done so would have been better.

What approach? Diplomacy? I am still yet to hear how this would be implemented, how it would work and what timeframe would be given for this to work.

Also to note about Kerry (or so it seems) was that he decided that ultimately the war was wrong once it had become clear that the intelligence used to justify the war was shown to be hugely erroneous (WMDs, Links to 9/11, Links to Al Queada). I see this to be a pragmatic, sensible approach based upon a clear revelation: he was wrong, so admit it. I see Bush's very slippery change of emphasis from the imminent threat of WMD's to the democratisation of Iraq and obdurate refusal to admit the errors of the war to be a blatant example of how poor his leadership on the issue is (this is the cadets CUO in me talking here)

As I said. Kerry had nothing to lose when admitting he got it wrong. He lost a little face but no more. Bush now has troops fighting in a war, a nation (Iraq) is now in the balance being months away from their first true elections. What is Kerry going to do about Iraq?

Actually, no, I understand your position completely, and indeed respect it. Asking questions, imo, is THE most important aspect of democracy- are we doing the right thing? what are the alternatives? etc etc.

Indeed. But no-one seems to be able to tell me what Kerry is going to actually do. I hear general catchphrases but no substance. I hear people telling me what Bush did wrong but no-one talking about what is the right thing to do now. Not only for the US but for the people of Iraq.

I agree with most of the Greens policey but I don't like how they flip flop between who they'll support by who says they'll cut down less tree's. But then again I couldn't care much less about the lives of people who blatantly ruin our once beautiful environment I.E Logging, Fishing and Mining in this country are poorly governed and should be reduced to recognize there devastating effect. I know greens will still get votes no matter what, I just hope they support labor.

So I take it you live in a cave with no fire, no nothing. Either that or you are a hypocrit?

Such as the 10+ years of diplomacy through the UN?

[QUOTE]Didn't Kerry vote in favour of the war based on the information that Bush had? So is Kerry not also responsible in some way?.

Kerry:
Voted for the authority (for the president) to go to war (if necessary, this was not intended to be a mandate). Is against the way the war was conducted.

Not really, even if China abstained and Russia was undecided, France was still going to veto. Therefore, UN support was never going to happen..

It didn't even need to be under the banner of the UN necessarily. So long as the coalition was larger and with more important players (I mean realistically, Australian involvement is good, but say Turkish would be better). Afghanistan was an interesting supporter of the war, but the image of 'puppet' government never seemed to be shaken by any of the Bush administrations statements.

Yet the common line trotted out by those opposing force in the fight against terror say we must remove the oppression that generates the ill-will that makes people volunteer to become suicide bombers. So, by removing Saddam and trying to bring freedom and democracy to a nation like Iraq, does this not remove a source of that oppression?.

Yes, but you asked Kerry's line, not others lines...

Besides, the oppression generates ill-will against the government which oppresses, and (in the case of Israel-Palestine) those which are seen to support said government. Saddam was clearly not beign supported by the US.

How much time would you have given Saddam? He has had since 1991 to comply with UN resolutions and played cat and mouse games throughout that time. Sanctions did not weaken his hold, it just punished the civilians.

I agree, the nature of many of the sanctions imposed were wrong and myopic. However, as far as we know, the UN weapons inspections actually did work. If you disagree, fair enough, show me some weapons that we have subsequently found?

No, but they did need to support any UN sanctioned action against Saddam. Therefore they would have been very important allies..

I wouldn't even go so far as to say that they needed to at all, Russia and China could say it's not their problem and abstain, in the same way the US does not involve itself with Chechnya and Tibet respectively. As with '91 Iraq, the coalition did not include them (I beleive they abstained) yet was a success in acheiving the goals set out by the resolutions.

The difference was that Saddam invaded another Muslim nation in the 1991 war. Therefore Muslim nations helped out to help out Kuwait rather than any real stance against Saddam. The war today is to rid the entire world of the threat posed by Islamic extremists..

I think your basing your argument that the sole or predominant reason the Muslim nations support Iraq was exclusively because Kuwait was a Muslim nation. What are you basing this on? Many muslim nations supported the action in Afghanistan- it was a Islamic extremist nation holding militants.

What approach? Diplomacy? I am still yet to hear how this would be implemented, how it would work and what timeframe would be given for this to work.

As I said. Kerry had nothing to lose when admitting he got it wrong. He lost a little face but no more. Bush now has troops fighting in a war, a nation (Iraq) is now in the balance being months away from their first true elections. What is Kerry going to do about Iraq? .

Rather than putting words in the man's mouth, may I direct you to the link which says his plan directly.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html
For me, "internationalize" the situation is particularly important- with more than the rather token nations (except for perhaps Britain)

I think the most important thing to note is the point raised by Bush and clarified by Kerry during the debate: Bush claimed that Kerry couldn't internationalize after saying how bad the war was, but he missed the point of the necessity to therefore convince said other countries that their help is required in 'winning the peace'- in particular by showing the results of a failed state in Iraq and the regional implications for each respective country. Bush has shown that this is possible, but Kerry wants to make it on a far larger scale.

Indeed. But no-one seems to be able to tell me what Kerry is going to actually do. I hear general catchphrases but no substance. I hear people telling me what Bush did wrong but no-one talking about what is the right thing to do now. Not only for the US but for the people of Iraq.

I hope the link addresses this. Bush's approach is basically "more of the same" (I'm sorry for regurgitating Kerry's line during the debate- I know that makes me seem a bit of a sheep- but realistically, what changes did Bush actually announce he would make?)

Kerry:
Voted for the authority (for the president) to go to war (if necessary, this was not intended to be a mandate). Is against the way the war was conducted.

So based on the information at hand he did support the actions of war against Iraq. Whether Kerry would have handled it better or worse is purely speculative.



It didn't even need to be under the banner of the UN necessarily.

Ah, so as long as we had a Muslim nation along for the ride then that was all that was needed for you to support what has happened. If the UN was unnecessary then why all the carry on about getting their OK?

So long as the coalition was larger and with more important players (I mean realistically, Australian involvement is good, but say Turkish would be better). Afghanistan was an interesting supporter of the war, but the image of 'puppet' government never seemed to be shaken by any of the Bush administrations statements.

So if Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Jordan joined the war in Iraq then the muckrakers would not have drawn yet another conspiracy theory from this? You know, the old Bush/Saud "friendship" alluded to by Mr. Moore?

Yes, but you asked Kerry's line, not others lines...

Besides, the oppression generates ill-will against the government which oppresses, and (in the case of Israel-Palestine) those which are seen to support said government. Saddam was clearly not beign supported by the US.

Yes, but if those oppressed have no means to vent that ill-will against the oppressive government it can be manipulated so as to be vented against a suitable scapegoat, in this case, the west.

I agree, the nature of many of the sanctions imposed were wrong and myopic. However, as far as we know, the UN weapons inspections actually did work. If you disagree, fair enough, show me some weapons that we have subsequently found?

The sanctions were brought in to disarm Saddam and also weaken his hold over the population by preventing him from gaining access to money from oil sales. It failed miserably meaning that the people of Iraq suffered. Whether WMDs were found or not is not the sole reason for the sanctions.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say that they needed to at all, Russia and China could say it's not their problem and abstain, in the same way the US does not involve itself with Chechnya and Tibet respectively. As with '91 Iraq, the coalition did not include them (I beleive they abstained) yet was a success in acheiving the goals set out by the resolutions.

You still have not addressed France and the fact they would have vetoes any action against Iraq under a UN resolution. Despite Iraq's continual failure to comply with UN resolutions.

I think your basing your argument that the sole or predominant reason the Muslim nations support Iraq was exclusively because Kuwait was a Muslim nation. What are you basing this on? Many muslim nations supported the action in Afghanistan- it was a Islamic extremist nation holding militants.

Because Al Qaeda, who were sheltered by the Taliban, also attacked Muslim targets in Saudi Arabia etc. When the war went to Iraq Saudi Arabia withdrew support based on the fact that they did not want Iraqi oil entering the market and also the fact that the Shia Muslims in Iraq would escape the stranglehold of Saddam. Saudis being Sunnis have no interest in assiting the Shia.

Rather than putting words in the man's mouth, may I direct you to the link which says his plan directly.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html
For me, "internationalize" the situation is particularly important- with more than the rather token nations (except for perhaps Britain)

How does he "internationalize" though? Its a nice buzzword but do you think bribing nations for support in your endeavours is any better than unilateral strikes?

I think the most important thing to note is the point raised by Bush and clarified by Kerry during the debate: Bush claimed that Kerry couldn't internationalize after saying how bad the war was, but he missed the point of the necessity to therefore convince said other countries that their help is required in 'winning the peace'- in particular by showing the results of a failed state in Iraq and the regional implications for each respective country. Bush has shown that this is possible, but Kerry wants to make it on a far larger scale.

I have brought up the point of getting the UN off their backsides and helping out the Iraqi civilians by assisting with security in the lead up to and after the elections. It will save lives. Most Liberals, Leftists or Kerry fans said this was not an option because the Iraqis are "not our problem". So, how does Kerry get international support for this unpopular war when it is "not their problem"?

I hope the link addresses this. Bush's approach is basically "more of the same" (I'm sorry for regurgitating Kerry's line during the debate- I know that makes me seem a bit of a sheep- but realistically, what changes did Bush actually announce he would make?)

The link helped, thank you. I do raise the point again that much of what Kerry has proposed was what I posted in a thread regarding the situation in Iraq. My thoughts were roundly condemned by the anti-Bush brigade because Iraq is not the responsibility of the rest of the world. How can these people say they support Kerry and then disagree with his policies when they are posted by someone else? Or do they just agree or disagree with the person presenting the ideas rather than the ideas themselves? If they feel this way, how can Kerry convince the rest of the world to help out when his own supporters are not convinced?

So based on the information at hand he did support the actions of war against Iraq. Whether Kerry would have handled it better or worse is purely speculative.

Oh of course. However, this does not in any way mitigate the massive mistakes made by Bush and co.

Ah, so as long as we had a Muslim nation along for the ride then that was all that was needed for you to support what has happened. If the UN was unnecessary then why all the carry on about getting their OK?

The UN is simply the most convenient way of getting this support, if it cannot be found then a coalition of including key Islamic countries may well have done the job just as well. It would still show a broad support for the US action in spite of a (perceptively) corrupt, ineffective UN. Same thing, different name basically.

So if Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Jordan joined the war in Iraq then the muckrakers would not have drawn yet another conspiracy theory from this? You know, the old Bush/Saud "friendship" alluded to by Mr. Moore?

The muckrakers aren't the ones blowing themselves up or flying planes into buildings. Frankly, who cares about Moore's opinion if one can remove a perception that the US is waging a war against Islam (just to reiterate, of course the US isn't, however as I said, those would-be suicide bombers would be less likely to beleive so if broad Islamic support could be found).

Yes, but if those oppressed have no means to vent that ill-will against the oppressive government it can be manipulated so as to be vented against a suitable scapegoat, in this case, the west.

You could be right, however, my next question would be "such as?". Al Queada does not appear to have had any solid links to Iraq (even the Al Zaquawi-Saddam thing is now very doubtful: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/06/1096949583029.html?from=storylhs) so basically this is now a hypothetical.

The sanctions were brought in to disarm Saddam and also weaken his hold over the population by preventing him from gaining access to money from oil sales. It failed miserably meaning that the people of Iraq suffered. Whether WMDs were found or not is not the sole reason for the sanctions.

I agree, the Oil for Food deals/sanctains aimed at directly instigating an uprising against Saddam (or similar) were ineffective, but according to the Iraq Survey Group's recent report: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html, the sanctions (when enforced: I think the UN should have taken a far stronger reaction to Saddams 1998 actions as per what basically occured post 9/11 up until the US invasion), they prevented his actual aquistition/construction of WMDs

The report certainly states that if lifted, Saddam would have probably tired to re-establish his programs, but the operative word being "if"...

As for the rest: the other sanctions were not the Bush administrations avowed motivation for going to war, WMDs (that actually were removed by sanctions) were.

You still have not addressed France and the fact they would have vetoes any action against Iraq under a UN resolution. Despite Iraq's continual failure to comply with UN resolutions.

Actually, my point before was that Kerry is maintaining that the UN was a suggested measure, but not crucial one if a more expansive alliance (than what actually materialized under Bush) could be maintained then the same desired result would occur.

Because Al Qaeda, who were sheltered by the Taliban, also attacked Muslim targets in Saudi Arabia etc. When the war went to Iraq Saudi Arabia withdrew support based on the fact that they did not want Iraqi oil entering the market and also the fact that the Shia Muslims in Iraq would escape the stranglehold of Saddam. Saudis being Sunnis have no interest in assiting the Shia.

OK, so that's Saudi Arabia (who were acting through their economic interest as you said), what about Turkey, Jordan etc etc etc?

How does he "internationalize" though? Its a nice buzzword but do you think bribing nations for support in your endeavours is any better than unilateral strikes?

If it add's international legitimacy to your actions and spreads the blame around, then it would be in the interests of the US do so by all means. Specifically, it would drain support for extremist groups who claim that American motivation for the war was basically against Islam, especially so if (as I mentioned before) a coalition with many Muslim countries included were supporting the invasion.

I have brought up the point of getting the UN off their backsides and helping out the Iraqi civilians by assisting with security in the lead up to and after the elections. It will save lives. Most Liberals, Leftists or Kerry fans said this was not an option because the Iraqis are "not our problem". So, how does Kerry get international support for this unpopular war when it is "not their problem"?

The link helped, thank you. I do raise the point again that much of what Kerry has proposed was what I posted in a thread regarding the situation in Iraq. My thoughts were roundly condemned by the anti-Bush brigade because Iraq is not the responsibility of the rest of the world. How can these people say they support Kerry and then disagree with his policies when they are posted by someone else? Or do they just agree or disagree with the person presenting the ideas rather than the ideas themselves? If they feel this way, how can Kerry convince the rest of the world to help out when his own supporters are not convinced?

Well frankly, Kerry actually appears to support your contention (incidentalyl so do I) rather than the view that we should pull out ("not our problem" and all). I also doubt that a few posters on Nationstates really can be used to judge the majority of Kerry's supporters, my perception of the forum's demographics is that the average constituent of either side of the debate usually simply takes the view "omg, war is ev1l !!!!11!!" or the opposite and fatuously repeats this ad nauseum whenever their counterparts start a thread. But basically, imo, those who want the US to get out of Iraq are basically wrong now, the last thing the world needs is yet another unstable Middle Eastern country.

The question you do raise, which is certainly a valid one, is how do you get others to support Kerry's position if he is elected, based on his comments that the situation has been poorly dealt with on an operational level. According to his site, the impression I got was that he aims to show that a) ongoing US and international forces in Iraq can overcome the insurgent problems and ultimately bring stability to Iraq (a position I personally largely agree with) and b) show that it is in the interest of each respective country to stablize Iraq- the alternative being to have yet one more flash point in the Middle East (a situation that only benefits terrorist groups)

Oh of course. However, this does not in any way mitigate the massive mistakes made by Bush and co.

Never said it did, just pointing out that Kerry may well have made the same mistakes had the positions been reversed. One person could employ hindsight to their theoretical actions, the other had to act without that luxury.

The UN is simply the most convenient way of getting this support, if it cannot be found then a coalition of including key Islamic countries may well have done the job just as well. It would still show a broad support for the US action in spite of a (perceptively) corrupt, ineffective UN. Same thing, different name basically.

This is my point. No matter which nations were involved people would still have compalined about the war. If France had any backbone at all they would have supported a UN sanctioned regime change in Iraq for the sake of the freedom of Iraqis. Unfortunately, as happens all to often in international relations, France put their own financial benefit ahead of their responsibility as a high ranking member of the UN.

The muckrakers aren't the ones blowing themselves up or flying planes into buildings. Frankly, who cares about Moore's opinion if one can remove a perception that the US is waging a war against Islam (just to reiterate, of course the US isn't, however as I said, those would-be suicide bombers would be less likely to beleive so if broad Islamic support could be found).

I never said they were. I am pointing out that those that opposed the removal of Saddam would have opposed it regardless of the reasons published. Anything short of a UN sanctioned war would have been a source of conspiracy.

You could be right, however, my next question would be "such as?". Al Queada does not appear to have had any solid links to Iraq (even the Al Zaquawi-Saddam thing is now very doubtful: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/06/1096949583029.html?from=storylhs) so basically this is now a hypothetical.

You mean to say you are unaware of Saddam's dislike of the US and Israel?

I agree, the Oil for Food deals/sanctains aimed at directly instigating an uprising against Saddam (or similar) were ineffective, but according to the Iraq Survey Group's recent report: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html, the sanctions (when enforced: I think the UN should have taken a far stronger reaction to Saddams 1998 actions as per what basically occured post 9/11 up until the US invasion), they prevented his actual aquistition/construction of WMDs

The report certainly states that if lifted, Saddam would have probably tired to re-establish his programs, but the operative word being "if"...

As for the rest: the other sanctions were not the Bush administrations avowed motivation for going to war, WMDs (that actually were removed by sanctions) were.

The bottom line is that the sanctions were killing Iraqi civilians while failing in their aim to weaken Saddam's regime. The fact that WMD was put on the backburner is not a sign that the sanctions succeeded. These sanctions, therefore, could not have been retained indefinitely. Saddam knew this so he waited his time out until the UN decided he had no WMD and then the sanctions would have eventually been lifted. Then, Saddam could start his programs up again.

Actually, my point before was that Kerry is maintaining that the UN was a suggested measure, but not crucial one if a more expansive alliance (than what actually materialized under Bush) could be maintained then the same desired result would occur.

Again, how would these nations get involved? Russia and China were not interested as you already stated. France and Germany were against. Saudi Arabia and Turkey did not want to touch it for their own interests. So who would assist and why?

OK, so that's Saudi Arabia (who were acting through their economic interest as you said), what about Turkey, Jordan etc etc etc?

I did mention Turkey. I said that the fear that the war in Iraq may inspire Kurds in Turkey to rise to gain independence forced Turkey to ban the US from using their country as a base for air strikes. Jordan, in my opinion, is sitting on the fence. They do not want to piss anyone off incase the back the loser.

If it add's international legitimacy to your actions and spreads the blame around, then it would be in the interests of the US do so by all means. Specifically, it would drain support for extremist groups who claim that American motivation for the war was basically against Islam, especially so if (as I mentioned before) a coalition with many Muslim countries included were supporting the invasion.

Again, taking into account all we have mentioned...who would get involved and why?

Well frankly, Kerry actually appears to support your contention (incidentalyl so do I) rather than the view that we should pull out ("not our problem" and all). I also doubt that a few posters on Nationstates really can be used to judge the majority of Kerry's supporters, my perception of the forum's demographics is that the average constituent of either side of the debate usually simply takes the view "omg, war is ev1l !!!!11!!" or the opposite and fatuously repeats this ad nauseum whenever their counterparts start a thread.

You misunderstand. I did not say they were representative of the majority of Kerry supporters. Nor are they the "Bush is stupid" brigade. The fact is they claim to support Kerry and his aims in Iraq yet they have no clue what he represents. When they read what I posted they did not take any notice of what I said, just who said it.

But basically, imo, those who want the US to get out of Iraq are basically wrong now, the last thing the world needs is yet another unstable Middle Eastern country.

My thoughts exactly.

The question you do raise, which is certainly a valid one, is how do you get others to support Kerry's position if he is elected, based on his comments that the situation has been poorly dealt with on an operational level. According to his site, the impression I got was that he aims to show that a) ongoing US and international forces in Iraq can overcome the insurgent problems and ultimately bring stability to Iraq (a position I personally largely agree with) and b) show that it is in the interest of each respective country to stablize Iraq- the alternative being to have yet one more flash point in the Middle East (a situation that only benefits terrorist groups)

Yes, but I feel he may be hard-pressed to convince any of the nations (eg France, Russia, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc etc) that it is in their interests. Personally I would like to see the UN get involved, at the very least on a humanitarian level and to provide increased security to enable the elections to be run as safely as possible.

Never said it did, just pointing out that Kerry may well have made the same mistakes had the positions been reversed. One person could employ hindsight to their theoretical actions, the other had to act without that luxury..

To be honest, I really doubt it. A great deal of the planning of this war came from Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz- there was a particularly great article on this in Time Magazine (dated 27/1/03) which basically summed up the plan of attack. Small, mobile force, which was great at getting rid of the actual regime, but has clearly been dismally insufficient to actually 'win the peace'. They relied specfically on the opinions of individuals such as Ahmed Challabi (who was living in exile and had been for years), hence quotes such as "(the troops) will be hailed as liberators (by the Iraqi people". This stratergy was not particularly popular, even at the time, for reasons which are surely clear now. Thus, it was specific members of Bush's administration that were directly responsible for the unorthodox planning and operation of the war. Notably, they (neo-cons) rejected Powell's State Department plan that called for a larger army to deal with the possibilty of a hostile post war situation...

The ones responsible for this godawful, shitty mess are Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfie and Pearle overall- their plan was myopic: Brilliant at getting rid of conventional enemies, but lacked the foresight to imagine anything but a positive post-war environment.

Kerry would never have selected neo-cons such as the above for positions in his cabinet (just as Clinton didn't- natually just about all in the Democratic Party have held the above in contempt for years), as seen through the massive distinctions in the respective administration's foreign policy.

This is my point. No matter which nations were involved people would still have compalined about the war. .

Same with any war, it's who disagrees that is important though.

If France had any backbone at all they would have supported a UN sanctioned regime change in Iraq for the sake of the freedom of Iraqis. Unfortunately, as happens all to often in international relations, France put their own financial benefit ahead of their responsibility as a high ranking member of the UN..

But the overwhelmingly predominant reason was WMDs, not liberation, and the evidence presented was never fully conclusive. Besides which, the UN (including France) forced Iraq to readmit the inspectors, measures which we certainly now know were right, Iraq never had WMDs.

I never said they were. I am pointing out that those that opposed the removal of Saddam would have opposed it regardless of the reasons published. Anything short of a UN sanctioned war would have been a source of conspiracy..

I disagree, some such as France probably would have, but even members of the administration itself (Powell) have conceeded that the war was poorly 'marketed'. Very early in the debate the US declared it was prepared to go in unilaterally, already sending a message to others that whether they helped or not was not going to stop it.

I would contend (specifically referring to my sig link) that while this may be true, Bush and co would also have wanted the invasion regarless of the faults in the reasons published. There were always questions about the intelligence (best example: Hans Blix??), and surely while France and others had an interest in not overthrowing Saddam- many of the Bush administration's members actually had an economic interest in seeing his overthrow (Cheney being the clearest of these).

You mean to say you are unaware of Saddam's dislike of the US and Israel?.

Irrelevant, that evades my question: were there any Iraqi's involved in attacks against the USA prior to the invasion?

The bottom line is that the sanctions were killing Iraqi civilians while failing in their aim to weaken Saddam's regime. The fact that WMD was put on the backburner is not a sign that the sanctions succeeded. These sanctions, therefore, could not have been retained indefinitely. Saddam knew this so he waited his time out until the UN decided he had no WMD and then the sanctions would have eventually been lifted. Then, Saddam could start his programs up again..

Whether the sanctions as a whole succeeded or not is totally subjective. However, that they were killing Iraqi civilians is irrelevant to this point: it was not the reason Bush acted: his avowed and clearly stated intention was to prevent Saddam using or supplying WMDs, but there were no WMDs as a result of the sanctions. In this case, the sanctions pertaining to the WMDs were successful. Whether others were or not were irrelevant: you could lift those whilst still maintaining the effective anti-WMD sanctions- no one would argue that (one such as the US would only need to point to his previous programs, and his previous use of them against civilians- any opposition would look barbaric)

Again, how would these nations get involved? Russia and China were not interested as you already stated. France and Germany were against. Saudi Arabia and Turkey did not want to touch it for their own interests. So who would assist and why?

I did mention Turkey. I said that the fear that the war in Iraq may inspire Kurds in Turkey to rise to gain independence forced Turkey to ban the US from using their country as a base for air strikes. Jordan, in my opinion, is sitting on the fence. They do not want to piss anyone off incase the back the loser.

Again, taking into account all we have mentioned...who would get involved and why?.

Turkey: this issue of Turkish Kurds is hazy at best: specifially, the US was involved in Iraq not to liberate the Kurds, but to remove WMDs.

But the best way I think Kerry's lot have come up with to convince others to get involved is: "what happens to you if we fail now.". As I said before, no one needs another civil war/fundamentalist regime etc etc in the Middle East, especially those who live in/around the area.

Secondly: the situation has become a breading ground for terrorists that should be stopped now before it becomes a threat against not only the US, but the west as well (Al Queada has repeatedly mentioned the entire western world, not just the US in its threats- even France). In the same way that the US had little difficulty getting others to assist it's anti-terrorist action against Afghanistan, the threat of a universal, not merely US threat, could provide considerable incentive for other countries to move peacekeepers/anti-terrorist forces into Iraq now, rather than allowing their future problems a gestation period.

These are the two methods he outlined (I beleive in the links from his website which I posted before) that stuck in my mind. Certainly there are others too, most of which I noted Bush has not announced he would attempt... (thus creating yet another reason for my preference for Kerry)

You misunderstand. I did not say they were representative of the majority of Kerry supporters. Nor are they the "Bush is stupid" brigade. The fact is they claim to support Kerry and his aims in Iraq yet they have no clue what he represents. When they read what I posted they did not take any notice of what I said, just who said it..

Ok, so my next question is: why mention it, it is hardly relevant to our little debate? I agree with you dude, that's why I'm happy you asked my favorite question - "why?". Most importantly of all to me: their position is not Kerry's position, so whether they vote for him on an erroneous perception is frankly not something I'm going to care about if it means, imo, the correct course of action in the situation is followed.

Yes, but I feel he may be hard-pressed to convince any of the nations (eg France, Russia, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc etc) that it is in their interests. Personally I would like to see the UN get involved, at the very least on a humanitarian level and to provide increased security to enable the elections to be run as safely as possible.

It's certainly not going to be easy, nor is it by any means assured even if Kerry gets elected. But I'd sure as hell be prepared to open that opportunity with him in power than persue a course of action (electing Bush) that will guarantee said opportunity not materializing. But as I said before, I too would like to see the UN or other effective coalition go into Iraq- althought I maintain we shouldn't have gone in at all, now that we have, we must make sure the best is made of it, for all our sakes.

To be honest, I really doubt it. A great deal of the planning of this war came from Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz- there was a particularly great article on this in Time Magazine (dated 27/1/03) which basically summed up the plan of attack. Small, mobile force, which was great at getting rid of the actual regime, but has clearly been dismally insufficient to actually 'win the peace'. They relied specfically on the opinions of individuals such as Ahmed Challabi (who was living in exile and had been for years), hence quotes such as "(the troops) will be hailed as liberators (by the Iraqi people". This stratergy was not particularly popular, even at the time, for reasons which are surely clear now. Thus, it was specific members of Bush's administration that were directly responsible for the unorthodox planning and operation of the war. Notably, they (neo-cons) rejected Powell's State Department plan that called for a larger army to deal with the possibilty of a hostile post war situation...

I agree with you that the war was poorly planned. What I do not agree with is the "air" that Kerry would have done the job perfectly. As I said, only one person had to make a decision and act on that decision. The other was free to change his mind and tell everyone he would have done this and that much better. Ultimately we will never know.

The ones responsible for this godawful, shitty mess are Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfie and Pearle overall- their plan was myopic: Brilliant at getting rid of conventional enemies, but lacked the foresight to imagine anything but a positive post-war environment.

I agree.

Kerry would never have selected neo-cons such as the above for positions in his cabinet (just as Clinton didn't- natually just about all in the Democratic Party have held the above in contempt for years), as seen through the massive distinctions in the respective administration's foreign policy.

This is of course speculation (not the appointments as they are obvious). What is speculation is that not acting on Iraq was the best plan. We will never know what may have happened had the war not started. Ultimately, we are where we are now and have to do what we can to get some good out of it so the lives lost were not in vain.

Same with any war, it's who disagrees that is important though.

And also why they disagree.

But the overwhelmingly predominant reason was WMDs, not liberation, and the evidence presented was never fully conclusive. Besides which, the UN (including France) forced Iraq to readmit the inspectors, measures which we certainly now know were right, Iraq never had WMDs.

Irrelevant. Iraq was about more than WMD. The UN had been attempting, albeit feebly, to contain Saddam. The members of the UN and anyone who had read a newspaper knew what was happening in Iraq was a humanitarian disaster under the sanctions. Because the US presented the case under the WMD banner does not mean that other nations in the UN could not bring the other issues to the table. We all know why France vetoed and it had nothing to do with there being no WMD in Iraq.

I disagree, some such as France probably would have, but even members of the administration itself (Powell) have conceeded that the war was poorly 'marketed'. Very early in the debate the US declared it was prepared to go in unilaterally, already sending a message to others that whether they helped or not was not going to stop it.

I have never stated that the war was well marketed. France had their reasons for veto, selfish reasons, but reasons just the same. There was no way they would have supported an invasion of Iraq for any reason. Just as they are now making rumblings about opposing UN intervention in Dafur region of Sudan.

I would contend (specifically referring to my sig link) that while this may be true, Bush and co would also have wanted the invasion regarless of the faults in the reasons published. There were always questions about the intelligence (best example: Hans Blix??), and surely while France and others had an interest in not overthrowing Saddam- many of the Bush administration's members actually had an economic interest in seeing his overthrow (Cheney being the clearest of these).

As I said, what happens when the sanctions were lifted? I mean, Saddam was toeing the line and the UN could not sit back forever while the Iraqis died from lack of medical supplies due to Saddam's rorts. The standoff had to end sometime. Saddam kept the information needed to create WMD so one can assume with reasonable safety that his weapons program would have commenced as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

Irrelevant, that evades my question: were there any Iraqi's involved in attacks against the USA prior to the invasion?

No, it does not evade your question. You stated that the US was not the scapegoat of the Iraqi people's anger due to their oppression. I asked if you were unaware of the anti-US angle of Saddam. This has nothing to do with terror attacks, it is an example of how a regime like Saddam's can capitalise on people's anger by turning their anger on his enemies.

Whether the sanctions as a whole succeeded or not is totally subjective. However, that they were killing Iraqi civilians is irrelevant to this point: it was not the reason Bush acted: his avowed and clearly stated intention was to prevent Saddam using or supplying WMDs, but there were no WMDs as a result of the sanctions. In this case, the sanctions pertaining to the WMDs were successful. Whether others were or not were irrelevant: you could lift those whilst still maintaining the effective anti-WMD sanctions- no one would argue that (one such as the US would only need to point to his previous programs, and his previous use of them against civilians- any opposition would look barbaric)

This debate is mot about Bush's actions. It is about Bush and Kerry. The big picture of Iraq is completely relevant. Therefore the sanctions did very little other than put the WMD program on the backburner while Saddam rorted UN funding at the expense of his citizens. That, is a complete disaster.

Turkey: this issue of Turkish Kurds is hazy at best: specifially, the US was involved in Iraq not to liberate the Kurds, but to remove WMDs.

Again, open your eyes to the big picture. You ask me to say why the Turks did not get involved then throw your standard "nothing to do with WMD" line. It is the reason Turkey did not get involved and prevented the US from using the bases in Turkey to launch air strikes in Iraq.

But the best way I think Kerry's lot have come up with to convince others to get involved is: "what happens to you if we fail now.". As I said before, no one needs another civil war/fundamentalist regime etc etc in the Middle East, especially those who live in/around the area.

Yes, but there are other factors, which I indicated in the case of Turkey, France and Saudi Arabia, that override the obvious need for the war to succeed.

Secondly: the situation has become a breading ground for terrorists that should be stopped now before it becomes a threat against not only the US, but the west as well (Al Queada has repeatedly mentioned the entire western world, not just the US in its threats- even France). In the same way that the US had little difficulty getting others to assist it's anti-terrorist action against Afghanistan, the threat of a universal, not merely US threat, could provide considerable incentive for other countries to move peacekeepers/anti-terrorist forces into Iraq now, rather than allowing their future problems a gestation period.

That is the whole idea of the War on Terror. To eradicate the threat of terrorism. France and other nations delude themselves that they are no longer targets of Al Qaeda becasue they did not assist in Iraq. That, to me, is a very naive mentality.

These are the two methods he outlined (I beleive in the links from his website which I posted before) that stuck in my mind. Certainly there are others too, most of which I noted Bush has not announced he would attempt... (thus creating yet another reason for my preference for Kerry)

I agree that Bush has been to stubborn to try and work out a solution to Iraq.

Ok, so my next question is: why mention it, it is hardly relevant to our little debate? I agree with you dude, that's why I'm happy you asked my favorite question - "why?". Most importantly of all to me: their position is not Kerry's position, so whether they vote for him on an erroneous perception is frankly not something I'm going to care about if it means, imo, the correct course of action in the situation is followed.

It wasn;t so much directed at you. It was thrown out there to see if any of those I was referring to were looking in in the hope they would respond. Didn't work.

It's certainly not going to be easy, nor is it by any means assured even if Kerry gets elected. But I'd sure as hell be prepared to open that opportunity with him in power than persue a course of action (electing Bush) that will guarantee said opportunity not materializing. But as I said before, I too would like to see the UN or other effective coalition go into Iraq- althought I maintain we shouldn't have gone in at all, now that we have, we must make sure the best is made of it, for all our sakes.

Yes, the UN should get involved as I said earlier. I agree with you that Kerry seems more open to working a solution to Iraq than Bush. But, I have been around long enough to be sceptical about politicians and there policies. I hope that whoever wins the US elections shows some common sense and works for a solution that will save lives in Iraq and give them the freedom to determine their own future.

I agree with you that the war was poorly planned. What I do not agree with is the "air" that Kerry would have done the job perfectly. As I said, only one person had to make a decision and act on that decision. The other was free to change his mind and tell everyone he would have done this and that much better. Ultimately we will never know.

This is of course speculation (not the appointments as they are obvious). .

True. I'm certainly not saying that it is guaranteed, but I basically think that the particular individuals who used such unorthodox tactics would not have been part of a Kerry administration, and thus, there is a likelihood that the current, disasterous situation would have been to an extent avoided. Bottom line: based on the above, I would speculate (and I'm happy to admit that yes, it is speculation) that under Kerry it would have been better, but unlikely to be so by orders of magnitude or anything.

What is speculation is that not acting on Iraq was the best plan..

Kerry's (and my own) position agrees with you: action was certainly needed based on the evidence. However the particular type of action undertaken was not appropriate.

We will never know what may have happened had the war not started. Ultimately, we are where we are now and have to do what we can to get some good out of it so the lives lost were not in vain..

Definately

And also why they disagree..

Yep, and how best to convince them otherwise.

Irrelevant. Iraq was about more than WMD. .

Not at the time. Whilst it wasn't the only factor, it can hardly be argued that it wasn't the overwhelming 'justification' for immediate, large scale force to be used against Iraq.

By the logic of Iraq supposed to be a (predominantly) a humanitarian action, my question would then be 1) So why isn't the administration going crazy trying to liberate Sudan, and 2) Why does it continue to so closely support Israel?

Subsequently, with the lack of WMDs, Bush has tried to prevent losing face by using the whole "we needed to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad guy." line, but I would say, in light of the questions raised in above paragraph, this is absolute crap.

The UN had been attempting, albeit feebly, to contain Saddam. The members of the UN and anyone who had read a newspaper knew what was happening in Iraq was a humanitarian disaster under the sanctions..

As I've said before, I agree completely that the sanctions that tried to topple Saddam etc etc were a disaster, but the bottom line is: the sanctions that pertained to the WMDs were effective, and thus the overwhelming reason the Bush administration went to war has been debunked. Had Bush wanted to repeal the sanctions/areas of the sanctions that pertained to oil for food and other humanitarian disasters, then I would consider him a legend. However, this was not the case.

Because the US presented the case under the WMD banner does not mean that other nations in the UN could not bring the other issues to the table..

Yep, imo all the nations who did not call for an end to the non-WMD sanctions (ie, all relevant UN nations, US and others) to be repealed due to woeful ineffectiveness were wrong. They should have. But again, seperate issue: the US wanted this war overwhelmingly for the WMD issue, and was wrong: the UN sanctions relating to Saddams WMDs were effective.

We all know why France vetoed and it had nothing to do with there being no WMD in Iraq..

Certainly, they acted in their perceived national interest. Ethical or not, every nation does this, the only thing one can really do is influence their perception of what action is most in their interest

I have never stated that the war was well marketed. France had their reasons for veto, selfish reasons, but reasons just the same. There was no way they would have supported an invasion of Iraq for any reason. Just as they are now making rumblings about opposing UN intervention in Dafur region of Sudan..

Veto, imo, was the worst mistake made in creating the UN. It's like saying in a democracy: were are all equal, but some are more equal than others. Ironically, the US was the most outspoken proponent of the Veto in the late 1940's. In this issue, France abused it, in many issues (e.g. Israel), the US has abused it.

As I said, what happens when the sanctions were lifted?.

What indication was there that the UN was going to lift the WMD-related sanctions though?

I mean, Saddam was toeing the line and the UN could not sit back forever while the Iraqis died from lack of medical supplies due to Saddam's rorts. The standoff had to end sometime. Saddam kept the information needed to create WMD so one can assume with reasonable safety that his weapons program would have commenced as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

Again, the UN could (and should) have easily lifted the sanctions that weren't working, but the WMD ones clearly worked.

No, it does not evade your question. You stated that the US was not the scapegoat of the Iraqi people's anger due to their oppression. I asked if you were unaware of the anti-US angle of Saddam. This has nothing to do with terror attacks, it is an example of how a regime like Saddam's can capitalise on people's anger by turning their anger on his enemies. .

Ok, let's say he has: my point is: so what? It never made a difference.

This debate is mot about Bush's actions. It is about Bush and Kerry. The big picture of Iraq is completely relevant. Therefore the sanctions did very little other than put the WMD program on the backburner while Saddam rorted UN funding at the expense of his citizens. That, is a complete disaster..

Again, this is a failure of the non-WMD related sanctions.

Again, open your eyes to the big picture. You ask me to say why the Turks did not get involved then throw your standard "nothing to do with WMD" line. It is the reason Turkey did not get involved and prevented the US from using the bases in Turkey to launch air strikes in Iraq. .

That's true, but I also notice that Turkey does count very heavily on Washington's support for further IMF assistance. Turkey most certainly needs that support from what I have read, thus it seems a logic negotiating point with Ankara. I know this is bribery, but frankly, from the US point of view, surely it's more important to get support to stablize the region than to worry about altruism by this stage.

Yes, but there are other factors, which I indicated in the case of Turkey, France and Saudi Arabia, that override the obvious need for the war to succeed..

And you could well be right. But as I think you agree later in your post, there may be at least some chance of getting international assistance under a Kerry policy, whereas Bush has virtually promised a course of action which will not actively seek this important measure.

That is the whole idea of the War on Terror. To eradicate the threat of terrorism. France and other nations delude themselves that they are no longer targets of Al Qaeda becasue they did not assist in Iraq. That, to me, is a very naive mentality..

I agree. Iraq now seems to be part of the War on Terror, as terrorism groups appear to be in their now, contributing to the unrest. At the beginning of the war, Frances position was correct: Saddam's Iraq was unrelated to the WoT. However, clearly that situation has unfortunately changed and for their own benefit, France and others must recognize the need to change with it.

It wasn;t so much directed at you. It was thrown out there to see if any of those I was referring to were looking in in the hope they would respond. Didn't work..

Okay

Yes, the UN should get involved as I said earlier. I agree with you that Kerry seems more open to working a solution to Iraq than Bush. But, I have been around long enough to be sceptical about politicians and there policies. I hope that whoever wins the US elections shows some common sense and works for a solution that will save lives in Iraq and give them the freedom to determine their own future.

Yeah exactly, I'm not trying to say that Kerry will definately, positively, absolutely get international support and all that we both agree is necessary, that he said he will try to do, but I think we agree that Bush certainly won't. Thus, we have one who may not be able to do it, but one that is even less likely....

True. I'm certainly not saying that it is guaranteed, but I basically think that the particular individuals who used such unorthodox tactics would not have been part of a Kerry administration, and thus, there is a likelihood that the current, disasterous situation would have been to an extent avoided. Bottom line: based on the above, I would speculate (and I'm happy to admit that yes, it is speculation) that under Kerry it would have been better, but unlikely to be so by orders of magnitude or anything.

Good, this is what I wanted said. Some of the anti-Bush brigade live under the assumption that Kerry would have handled Iraq perfectly.

Kerry's (and my own) position agrees with you: action was certainly needed based on the evidence. However the particular type of action undertaken was not appropriate.

I think the action was appropriate but the reasons used (too narrow) meant that certain nations were not compelled to assist to remove Saddam and free the Iraqis.

Yep, and how best to convince them otherwise.

Yes, that is a side effect of it all. Ultimately I think Bush went out with the WMD line because he thought it would be more convincing. It didn't turn out that way. I would have preferred a proposal outlining all the violations of Saddam to make a stronger case to the UN. Whether that would work or not, we'll never know.

Not at the time. Whilst it wasn't the only factor, it can hardly be argued that it wasn't the overwhelming 'justification' for immediate, large scale force to be used against Iraq.

It may have been the main reason for justification for the war but it was in no way the only reason for the UN to consider action. What use is the UN if they are incapable of identifying humanitarian disasters? Especially one that has been ongoing for 30 years.

By the logic of Iraq supposed to be a (predominantly) a humanitarian action, my question would then be 1) So why isn't the administration going crazy trying to liberate Sudan, and 2) Why does it continue to so closely support Israel?

I think the UN (and the US) should act in Sudan. Why is the UN stalling on it? How many people need to be killed before the UN get off their backsides and do something? Their actions over Sudan go some way to show that the Bush administration were right in labelling the UN inactive and indecisive.
As far as Israel is concerned, the situation is complex and involving two sides who are often guilty of inhumane actions. If the US withdrew support of Israel then there would be a war in the Middle East that would make the Gulf War and the current war seem like a picnic. Whether you like it or not, US support of Israel has managed to keep things from descending into total war.

Subsequently, with the lack of WMDs, Bush has tried to prevent losing face by using the whole "we needed to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad guy." line, but I would say, in light of the questions raised in above paragraph, this is absolute crap.

It was not his main motivation but it is not crap. Saddam has been removed and he was a bad guy. What Bush says is true. Whether he cared about that before is debatable but I am sure it was part of his plan in some shape or form.

As I've said before, I agree completely that the sanctions that tried to topple Saddam etc etc were a disaster, but the bottom line is: the sanctions that pertained to the WMDs were effective, and thus the overwhelming reason the Bush administration went to war has been debunked. Had Bush wanted to repeal the sanctions/areas of the sanctions that pertained to oil for food and other humanitarian disasters, then I would consider him a legend. However, this was not the case.

The sanctions were intertwined. The Oil for Food sanctions were designed to prevent Saddam stealing the profits from oil sales to spend on weaponry. The only way Saddam would have been prevented from recommencing his weapons programs was if the weapons inspectors were in Iraq indefinitely and the ban on him purchasing certain weapons and components was permanantly enforced.
Removing the Food for Oil component would have done nothing but allow Saddam access to more money to be spent on weapons through the black market. As soon as the inspectors left it would have commenced again. Why else would he have kept the information on the weapons he had previously developed?
To try and ignore a large proportion of the sanctions and their repercussions for the Iraqi people is dishonest. The sanctions as a whole did not achieve their goal. Sure they stalled Saddam's weapons programs but they also punished the people they were designed to assist.

Yep, imo all the nations who did not call for an end to the non-WMD sanctions (ie, all relevant UN nations, US and others) to be repealed due to woeful ineffectiveness were wrong. They should have. But again, seperate issue: the US wanted this war overwhelmingly for the WMD issue, and was wrong: the UN sanctions relating to Saddams WMDs were effective.

Not to mention the UN profiting from the Food for Oil rort along with a number of other nations. This is why the Food for Oil sanctions were still in place. The fact that this rort would still be undiscovered had the US not invaded Iraq is frightening. Equally frightening is the general apathy shown by people to this rort.

Certainly, they acted in their perceived national interest. Ethical or not, every nation does this, the only thing one can really do is influence their perception of what action is most in their interest

Exactly. Countries will always act in their self-interest. Therefore France was never going to support a UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq due to the money they were making from Saddam. Saudi Arabia did not want the repressed Shia in Iraq to have a voice nor did they want Iraqi oil coming onto the market in competition to their own. Turkey did not want a war in Iraq sparking independence rumblings from the Kurds in Turkey.

Veto, imo, was the worst mistake made in creating the UN. It's like saying in a democracy: were are all equal, but some are more equal than others. Ironically, the US was the most outspoken proponent of the Veto in the late 1940's. In this issue, France abused it, in many issues (e.g. Israel), the US has abused it.

Indeed. Veto has made the security council unworkable. It enables the more powerful UN nations the right to single-handedly dictate what the UN does get involved in or what it doesn't get involved in.

What indication was there that the UN was going to lift the WMD-related sanctions though?

Well, if the weapons inspectors came back and said Saddam was clean what do you think the next step would have been? How could the UN justify maintaining the WMD sanctions?

"I mean, Saddam was toeing the line and the UN could not sit back forever while the Iraqis died from lack of medical supplies due to Saddam's rorts. The standoff had to end sometime. Saddam kept the information needed to create WMD so one can assume with reasonable safety that his weapons program would have commenced as soon as the sanctions were lifted."

Again, the UN could (and should) have easily lifted the sanctions that weren't working, but the WMD ones clearly worked.

Quite possibly but unlikely as the sanctions were intertwined.

Ok, let's say he has: my point is: so what? It never made a difference.

You asked a question, I answered it. Don't throw it back at me to explain it to you. I cannot tell you why you asked me why I thought Saddam had channeled his citizens anger against the US. I thought it was obvious that was the case. If you are not sure, do a quick search on the internet and see for yourself.

Again, this is a failure of the non-WMD related sanctions.

Yes, which are intertwined with the other sanctions.

That's true, but I also notice that Turkey does count very heavily on Washington's support for further IMF assistance. Turkey most certainly needs that support from what I have read, thus it seems a logic negotiating point with Ankara. I know this is bribery, but frankly, from the US point of view, surely it's more important to get support to stablize the region than to worry about altruism by this stage.

Hmmmm...IMF assistance or civil war...decisions decisions.

And you could well be right. But as I think you agree later in your post, there may be at least some chance of getting international assistance under a Kerry policy, whereas Bush has virtually promised a course of action which will not actively seek this important measure.

I have not said there is any chance of getting international assistance. Kerry's stance seems more open to seeking it but as I have said, he will be hard-pressed to get support.


I agree. Iraq now seems to be part of the War on Terror, as terrorism groups appear to be in their now, contributing to the unrest. At the beginning of the war, Frances position was correct: Saddam's Iraq was unrelated to the WoT. However, clearly that situation has unfortunately changed and for their own benefit, France and others must recognize the need to change with it.

In my opinion, Iraq was the next Afghanistan. As I said, thats my opinion. Thats why I was in favour of the war, to remove Saddam and therefore remove the possibility of terrorists setting up in Iraq after being displaced from Afghanistan. Therefore, saying that Iraq was not part of the WoT is subjective. The stabilisation of an unstable nation in a region in which terrorists are recruited makes sense to me as part of the war on terror.

Yeah exactly, I'm not trying to say that Kerry will definately, positively, absolutely get international support and all that we both agree is necessary, that he said he will try to do, but I think we agree that Bush certainly won't. Thus, we have one who may not be able to do it, but one that is even less likely....

I agree Kerry appears more open to seeking support. I am not as willing to jump on his bandwagon as I know politicians say what they need to say to get votes. I think Kerry will find the implementation of his plans far more difficult than he imagined. As far as Bush is concerned, I am not sure what his next move is. I hope that if he is elected he sees sense and tries to get the UN to assist with security in Iraq. Time will tell I suppose.

Good, this is what I wanted said. Some of the anti-Bush brigade live under the assumption that Kerry would have handled Iraq perfectly..

I would speculate that they are right, but of course, as we agreed, it is ultimately subjective speculation on anyone's part.

I think the action was appropriate but the reasons used (too narrow) meant that certain nations were not compelled to assist to remove Saddam and free the Iraqis..

So basically your saying you support the war not because of the now disproven WMD case, but because you thought it was necessary to remove Saddam? If so, fair enough, your entitled to your opinion.

Yes, that is a side effect of it all. Ultimately I think Bush went out with the WMD line because he thought it would be more convincing. It didn't turn out that way. I would have preferred a proposal outlining all the violations of Saddam to make a stronger case to the UN. Whether that would work or not, we'll never know..

I think realistically no one would have accepted the violations alone as enough to go to war, but certainly enough to take some action. Again, as you said, it's now purely hypothetical anyway :\

It may have been the main reason for justification for the war but it was in no way the only reason for the UN to consider action. What use is the UN if they are incapable of identifying humanitarian disasters? Especially one that has been ongoing for 30 years..

Humanitarian action is a horse of a different feather though to WMDs. The question those considering humanitarian reasons to go to war (as I think you advocate, correct me if I'm wrong of course) is: surely a war could potentially result in yet more humanitarian disasters. Also, you raise a fair point in the profits made by some countries from said disaster, so later on in this post I've taken a look at this.

I think the UN (and the US) should act in Sudan. Why is the UN stalling on it? How many people need to be killed before the UN get off their backsides and do something? Their actions over Sudan go some way to show that the Bush administration were right in labelling the UN inactive and indecisive..

Thing is though, in labelling the UN as 'inactive and indecisive' surely, by their own logic, they are too? As I said, much as you may want them to, Bush and co simply aren't screaming for the UN to go in, or even suggest they would themselves.

To be honest I am somewhat undecided on the humanitarian interventionary approach: sometimes it can save the lives of thousands, others it can make things vastly worse, in others still it may not even make a difference.

As far as Israel is concerned, the situation is complex and involving two sides who are often guilty of inhumane actions. If the US withdrew support of Israel then there would be a war in the Middle East that would make the Gulf War and the current war seem like a picnic. Whether you like it or not, US support of Israel has managed to keep things from descending into total war..

This is debatable, but for the moment I'm not saying that the support is ultimately right or wrong, but why hasn't the US cracked down on the Israeli attrocities (because they can at least try there, the palestinian-initiated violence is beyond their control. Don't get me wrong here, I'm happy to conceed that both sides have acted disgracefully.). However, may I suggest we leave this point for another thread for the moment...

It was not his main motivation but it is not crap. Saddam has been removed and he was a bad guy. What Bush says is true. Whether he cared about that before is debatable but I am sure it was part of his plan in some shape or form..[/QUOTE]

You may be right, unfortunately it will be impossible to know what exactly motivated them. However, the political sceptic in me simply can't look over the hundreds of other, potentially worse humanitarian disasters around the world and not note Bush's lack of comment on it to actually beleive he really cared that much. The only theory for what actual motivation the Administration had that seem's to work for me is basically what I mean by having that link in my signature: by their own statements, the neo-cons there have wanted this war for years: WMDs were simply the most convenient way of getting it.

The sanctions were intertwined. The Oil for Food sanctions were designed to prevent Saddam stealing the profits from oil sales to spend on weaponry.

The only way Saddam would have been prevented from recommencing his weapons programs was if the weapons inspectors were in Iraq indefinitely and the ban on him purchasing certain weapons and components was permanantly enforced.

Removing the Food for Oil component would have done nothing but allow Saddam access to more money to be spent on weapons through the black market. As soon as the inspectors left it would have commenced again. Why else would he have kept the information on the weapons he had previously developed?.

I've highlighted this part because I find it particularly significant: what your saying is probably true but relies on an 'if'. That 'if' is: if the inspectors got out Saddam would have used acquired WMDs, and had the Oil for Food areas of the sanctions been dropped he would have had more money to do so. And I agree. Thing is though: IF the inspectors got out. In light of the apparent lack of WMDs, I'd say that had, as you mentioned before, inspectors remained in Iraq indefinately (which I would have strongly advocated) then it would be a non-issue: regardless of money, the bottom line still remains that the inspectors could still have prevented his getting WMDs.

To try and ignore a large proportion of the sanctions and their repercussions for the Iraqi people is dishonest. The sanctions as a whole did not achieve their goal. Sure they stalled Saddam's weapons programs but they also punished the people they were designed to assist. .

So like I said, had Bush or anyone else for that matter pushed for a reform of the sanctions to keep the successful elements (inspectors), but make it more humanitarianly-successful then I would consider the man a hero. Unfortunately, this simply wasn't the case.

Not to mention the UN profiting from the Food for Oil rort along with a number of other nations. This is why the Food for Oil sanctions were still in place. The fact that this rort would still be undiscovered had the US not invaded Iraq is frightening. Equally frightening is the general apathy shown by people to this rort.

Oh yes, it shows a need, imo, for a reform of the UN- this I have always advocated. As for profiteering from Oil for Food/other aspects of the sanctions, please refer to my more detailed response to this below.

Exactly. Countries will always act in their self-interest. Therefore France was never going to support a UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq due to the money they were making from Saddam. Saudi Arabia did not want the repressed Shia in Iraq to have a voice nor did they want Iraqi oil coming onto the market in competition to their own. Turkey did not want a war in Iraq sparking independence rumblings from the Kurds in Turkey..

As I've said before, the most important action therefore is, based on this, to at least try to convince the above countries and others that a potential civil-war in Iraq is more of a threat than the problems that they are posed. Based on what he has said, Bush is really unlikely to do this, but at least Kerry says he will give it a go. He may not succede, but christ, with the mess the situation is, I'm going to advocate he who presents at least a chance. Imo, the best thing about Kerry is that his group have been bright enough to recognise that their best bet in trying to get others to help out is to show how the mess in Iraq if they fail is going to be a worse blow to these respective countries interest's than whatever short-term ramifications they are concerned with. That is the only way to do it, but Bush and co have barely even tried.

Well, if the weapons inspectors came back and said Saddam was clean what do you think the next step would have been? How could the UN justify maintaining the WMD sanctions? .

Simple: show that they worked (wouldn't have been terribly hard), and the inspectors were always going to have to be an ongoing measure. GIven his infamous history, no one would have honestly tried to say that Saddam would not try and reaquire WMDs if he could, but the inspectors were preventing this.

Quite possibly but unlikely as the sanctions were intertwined..

So as I said, had Bush pushed for a reform of the sanctions then I would consider him a top guy.

[UOTE]You asked a question, I answered it. Don't throw it back at me to explain it to you. I cannot tell you why you asked me why I thought Saddam had channeled his citizens anger against the US. I thought it was obvious that was the case. If you are not sure, do a quick search on the internet and see for yourself..[/QUOTE]

No I think you misunderstood: I'm asking you to cite where this channeling of hatred etc etc actually eventuated. If you can present an example of this I would be most interested to look at it. Basically: I'm saying this is something of a strawman argument: it did not eventuate, and of course millions in Iraq clearly were smart enough to hate Hussien, which we have seen through the jubilation in mid-2003.

Yes, which are intertwined with the other sanctions..

Again, reform the sanctions to keep the good bits, not the bad. This leads us to the next question (slightly irrelevent to the discussion as it is); if countries like France etc were making a profit from the sanctions, how could one make it so they would have endorsed your reforms. I think the best way to do so, using diplomacy would be to portray the proponents of these disgraceful actions (including Chirac etc if they do not play along) as prepared to sacrifice tens of thousands of people in order to make a profit. It wouldn't take long to see the effects on said political leader's constituency, in the same way that many anti-war groups have portrayed (truthfully or not: that's for another thread though) Bush and co as launching a war so that companies they have an interest in (Halliburton being the natural preference) can make a profit. I'm certainly not saying this would have worked but shit, the alternative has been this nightmarish war in which yet more civilians have been killed.



Hmmmm...IMF assistance or civil war...decisions decisions..

minor potential of civil war (which could always be assisted) or guaranteed economic destablization (if the US were to use this card wisely), decisions decisions.

I have not said there is any chance of getting international assistance. Kerry's stance seems more open to seeking it but as I have said, he will be hard-pressed to get support..

Let's be pragmatic, he may not, but Bush sure as hell won't. Even if Kerry's chances are 1,000,000: 1, that's better than the alternative. And I think, for the good of those poor bastards in Iraq atm, we owe it to them to do the best we can to make the best of a godawful, shitty mess.

In my opinion, Iraq was the next Afghanistan. As I said, thats my opinion. Thats why I was in favour of the war, to remove Saddam and therefore remove the possibility of terrorists setting up in Iraq after being displaced from Afghanistan. Therefore, saying that Iraq was not part of the WoT is subjective. .

As you said this is opinion, we disagree, I think there is little more to debate in this area.

The stabilisation of an unstable nation in a region in which terrorists are recruited makes sense to me as part of the war on terror..

Imo, now that it actually is, I agree with you. Before the invasion I didn't consider Iraq part of WoT, but one would be blind to see it isn't now.

I agree Kerry appears more open to seeking support. I am not as willing to jump on his bandwagon as I know politicians say what they need to say to get votes. I think Kerry will find the implementation of his plans far more difficult than he imagined. As far as Bush is concerned, I am not sure what his next move is. I hope that if he is elected he sees sense and tries to get the UN to assist with security in Iraq. Time will tell I suppose.

Again, pragmatism (which I agree with), Kerry might: Bush won't.

Incidentally, this is why I now think although Australia should never have gone in, we definately need to stay there now and help make sure that the situation doesn't get any worse.

I would speculate that they are right, but of course, as we agreed, it is ultimately subjective speculation on anyone's part.

I disagree. It is easy to advocate perfection, fulfilling a perfect solution on the other hand is much, much harder. As you say, this is speculation.

So basically your saying you support the war not because of the now disproven WMD case, but because you thought it was necessary to remove Saddam? If so, fair enough, your entitled to your opinion.

Yes, my support for the war in Iraq has always been based on the removal of Saddam and the liberation of Iraqis so as it will not become the next Afghanistan.

I think realistically no one would have accepted the violations alone as enough to go to war, but certainly enough to take some action. Again, as you said, it's now purely hypothetical anyway :\

Yes, it is hypothetical. We cannot change the past, only try and get the best results fro the future.

Humanitarian action is a horse of a different feather though to WMDs. The question those considering humanitarian reasons to go to war (as I think you advocate, correct me if I'm wrong of course) is: surely a war could potentially result in yet more humanitarian disasters. Also, you raise a fair point in the profits made by some countries from said disaster, so later on in this post I've taken a look at this.

More deaths than under Saddam's regime followed by the regimes of Uday and/or Qusay? More deaths than from global terrorism had Iraq become a base for terror groups? War means death, but sometimes war is necessary to ensure more lives are saved in the long run.

Thing is though, in labelling the UN as 'inactive and indecisive' surely, by their own logic, they are too? As I said, much as you may want them to, Bush and co simply aren't screaming for the UN to go in, or even suggest they would themselves.

Indeed, both the UN and the US government are now placing pride above common sense.

To be honest I am somewhat undecided on the humanitarian interventionary approach: sometimes it can save the lives of thousands, others it can make things vastly worse, in others still it may not even make a difference.

I think it would have saved lives in this case. A united international front, under the UN banner based on the removal of Saddam and the implementation of democratic elections would have sent a message to terror groups that the world was working together for the greater good of Iraqis. The squabbling and narrow insistance on the WMD from both sides shows terror groups a divided west who are only interested in their own welfare.

This is debatable, but for the moment I'm not saying that the support is ultimately right or wrong, but why hasn't the US cracked down on the Israeli attrocities (because they can at least try there, the palestinian-initiated violence is beyond their control. Don't get me wrong here, I'm happy to conceed that both sides have acted disgracefully.). However, may I suggest we leave this point for another thread for the moment...

Agreed.

You may be right, unfortunately it will be impossible to know what exactly motivated them. However, the political sceptic in me simply can't look over the hundreds of other, potentially worse humanitarian disasters around the world and not note Bush's lack of comment on it to actually beleive he really cared that much. The only theory for what actual motivation the Administration had that seem's to work for me is basically what I mean by having that link in my signature: by their own statements, the neo-cons there have wanted this war for years: WMDs were simply the most convenient way of getting it.

I agree that Bush and his administration concentrated too much on WMD as a means to sell their case for war. I am disappointed that the UN did not take this on board and expand the discussion to encompass the entire Iraq situation rather than dig their heels in and stonewall. Equally, now, the US should stop stonewalling on Iraq and open up to the idea of gaining support through the UN to make sure the tasks they have set out to complete in Iraq are completed with the minimum loss of life.



I've highlighted this part because I find it particularly significant: what your saying is probably true but relies on an 'if'. That 'if' is: if the inspectors got out Saddam would have used acquired WMDs, and had the Oil for Food areas of the sanctions been dropped he would have had more money to do so. And I agree. Thing is though: IF the inspectors got out. In light of the apparent lack of WMDs, I'd say that had, as you mentioned before, inspectors remained in Iraq indefinately (which I would have strongly advocated) then it would be a non-issue: regardless of money, the bottom line still remains that the inspectors could still have prevented his getting WMDs.

Yes, it is all ifs from both sides. If these sanctions were lifted and not those, if Saddam did this, if the US did that. Bottom line is, the sanctions were a stalemate. The true threat from Saddam could only be removed by regime change in Iraq. Sanctions would not have got rid of Saddam or his sons no matter how long they were enforced. The threat needed removing, how it would be removed was the point of contention. Bush had his ideas and acted upon them, rightly or wrongly. The removal of Saddam means the way is paved for the removal of sanctions from Iraq under a new government and this festering sore will eventually heal.

So like I said, had Bush or anyone else for that matter pushed for a reform of the sanctions to keep the successful elements (inspectors), but make it more humanitarianly-successful then I would consider the man a hero. Unfortunately, this simply wasn't the case.

I am unsure any reforms would have gotten anywhere. The Food for Oil program was the prime source of the money rort that benefitted France, Russia and members of the UN so I cannot see them reforming it or removing that aspect of the sanctions. The Food for Oil rort means I have zero trust in those involved to act in the interests of anyone but themselves.


Oh yes, it shows a need, imo, for a reform of the UN- this I have always advocated. As for profiteering from Oil for Food/other aspects of the sanctions, please refer to my more detailed response to this below.

I agree the UN needs to be reformed or even dismantled as it has lost its focus completely.

As I've said before, the most important action therefore is, based on this, to at least try to convince the above countries and others that a potential civil-war in Iraq is more of a threat than the problems that they are posed. Based on what he has said, Bush is really unlikely to do this, but at least Kerry says he will give it a go. He may not succede, but christ, with the mess the situation is, I'm going to advocate he who presents at least a chance. Imo, the best thing about Kerry is that his group have been bright enough to recognise that their best bet in trying to get others to help out is to show how the mess in Iraq if they fail is going to be a worse blow to these respective countries interest's than whatever short-term ramifications they are concerned with. That is the only way to do it, but Bush and co have barely even tried.

I think we agree on this in principle. The only differing point is that you are more optimistic than I that Kerry will follow through with his promises.

Simple: show that they worked (wouldn't have been terribly hard), and the inspectors were always going to have to be an ongoing measure. GIven his infamous history, no one would have honestly tried to say that Saddam would not try and reaquire WMDs if he could, but the inspectors were preventing this.

In theory this would be great but I doubt that indefinite weapons inspections were on the table. I would prefer that Saddam was ousted so as the sanctions could be completely lifted once the elected government is in power and the Iraqi security forces are self-sufficient.

So as I said, had Bush pushed for a reform of the sanctions then I would consider him a top guy.

Yes, I know. I am not in favour of the war because of Bush or any other politician. I am supporting it from a humanitarian perspective. I believe the best action was to remove Saddam on these grounds and felt Bush should have taken this angle in conjunction with the resolution violations to try and gain UN support for action.

No I think you misunderstood: I'm asking you to cite where this channeling of hatred etc etc actually eventuated. If you can present an example of this I would be most interested to look at it. Basically: I'm saying this is something of a strawman argument: it did not eventuate, and of course millions in Iraq clearly were smart enough to hate Hussien, which we have seen through the jubilation in mid-2003.

Yes, the Iraqis hated Hussein. But as they could not vent this anger and hatred at its intended target then Hussein channelled it into anti-US and anti-Israel sentiment. It didn't eventuate into anything because the means were not there to act upon it. An irrational hatred does not require any action, it is used to deflect hatred to a common enemy. As the enemy was not present in their country then the anger simmered. As soon as Saddam fell the Iraqis could express that hatred towards Saddam, hence the jubilation in 2003. Now, we have foreign insurgents in Iraq disrupting services and blowing people up while blaming the US for the problems. Similar situation except there are US soldiers in Iraq to face the dissent from those who bleive what the insurgents are preaching.

Again, reform the sanctions to keep the good bits, not the bad. This leads us to the next question (slightly irrelevent to the discussion as it is); if countries like France etc were making a profit from the sanctions, how could one make it so they would have endorsed your reforms. I think the best way to do so, using diplomacy would be to portray the proponents of these disgraceful actions (including Chirac etc if they do not play along) as prepared to sacrifice tens of thousands of people in order to make a profit. It wouldn't take long to see the effects on said political leader's constituency, in the same way that many anti-war groups have portrayed (truthfully or not: that's for another thread though) Bush and co as launching a war so that companies they have an interest in (Halliburton being the natural preference) can make a profit. I'm certainly not saying this would have worked but shit, the alternative has been this nightmarish war in which yet more civilians have been killed.

The problem is that the rorts were only detected after the invasion. That is, from Iraqi documents detailing the rorts and who profited from them. Everyone knows now that members of the UN, France and Russia profited on the blood of Iraqis but no-one cares because it sells far more newspapers when you bash the US.

minor potential of civil war (which could always be assisted) or guaranteed economic destablization (if the US were to use this card wisely), decisions decisions.

It may be minor potential to you, but to Turkey it is a sore point and one they do not want enflamed. Threatening economic destablisation in return for military assistance or support would go further to souring relations with Turkey than consolidating them.

Let's be pragmatic, he may not, but Bush sure as hell won't. Even if Kerry's chances are 1,000,000: 1, that's better than the alternative. And I think, for the good of those poor bastards in Iraq atm, we owe it to them to do the best we can to make the best of a godawful, shitty mess.

I agree with the sentiments. Lets just say I am sceptical of big promises during an election campaign. I hope that I am pleasantly surprised.

As you said this is opinion, we disagree, I think there is little more to debate in this area.

Agreed.

Imo, now that it actually is, I agree with you. Before the invasion I didn't consider Iraq part of WoT, but one would be blind to see it isn't now.

I saw it as preventing terrorism taking sanctuary in Iraq rather than waiting for it to happen then responding. I think thats where we differ on this topic.

Again, pragmatism (which I agree with), Kerry might: Bush won't.

Incidentally, this is why I now think although Australia should never have gone in, we definately need to stay there now and help make sure that the situation doesn't get any worse.

I agree we need to stay there now to make sure as many lives as possible are saved. Lets hope sanity prevails and the world unites to do the right thing by the innocent Iraqi civilians who have been caught up in this mess for 30 years.

Well it looks to me that basically we are agreeing on most of the points overall. We agree that the best course of action in Iraq is to internationalize the situation. We also seem to agree that Kerry presents a far greater chance of achieving this little aim than Bush (as I said, even if it's 1,000,000:1...), based on what they have been saying.

Where we seem to differ (2 main points- correct me if I'm wrong on what I say here if I misinterpreted your arguments)

1) The ability of Kerry to actually achieve his goals- that he can at least expand support (although probably not direct military aid or the like) for the current (not previous) US action: bringing democracy for the country and ensuring stabliity. You seem to take a pessimistic view regarding this- hence why you brought up the corruption in the UN/reluctance of others to get involved issue (which I agree is certainly a fair point), and basically contend that Kerry hasn't got much of a chance in reality.

On the other hand, I maintain that he can at least partially achieve his stated aims for Iraq, but only by using the tool of diplomacy to show other countries that failure to suceed in stablising Iraq is so bad a scenario that their involvement now in order to ensure success outwieghs the short-term implications for the respective players.

2) The role of the humanitarian element in all of this. Technically this point is slightly irrelevant to the debate, but interesting nonetheless. Now specifically, I belive you contend that the US needed specfically to go to war in Iraq, as while the inspectors in Iraq may have prevented Saddam's re-armament, the other aspects of the sanctions (Oil for Food, etc) were causing so large a humanitarian crisis that the US needed to provide the war alternative to it.

Personally I believe that 1) the Bush administrations motivation wasn't humanitarian anyway (I believe it was ideology, but anyway) and 2) instead of war, the US (or indeed anyone/everyone else) should have proposed a reform of the UN sanctions to preserve the benefits (prevention of WMDs) but get rid of the drawbacks (abuse by Saddam/UN countries). And the method I would have advocated to do this would be to portray the opponents of this measure to be exploiting the suffering of Iraqi civilians to make their profit (which would be their motivation). The result of this is the obvious political impact on constituents of the leaders who opposed this measure, not a good thing for said leaders considering they are democratically elected (in this case I am taking specifically about France, Germany and Russia).

But differences aside, we seem to have both reached the conclusion that Kerry represents the best hope for achieving our desire of a successful transition to democracy in Iraq.

The elections in Iraq, much as in any US supported totalitarian regime (which Iyad Allawi will without doubt install) - Pakistan comes to mind - are only conducted to give the installed puppet government (an extension of Washington's reach into the middle east) a democratic and legitimate appearance. Nothing at all hints towards the forming of a true democracy from the people themselves. Instead, we see an artificial government structure being stamped out of the ground and filled with US slave politicians. This is not democracy. It is a colony given the fake image of democray and legitimacy.

Which reminds me, how are those puppet governments in Germany and Japan doing? :rolleyes:

What happened to Smeagol? Haven't heard from him since last Saturday...

Our unique brand of don't-give-a-f***-what-you-think-or-if-i-hurt-your-feelings is still going strong. The most distinct difference between Australia and America culturally is we are not polite or overly concerned with how others feel. THAT is our culture.


Oh please, give me a break, your trying to compare American society with its at times macho gun culture and with its prevalence of highly negative and derogatory rap music (women an't nothing but hoes n bitchs) and the fact that they spend more on their prison system each year then they do on their education system, to Australian culture. Our cultures are nothing alike in many respects, and thank god for that. Unfortunately as consumption is becoming more and more the focus of our lives I think we will continue on the trend towards Americanisation. If you conservatives want to turn Australia in to a mini America then good luck to you, but if you do you will destroy many of the things that make this country and its people so unique and great. :mad:

Oh please, give me a break, your trying to compare American society with its at times macho gun culture and with its prevalence of highly negative and derogatory rap music (women an't nothing but hoes n bitchs) and the fact that they spend more on their prison system each year then they do on their education system, to Australian culture. Our cultures are nothing alike in many respects, and thank god for that. Unfortunately as consumption is becoming more and more the focus of our lives I think we will continue on the trend towards Americanisation. If you conservatives want to turn Australia in to a mini America then good luck to you, but if you do you will destroy many of the things that make this country and its people so unique and great. :mad:

Likewise, the left's attempts to both Asianise our country and turn it into a European liberal "paradise" erodes what makes our country great. Why can't we just be ourselves?

Yes, Tygaland has often made it obvious that he is very pro-Howard, and therefore pro-Bush.

However, conservatives generally expect that others will quickly forget their lies and distortions.

Iraq, of course, being the classic example.

The Iraq war, we were told at the time was about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

It was only when these were never found, that we were told it was about removing Saddam and installing democracy.
You're right, but remember that Bush and most of his followers are not really conservatives. They're more neocon reactionaries.

In your opinion. I do not share that opinion.
It's a pretty firmly established fact that Saddam had neither WMDs nor links to al-Qaeda terrorists. It was not really a part of the war on terror. I support the war against terrorism too, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (the Taliban actually did help terrorists). I don't consider the Iraq war to be a part of it. I am angry with Bush for being more focused on getting Saddam than getting Osama.

I have learned about Project for a New American Century and this has reinforced my views. I believe that the Bush team had decided to invade Iraq before they even got into power.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

It's a pretty firmly established fact that Saddam had neither WMDs nor links to al-Qaeda terrorists. It was not really a part of the war on terror. I support the war against terrorism too, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (the Taliban actually did help terrorists). I don't consider the Iraq war to be a part of it. I am angry with Bush for being more focused on getting Saddam than getting Osama.

I have learned about Project for a New American Century and this has reinforced my views. I believe that the Bush team had decided to invade Iraq before they even got into power.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

As I have said many, many, many times. I do not care what Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were. I do not care when he decided to invade Iraq. I do believe the world is better off with Saddam gone. I feel this makes the world safer.
I am not pro-Bush, nor am I anti-Bush. Some of you people are unable to isolate personal views from political alignments. I support the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime regardless of who instigated it. This will create a free Iraq which will then show the people of Iraq and eventually the Middle East that freedom is something they can have. Freedom in the Middle East removes the oppression that is used to recruit terrorists. Therefore it is related to the war on terror. The war on terror is more than Al Qaeda, it also involves intervention in regions that are primed to recruit for or fund terror networks.
You may not agree with what I am saying, thats fine. Your simplistic approach in writing anyone off who disagrees with you as a "neo con reactionary" shows your inability to discuss issues with anyone else. Half of a discussion involves listening...try it sometime!