Just as US soldiers and National Guards who’ve completed their tours in Iraq are being conscripted by stop-loss orders, recalls and the like, then sent back for a second round, Australia has received new orders. The New Europeans (Spain, Poland, Netherlands and so on) are all pulling out, and its up to us to fill the gap.
Of course, there’s no mention of the US in Howard’s announcement. Supposedly, this is a response to personal requests from the British and Japanese Prime Ministers. Older readers will recall that exactly the same farce was played out with our commitment of troops to Vietnam. Anyone who believes the government’s line might reflect on what kind of response Blair and Koizumi would get if they requested from Howard something the Bush Administration didn’t like, such as ratification of Kyoto.
There’s no strategy here, just hanging on and hoping things will change for the better. There’s no sign so far that the presence of 150 000 troops has done any good. The insurgency/resistance/terrorists are far more numerous now than they were a year ago. They gain legitimacy when they attack foreign occupiers, and lose it when they attack fellow-Iraqis. I hope that the new Iraqi government, when it emerges, will maintain its campaign commitment (watered down at the last minute) to demand a schedule for withdrawal, but if it doesn’t, Australia and Britain should be pushing the US to set one.
Tthe decision raises some other big issues for Australia that don’t seem to have been considered. In particular, there’s the possibility of war with Iran. Have we received assurances either that there won’t be any US military action against Iran or that, if there is, Iraq won’t be used as a base? To ask this question is to answer it.
John Quiggin 
Roberto:
Supporting Saddam in the first place was foolish. That support was what made him think he could get away with inading Kuwait.
George Bush Senior demonstrating great good judgment and restraint in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait and not falling into the error of committing the US and its allies to a full-scale invasion of Iraq.
In an article in Time magazine he listed his reasons for not doing so, they included the destabilisation of pro-western regimes in the region, fueling anti-western radicalism, opening the door to increased Iranian influence in Iraq and the risk of civil war within Iraq.
It’s a very good article and its a shame his son appears not to have read it.
Instead, Bush Sr. opted to contain Saddam and weaken his grip on power. Clinton when elected chose to copy this policy. The evidence from the US inspectors that Saddam was completely unable to retain his WMD capacity show how effective this policy was.
Ros,
My anger is directed at the people who who say “Saddam was a bad man therefore any actions that result in his overthrow are justified and anybody who replaces him must be the good guys.”
Saddam was an odious bastard, that’s why I was criticising the Australian and US governments for their support for his regime as far back as the mid-80s.
But in his latter years Saddam was so constrained by sanctions that he presented no threat to the rest of the world and his capacity to terrorise and kill his own people was severely restrained.
Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and other neural observers concluded before the war that Saddam’s regime was killing several thousand Iraqis a year.
That was A Bad Thing.
However in seeking to end that Bad Thing, the US and its allies have caused the deaths of as many Iraqis as would have died if Saddam had clung to power for another 30 or 40 years.
The US military is increasingly unable to maintain its combat capacities as a result of its involvement in the Iraqi quagmire and there is a risk that because the threat of US retaliation is now much less credible other countries, such as Sudan, Burma, North Korea and China will think they can do more Bad Things.
Neither did I Roberto. My point was that you seem to assume that your opponents commit some sort of “group think”.
That is, to spell it out perfectly clearly: Your post No. 98 strongly implies that all your opponents (the “guys”) agree with Steven Kyle and more seriously, adhere to your caricature of US foreign policy, to wit:
“Originally, the US was criticised for supporting Saddam. Then it was criticised when the US (largely) went to the aid of a sovereign nation – Kuwait – when Saddam invaded. Then after liberating Kuwait, the US was criticised for not ‘getting rid’ of Saddam. Now that the US removed Saddam, it is criticised again. And added to that, revisionism is occuring to the effect stating that Saddam wasn’t all that bad after all!”
You are incorrect in this surmise and you have crudely misrepresented the scepticism about US foreign policy most commonly expressed in this post in particular and on this blog in general.
I don’t know how much you care for logical thought and rational argument, but if persist in these puerile tactics, one can only assume that you don’t care.
MB,
I really don’t know what you’re on about. You imply that people who don’t follow your line on Islam and the Middle-East are “reality challenged”, and then encourage them to listen to outspoken critics of Islam for re-education. Why should they have a better grip on “reality” than you do? And why should they, or you for that matter, be a good source of objectivity? Your monomania on the subject of Israel is well known to frequenters of this blog, so it’s a little rich to declare yourself to be an impartial observer of “reality”.
Furthermore, I don’t see what an extended rant about the evils of Islamic extremism contributes to a discussion on Australia’s commitment of troops to Iraq.
Fyoder, interestingly – intelligent, genuinely moderate (support universal rights etc) and brave dissidents are dismissed by you as outspoken critics of Islam (although I suppose the forced removal of ones clitoris and forced marriage, and the murder and torture of ones relatives etc does tend to make one a bit outspoken). In contrast, Islamic scholars who won’t condemn stoning to death etc are viewed as moderates and treated with great respect (the definition of a moderate modern Muslim I suppose being one who criticises the US but as modern aspects like listening to rock music).
On Iran, well this thread did start with a discussion which mentioned Iran and I would have thought it was a pressing issue. As regards, my well known rants in support of Israel, well when I see the extreme left and right, supposedly moderate western social progressives, European policy elites, the UN and the majority of people in the Muslim world incorrectly blaming this country and often Jews in general for many of the current problems of the world, I will continue to stand up for them and I make no apologies – ‘when good men do nothing evil is allowed to flourish’ etc. Of course, all this anti-Israeli sentiment is not simply stupidity and, in many cases, odious anti-Semitism, there is also more than a hint of cowardice about it all– if only Israel would disappear (i.e. let itself be destroyed by its hate-filled neighbours) then Muslims might not be so angry and attack the west – dream on.
Fyoder, interestingly – intelligent, genuinely moderate (support universal rights etc) and brave dissidents are dismissed by you as outspoken critics of Islam (although I suppose the forced removal of ones clitoris and forced marriage, and the murder and torture of ones relatives etc does tend to make one a bit outspoken). In contrast, Islamic scholars who won’t condemn stoning to death etc are viewed as moderates and treated with great respect (the definition of a moderate modern Muslim I suppose being one who criticises the US but as modern aspects like listening to rock music).
On Iran, well this thread did start with a discussion which mentioned Iran and I would have thought it was a pressing issue. As regards, my well known rants in support of Israel, well when I see the extreme left and right, supposedly moderate western social progressives, European policy elites, the UN and the majority of people in the Muslim world incorrectly blaming this country and often Jews in general for many of the current problems of the world, I will continue to stand up for them and I make no apologies – ‘when good men do nothing evil is allowed to flourish’ etc. Of course, all this anti-Israeli sentiment is not simply stupidity and, in many cases, odious anti-Semitism, there is also more than a hint of cowardice about it all– if only Israel would disappear (i.e. let itself be destroyed by its hate-filled neighbours) then Muslims might not be so angry and attack the west – dream on.
iangould, has put it very well and to the point. [comment 102.]
Roberto, [comment 87.]
why don’t you actually deal with the content of those quotes? Maybe, it’s because history and issues of right & wrong?
Instead a lame, not even a witty interjection… Engage with the issues!
No more coward excuses nor trolling, please.
Razor should not have been taken seriously once he wrote that people who are anti-war are anti-US, anti-Australian and anti-Iraqi. If that represents his logic… then disagreeing with Razor should be a badge of honour.
Further, I would have thought it is pointless trying to get people like Razor to understand alternative views. After all, do RWDBs not pride themselves on not understanding their enemy… as though knowledge frightens them.
Katz – I won’t respond to your baiting!
MB,
You still haven’t taken my point, so I’ll restate in the hope you get this time: presenting one, extreme, side of Islam does not make you objective or in command of “reality”, any more than the blinkered anti-Americanism you keep railing against. Neither you nor your proposed authorities on Islam speak for its mainstream, so all you are doing is criticising a strawman. This may be psychologically comforting for you, but doesn’t help the rest of us.
On Iran, at post #81 you stated that the “reality-challenged” should,
“Go to the web sites run by people who have fled Islamic countries such as Iran and see how they feel about the likes of Iran having the bomb or who is the biggest threat to human culture Bush and his fellow radical Christian buddies or Islamic fascism.”
You then proceeded to name three people with no connection to Iran. What was the point? It’s just obfuscation and deception.
As for Israel, nobody on this blog has called for the destruction of Israel so I suggest that’s just your monomania acting up again. Do a word find search on “Israel” on this page and count the number of times you mention it.
John H, why do you direct that at Razor? For all his faults, he is able to make the same point as Michael Burgess with only a quarter of the words and a tenth of the sanctimony.
John Humphreys – I believe that it is a fair generalisation that the “anti’s” generally fall into those catergories all at once. Few can claim not to. For instance, the anti-war types believe that the US should withdraw from Iraq. If this occurred, the current Iraqi government would be inadequately able to combat the terrorists operating in Iraq, hence the people of Iraq would be doomed to increased violence and possible loss of their fledgling democracy. That is an anti-Iraqi outcome (unless you support the terrorists). And the people who support those ideas also beleive that Australia was directly responsible for the Bali bombing because of our “attitude” and “relationship” with Asia, the US, Israel etc. etc. – subscribers to the black arm-band view of Australian and Western history.
You make a rather heroic assumption that I, and other RWDBs, fail to understand our enemies. I would suggest to you that it is you and the terrorists who fail to understand your enemies, because we are winning this war and the politics. We know who our enemy is, what makes them tick, why they do what they do and hence how to combat them. Note that the vast majority of soldiers probably fall into what you call the RWDB. So far we have lost one to a mine in Afghanistan, and had few injuries. They on the other hand haven’t faired so well, both in battle and at the ballot box.
Perhaps I did learn a little when I studied Tsun Tzu, among others.
Dear James
I’ll take that as a compliment.
Regards
Dear Razor, most of the boys from duntroon may very well want to go, but the grunts on the ground – general infantry, and i now a few, are shit scared and not that happy about it.
P.S. i have no problem with our actions in afganistan, timor or bosnia. I’ve got mates that served in timor and iraq and i look up to and respect their actions.
Katz – I’ll consider myself “told” – twice.
If those peaceniks don’t want “Our Boys” to get hurt (Despite “Our Boys” having not one shred of respect for the peaceniks, but will defend their right to say what they want to the death) then they should be demanding better equipment and more resources for training, so they can reduce the chance of them being hurt.
Fyoder, you have not got the point. I am not simply presenting one side of Islam and representing it as the mainstream –the extreme is clearly very much the mainstream in Islam as the Muslim and ex-Muslim writers I cited acknowledge – the fact that they are not Iranian is neither here nor there – although, there are plenty of links on their sites to Iranian dissidents. As for tearing down straw men etc by viewing all critics of American policies re Iran/Iraq as blinkered anti-Americanism, well your postings essentially prove my point. You greatly play down the extent of extremism within the Islamic community and, at best, (and this is being very generous to you) portray the extremists as being just or almost as bad as Bush and Blair etc – this is complete Moral and Intellectual cretinism. Even in Texas women are not forced into marriage or murdered because they are raped and have the cheek to complain. As for Israel no one on this blog might have called for the destruction of Israel, but they certainly don’t let their ignorance of the issues stop them blaming Israel for having the absolute cheek to retaliate when their citizens are blown to bits sitting in cafes etc by indoctrinated children and youths.
James Farrell as for my sanctimony –– what is all this anti-American nonsense on this site if it is not sanctimony – especially given the assumption of many peace nuts that if you support some of the actions of the Americans you must therefore be a neo-con, baby eating war monger and ignorant of the reality.
alphacoward – one of the great things about our system is that if a soldier doesn’t want to go he just has to say so and they won’t send him, or her for that matter. No need to go AWOL etc.
And I’ve plenty of friends who have or are serving in Vietnam, Somalia, Western Sahara, Golan Heights, Sinai, East Timor, Solomon Islands, Bosnia, Bogainville (?sp), Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, etc . . . and none of them, whether soldiers or officers, have said they didn’t want to go or that they shouldn’t have gone. And then there are the guys who are now working in the civilian world in Saudia Arabia, Kosovo, Congo, etc. with NGOs or the UN.
Do I qualify as a Chicken Hawk? (refer to 95. above) Do I? I really would like to know if I am in the same league as Tim Blair.
Razor,
I think your chickenhawkiness is in inverse proportion to your willingness to shoulder the burden you foist onto other men.
It would be very difficult for you to match Tim Blair, particularly if you’ve actually served as you say.
Bugger!
I recommend all have a look at
http://www.chrenkoff.blogspot.com/
to find out what the “Arab street” is thinking. In particular Walid Jumblat (gotta love that name)(for those who don’t know him – he is the Boss of the Druze militia – the ones the Israeli Armoured Division did a big right hook diversion around on their last excursion into Lebanon because they didn’t want to tangle with them! I would say he has cred)
If the UN hadn’t corruptly allowed the oil for food program to be used to prop up Saddam’s regime, it might well have collapsed before the US lost patience and decided to invade. So at least part of the blame for the current situation might lie with Kofi Annan and his mates.
MB’s “I am not simply presenting one side of Islam and representing it as the mainstream–the extreme is clearly very much the mainstream in Islam as the Muslim writers… acknowledge” is, apart from being a potential breach of the Race Discrimination Act (1975) Cth, OUTRAGEOUS.
MB, you are off your face to suggest that the 300,000 muslims in Australia are extremist, the 200 million in Indonesia (where I lived for 8 years) are extremist etc etc. What’s even worse, this becomes a justification for perpetual war against Muslims, based on the dubious at best, unsubstantiated by legal definitions, highly selective google readings, exactly the sort of propaganda that neo-cons use to justify their actions.
Please define ”extremist” for us MB, your inferences so far are highly disturbing to the Muslims reading all this.
Peter Kemp, so where are the voice of all these so called moderates protesting about the murder of fellow Muslims in Sudan and Iran, etc, and condemning violence against Israel and the west without saying -Yes but …Surveys clearly indicate that Over 10 percent of Muslims in the UK and France would welcome another Sept 11 in their country and around 50 percent view Bush and Blair etc as worse than the Taliban or SH. I think about 65-85 of Muslims in the Middle East supported suicide bombing against Israel and about 65 percent of Egyptians and others think the Jews were responsible for Sept 11. Of the rest for a large part their silence is deafening. Although, a growing number are appalled by the activities of many of the fellow Muslims but are simply scared shitless of saying anything – and lets not get onto how women are treated in Islamic communities, the amount abortions among Muslim’s in Holland relative to their population etc.
I have just read a review of Taslima Nasreen’s (know who she is) autobiography by DHIRAJ SINGH. It is worthwhile citing a passage because it highlights the silliness of people like you very aptly. Oh, and on the racism charge you cannot be racist -you ignoramus – against a religion – especially one that claims universality or for that matter when you are so clearly committed to the human rights of those who suffer as a consequence of this religion – are you racist when you criticise the Catholic Church for covering up sexual abuse by Priests.
To quote Sigh – ‘Books like these have a way of upsetting a lot of people because it is books like these that fly in the face of both the orthodox and the partially-illumined. Post-September 11, the latter have proliferated greatly among the so-called liberal apologists and their tiresome defence almost always begins with: This is not true Islam… What they do essentially establish is high-quality subterfuge—not sincere defence and theological soundness. They lay the blame entirely on interpretation, absolving the human hands and minds that ‘revealed’ the scriptures of prejudice, misogyny, injustice and other heinous crimes of civilisation as we know it today.
MB, you have avoided the question(s) again, kindly define ‘extremism’ for the record, as it applies to Australian Muslims, for example.
Katz a thought, romantic “girls”
Ian a thought, the Yanks do get a bit pissed off with we will hold your coat while you do our lifting. “the threat of US retaliation is now much less credible other countries, such as Sudan, Burma, North Korea and China will think they can do more Bad Things.” ain’t we supposed to put our trust in the UN to do the lifting. And ian he was somewhat restrained by the British and US pilots who over flew the Kurds for 10 years with Saddam constantly trying to shoot them down. Doing the lifting again?
Thanks Fyodor, I am fairly sure now that RWDB isn’t a compliment.
Michael B I believe that the attitude to the oppressed of the communists was referred to as denying the witnesses, and then if you couldn’t calling them CIA plants. Iraqthemodel has suffered quite a bit of this form of attack. For being assisted blogwise by the same guy who helped Riverbend who has been quoted on this site as a speaker of truth.
Good one Alex, but I would include that person of outstanding superiority Butler, who was so rude that the Iraqis threw out the inspectors and then devoted his time to shouting that Saddam definitely had hidden weapons. And his dear mate David Ritter, at least after he got over his belief that Butler just didn’t get how many weapons were hidden.But it is butler whom I nominate as the butterfly wing flap that tipped the Iraq situation into chaos.
maybe it is all about wicked people and wicked plans or humanity stumbling along in a complex world always informed by hindsight.
If the Yanks were to scare me it would be because they will seek to increase chaos. If the Europeans were to scare me it would be because they believe that long term equilibrium is possible.
Michaek B if you want to look at Iran, I think you’ll find what you’re looking for.
For the recent elections there, the Gaurdian Council banned over 2000 reformist candidates. They did it because the moderates are the majority and they know it. Rather than looking at the blogs of exiles from other places, it’s more helpful to tune in to events in Iran itself. There are no shortage of people in Iran working to improve rights for women or to foster a repiblic as opposed to a theocracy, people like Fatimeh Haqiqatjoo, who was the first to resign in protest over the recent elections. Suggesting that the majorty of Muslims are extremists has a touch of bigotry about it.
The sabre-rattling over Iran has little to do with improving the lot of Iranians.
What has been the reaction of conservative leaders in Western countries to external threats (imagined or real)? – the roll-back of personal rights and freedoms in the name of security.
Why would you expect any different in Iran?
Peter, Well at least your now asking for a definition rather than playing the racist card. I was not suggesting by extremism that the majority of Muslims in the west would actually go and kill someone etc what I said was they hold extremist views – which I think I clearly outlined above. As for Australian Muslims I don’t know what their views are compared to ones in the US, the Middle East and Europe which I have been the most concerned with. Although, I don’t recall many marching in the streets or writing letters to the editor calling for a halt to violence aganst Israel or the west or in support of Salmon Rushie etc or am I wrong. What is racist (while we are on that topic) is to demand universal human rights for westerners but deny those same rights to Muslim women etc because of their ethnic background. I think Sing’s article touched on this fairly well – tell me do you think not funding shelters for Muslim women in Holland is justified because it would offend the clerics etc – and why were not virtually all Muslims not out on the street protesting against the murder of Theo van Gogh.
MichaelH, Iran has just about the most liberal pro-western population in the Muslim world. Although, I have seen young Muslims buy rock records criticise their governments and still support suicide bombing against Israel- I call such views extreme and will continue to do so. More broadly, the stats I cited I think show a fairly clear picture of extremism within the Muslim community which is supported by many moderate Muslim writers such as Irshad Manji. And by moderate I mean moderate not simply some extremist wanker who is regarded as moderate because he dresses western, drinks wine with academics and bags bush and blair while refusing to condemn the stoning to death of women and suicide bombing etc
MB: The reason for not demonstrating re Gogh is the same reason Australians didn’t demonstrate against the murder of good guy Sergio de Mello—APATHY, but this line is irrelevant and totally off on a tangent to the thread of this blog, Iran/Iraq.
You still have not addressed the question as to why Iran’s sovereignty should play second fiddle to US demands (with the IAEA’s pronouncements in contradiction ie no evidence— and your supposition is not proof by the way).
Going on and on and on about the evil, the perfidy, the cruelty of Muslims in the ME cuts no ice with students and professionals in foreign policy studies. Double standards elude you, principles of nuclear non-proliferation elude you, knowledge of the French/German/UK–Iranian deal eluded you until I pointed them out—-silence on that one since.
Give us one good reason why Oz troops should be there (apart from the evil evil evil Muslim diatribe)
MB – I’m gald that you know the opinion of every Muslim on the subject of suicide bombings. It’s also clear that you don’t know much about what is going on in Iran. The reformists and moderates are not necesarily “pro-western’, this an alarmingly arrogant assumption which is all too common. Why must Iranians who are concerned about a just society, be “pro-western”? To make ourselves feel good?
I’m not sure why you claim you don’t understand Muslims “refusing to condemn the stoning to death of women and suicide bombing etc”
It’s quite clear that you understand them very well.
As an apparantly keen supporter of Israel, do you criticise the object of your affection, in an effort to improve it, or would you rather critique the Arab and Muslim world?
No prizes for guessing the answer.
Peter, as for Iran do you think that most sane people would not be concerned that when, not if, it develops the bomb it could be used against the west or India etc. Are you really suggesting that the chances of the US, France India etc of dropping a bomb on Sydney etc are about the same as Islamic extremists -so therefore they should also be allowed to have the bomb under some kind of weird equal opportunity scheme.
As for apathy being the main reason for the lack of action – bullshit. This is a critical turning in the way the very very liberal Dutch view immigration and yet little was said against the murder of van Gogh, because many Muslims and many liberals thought he had it coming – pure and simple – and that he was racist because he made a movie with a Muslim women highlighting the plight of Dutch Muslim women -this kind of sick reasoning would be laughable if the consequences were not so tragic in lost and damaged lives – and don’t get me started on the implications for credibility of left of centre politics.
FWIW I don’t reckon the Bushies are serious about invading Iran – they may be crazy but they’re surely not that crazy. Their generals would be telling them very strongly to forget it.
Naa, they and the Europeans are playing “good cop, bad cop” with Iran – which is why the derogatory references to European policy here are ironic because I’m sure its a well co-ordinated act.
Mind you, as I keep saying, if I was an Iranian national security adviser of whatever political views I’d take one look at the map and conclude Iran needs nukes now. The “good cop-bad cop” tactic will fail. Its just more collateral damage from Dubya’s immoral, illegal and incredibly stupid adventure.
MB: As before, my question you didn’t answer, what countries has Iran attacked in the last 30 or so years? Why does the acquisition of nukes automatically mean their use—have you ever seen the word D-E-T-E-R-R-E-N-C-E? ie India/Pakistan.
Your ignorance is astounding so it is perhaps best to ignore you as you have nothing really useful to add. If the so called ”extremists” by which I assume you mean Iran, nuke this country, it will be because of people like you.
DD – I’m not sure that trusting the limits of their craziness is all that reassuring.
On one hand theirs the priniciple that you don’t attack anyone with a real capability to strike back.
But on the other, I recall someone recently describing Bush as a “primitive man”. Having his fingers burnt once, in Iraq, he doesn’t learn a salutory lesson, but becomes obsessed with trying again, on an even grander scale, to prove himself right.
Peter, well actually you’ve actually got things a bit right for a change re Iran nuking OZ- or more likely some crazy they give a nuke or nuclear material to. Because what you anti-American/anti-Bush/multi-cultists don’t get is that Islamic fascists primarily hate not the likes of conservatives such as Bush but rather the more progressive representatives of western society such as liberal minded, pro-female equality and pro-gay rights, atheists such as myself. The few of us who still cling too universalistic notions such as universal human rights (even if you’re a black Muslim women who should stop whinging about being oppressed and celebrate the richness of your culture) and reject this post-modernistic political correct bullshit will be the second group up against the wall – the first, of course, will be ex-Muslims or liberal minded Muslims who are considered to be the lowest of the low by the extremists. I have no doubt that if this debate was taking place 60 years ago or so you would be singing the praises of the Soviet Union and vigorously condemning the likes of George Orwell and Arthur Koestler for having the temerity to be so critical of communism (or maybe you would have Nazi who knows with you cultural relativistic wankers – oh, and were Orwell and Koestler racists because they criticised Russian communism.
Peter I can’t resist finishing with a quote from Christopher Hitchens which I think sums you and others up so well -Respoding to the criticism of many on the left of US policy following 9/11 (that is they deserved it line) he stated something along these lines.
“These are the kind of people who, upon finding a viper in their child’s bed, would make their first call to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.”
Very amusing. Not very accurate, but amusing. The real response, that has so distressed “you and others”, was wondering how it got there, so as to prevent it happening again.
On the other side of the coin, what might sum up you and others like you, is something along these lines,
Upon finding a viper in their child’s bed, they immediately go to the other side of town and punch someone in the nose.
Peter what countries has Iran attacked in the last thirty years. Would you consider
a contingent of some 2000 Iranian Revolutionary guards, based in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to Lebanon in 1982 to aid the resistance against Israel.
Guess it depends on how you define attack on another nation. Would you consider it’s financial support for and closeness with Hezbollah and thus its involvement in
“Hezbollah’s political rhetoric has centred on calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Its definition of Israeli occupation has also encompassed the idea that the whole of Palestine is occupied Muslim land and it has argued that Israel has no right to exist.”
Or do you require symmetrical modern warfare to accede that Iran gets busy.
By saying this will I become responsible for any attacks on Australia.
How come a country which has the third largest oil reserves in world need Nuclear reactors? It ain’t because they are short of energy.
Maybe they just want isotopes for nuclear medicine. Yes, that must be the reason. Can’t be anything else.
Ros,
I think you should reread this sentence, because it seems to me to be an hilarious incidence of newspeak:
“Would you consider a contingent of some 2000 Iranian Revolutionary guards, based in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to Lebanon in 1982 to aid the resistance against Israel.”
So, what happened here? Did Iran invade Lebanon? No. Did Iran invade Israel? No. Israel invaded Lebanon, and Iran sent troops to “aid the resistance”.
From this you conclude that Iran is the aggressor?
Fyodor, I did read the quote. I thought it would be dishonest to leave out the aid the resistance to Israel. But the Iranian troops were foreign troops in Lebanon also. And as far as I know they weren’t at war with Israel at the time, or no more so than they always are.
So following your line of thought, did Israel invade Iran. No. So Iran made the decision to take military action against Israel. I think the question was what countires has Iran attacked in the last thirty years, your’s is should Iran be considered the aggressor.
that is an argument about which nothing new ever comes and I think your opinion of Isreal’s view of itself and the ME situation is clear so there will be no need to abuse me about Israel.
“Katz a thought, romantic “girlsâ€?
Ian a thought, the Yanks do get a bit pissed off with we will hold your coat while you do our lifting.”
Huh? Ros. OUR lifting? If Howard had said to Bush, “No George, as a steadfast and loyal ally, the greatest gift we can give you is our frank and fearless advice. We would advise you to desist from invading Iraq. Our intelligence indicates that there are no WMDs and without them you have no legitimate cassus belli.”
Do you think that advice would have deterred Bush from going ahead and doing exactly what he did? Of course not. So whose “heavy lifting” is it? I cab help you answer that question: it’s the Bush Administration’s heavy lifting, and it’s a burden that the American people are getting ready to shrug.
Now I know that the previous imagined quotation of Howard is quite unrealistic. Howard would never say such a thing to Bush even though he believed it.
Because, as a girlie man, Howard likes to be “tenderly dominated” too.
“How come a country which has the third largest oil reserves in world need Nuclear reactors? It ain’t because they are short of energy.
Maybe they just want isotopes for nuclear medicine. Yes, that must be the reason. Can’t be anything else. ”
Maybe they’re worried about how the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming, and they want to switch to a greenhouse friendly energy source.
Ros,
There was no abuse in my post. You need to get your facts straight: Israel invaded Lebanon. They argued, with some justification, that they were striking at terrorist bases in southern Lebanon, but the fact remains that Israel invaded another country and occupied it. Iran provided troops to “aid the resistance” as you put it so clearly. The identification of “aggressor” in this case is blindingly obvious.
If my “opinion of Isreal’s view of itself and the ME situation is clear”, I’d like you to summarise the key points. I’ve said bugger-all about Israel in this thread, and I challenge you to find derogatory comments I have made anywhere about Israel or the Jewish people.
Razor: “How come a country which has the third largest oil reserves in world need Nuclear reactors?”
That’s a good question – why don;
‘t we also direct it to Australia which has the world’s largest coal reserves and where various groups are pushing for a nuclear power reactor to complement our existing research reactor; Russia which is one of the world’s largest oil exporters; Indonesia; and Canada whose oil sand reserves are one of the largest fossil fuel deposits on the planet.
Maybe the Iranians want to diversify their power mix to protect against 50%+ swings in the price of oil like we’ve seen in the past year; maybe they’re concerned about the energy situation in twenty or thirty years time and want to establish the technical base to rapidly expand nuclear power production if required.
Hell, maybe they want it because its a prestige symbol which will stimulate national pride?
Or maybe they’ve seen the different ways in which the Bush administration treated Iraq and North Korea and decided that the mere possiblity that they MIGHT have nukes was likely to deter any US military action. That’s called “constructive ambiguity”.
Razor: “How come a country which has the third largest oil reserves in world need Nuclear reactors?”
That’s a good question – why don;
‘t we also direct it to Australia which has the world’s largest coal reserves and where various groups are pushing for a nuclear power reactor to complement our existing research reactor; Russia which is one of the world’s largest oil exporters; Indonesia; and Canada whose oil sand reserves are one of the largest fossil fuel deposits on the planet.
Maybe the Iranians want to diversify their power mix to protect against 50%+ swings in the price of oil like we’ve seen in the past year; maybe they’re concerned about the energy situation in twenty or thirty years time and want to establish the technical base to rapidly expand nuclear power production if required.
Hell, maybe they want it because its a prestige symbol which will stimulate national pride?
Or maybe they’ve seen the different ways in which the Bush administration treated Iraq and North Korea and decided that the mere possiblity that they MIGHT have nukes was likely to deter any US military action. That’s called “conatructive ambiguity”.
“I have no doubt that if this debate was taking place 60 years ago or so you would be singing the praises of the Soviet Union”
Michael, 60 years or so ago, the Soviet Union were our allies, they had just liberated Auschwitz, and primarily through their sacrifices (20m-35m dead) the Nazis were about to be defeated. (This isn’t to downplay the sacrifices and effort on the Western front, but it was the Russians who ripped th guts out of the German army.)
A lot of people were praising the Soviet Unoion 60 years ago, and most of them were not Stalinist dupes.
Dave, one of the examples of maturity is to own up to your misktakes -so many intellectualls etc on the left were only singing the praises of the Soviets because they fought with us in the second world war -so what were Orwell and Koester etc getting so pissed about regarding their fellow lefties- Not learning from history means repeating it as many are doing at the present time albeit in postmodernist not communist garb
Thank you Fyodor I appreciate the clarification that you consider that Israel had some justification so must apologise for assuming you weren’t of that view. it does I think you would agree say that yours is a view different to many correspondents on the sublect of Israel. I did not mention you and Jews and hadn’t made that assumption about you. just as I did not deny that Israel invaded Lebanon, as I thought was clear from the fact that I did not doctor that quote to hide it.
I assume from your committment to “girlie men” which is a bit of a progression from the original context of girls that you are a fan of Arnie.
The US military is increasingly unable to maintain its combat capacities as a result of its involvement in the Iraqi quagmire and there is a risk that because the threat of US retaliation is now much less credible other countries, such as Sudan, Burma, North Korea and China will think they can do more Bad Things.
I think Ian’s comment was clear enough. The expression I used did not spring from my head it is a commonly used one, it even formed part of the plot of a Law and Order. So it is a bit of a stretch to imply that I was suggesting that the US does Howard’s bidding rather than the otherway aorund as you consider.
There is I believe a very strong tendency to require understanding of the beliefs and culture of others, other than the US and its citizens. It is nmot enough to assume that they are driven by power and greed, rather if one wishes to persuade (general comment Fyodor) then one needs to understand how they think also. They do believe of and resent Europe for example because they consider it spends nothing much on military forces but chooses to decide where and when American lives should be expended.
Ian was saying that they should be seen as the world’s police force and that he considered they were spending their resources inappropriately
I am also conscious of the massive economic and military power of the US and think that views that it is on the slide are well hopeful. Why exactly do we tell ourselves that we shouldn’t upset Islamic extremists but the US will be persuaded by constant abuse. If we think that one shouldn’t offend people with the power to hurt us we are certainly fond of making sure that the once sleeping elephant is now constantly pissed off.