Tim Blair

So to continue the WWII analogy, if Australia had been invaded by the Japanese he would have wanted the US to stay out and let you Aussies handle it alone?
I guess the NY firemen should have stayed outside the WTC and just shouted encouraging slogans at the people trapped inside.

I'm baffled. That man is a fucking imbecile.

What is this man talking about?

Well, certainly, historically, we've always depended on resistances to get rid of occupiers, to get rid of invaders.

Historically, actually, VERY FEW resistance movements got rid of their occupiers on their own.

Yugoslavia, iirc, was the only nation to get rid of the Nazis on their own, and even they received help. For the rest (France, Belgium, Poland), it required foreign forces (US/UK for the first two, the Soviets for the second) to throw the Germans out.

Similarly, to take his Pacific example, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, Malaya, were not liberated by their own resistance movements, but by (mostly) US-British-Australian forces.

In the case of civil wars, the record is more mixed, but even there, certainly during the Cold War, there was often foreign intervention and assistance. North Vietnam received enormous aid (in terms of weapons) from China and the USSR, frex.

Well yes, they're legitimate targets. They're illegally occupying a country.

Huh. And what would be the difference, from the point of the resistance, if they were "legally" occupying the country? If France had signed on and a resolution authorizing force had been passed, would the people now blowing up their fellow Iraqis have said to themselves, "Damn! We hate these foreign bastards, but since they're from the UN, they're here legally and we can't do anything about it."?

And how about Haiti? Do Aristide's supporters not have the "right" to shoot Americans because they're in Haiti "legally"?

Let's see, my dad told me that most Aussie men were off fighting in Africa and in other parts, who were left were the young, old, and women.

So, Fisk would rather see Australia under the brutal occupation Japan was known for and have the women free them than having help from friends.

Even if they used Australian babies for bayonet practice?????

Tony should have pushed him and brought that up. Of course, that would have ended the interview.....

Down south, we like to call guys like him retards.

Pilger's not a dissenter. He's the enemy. They hanged Julius Streicher at Nuremberg for this kind of shit. I'm not saying we should do the same. But if the fucker had, say, a pulmonary embolism and croaked, I'd lift a pint in celebration, just like I did when I heard that Abu Abbas had popped his clogs. Hoping for the downfall of Western Civilisation ain't 'dissent' - it's sedition.

And before someone gets on my case for the Streicher reference: of course the ABC isn't Der Stürmer. But they're both propagandists for genocidal, fascist tyrannies, and both of them would see an American victory against totalitarian barbarism as a bad thing.

you"re a fuckwit
gillies

Max, or may I call you Mr. Max, thank you so much for sharing your bountiful wisdom with us today. The sheer wit and weft and woof and warp and heft of your intellect blinds me with admiration. Such profundity! Such dazzling conciseness of thought! Again, sir, thank you, thank you, for bestowing upon us the entire intelligence you have!

you"re a fuckwit gillies

You just have to love the leftists. Such grasp of the English language, such deftness with punctuation, such depth of thought.

So,helping the East Timorese to throw out Indonesian occupiers would have been wrong as well.What about the North Vietnamese against Khmer Rouge?The Allies against the Nazis?The Union against the Confederates?Presumably Mr. Pilger would have insisted that the slaves liberated themselves.

Coming from you, Max, that is a compliment of the highest order. Now piss off.

Of course, all of this goes back to the (American) Revolutionary War, where we would have most likely lost to the British if it hadn't been for the assistance of the French. So he's willing to ignore the dozens of times he's been proven wrong, just to make some demented point about a country he hates. He probably honestly believes that the world would be better off if the US had lost 228 years ago.

Oh, and for Max, 2004-228=1776, which is the year that we signed the Declaration of Independence.

After all, we don't want you to get confused.

Using Pilger's logic, the current Cambodian government is "a kind of Vichy government" because Pol Pot was deposed by an outside power and terrorism to tople said government is therefore legitimate.

Or doesn't that count when the "outside power" was Vietnam?

The interviewer's next question should have been: "If any government overthrow would need to come from the Iraqi people, would it be acceptable for the Iraqi people to request foreign assistance in deposing their dictator?"

If the answer to that question were not explicitly "no," then a further question might have been: "Given the frightening tyranny and absolute corruption of Saddam Hussein's regime, how would you propose the Iraqi people ask for assistance without fear of reprisal?"

Invading China in the next decade? Who the hell takes this guy seriously?

Y'all missed one of the good points. Pilger says that he views American and Austrailian soldiers in Iraq as legitimate targets. Then, in the very next line, the interviewer asks him to confirm what he just said...and Pilger gets offended.
"They are legitimate targets".
"So, you're saying that they are legitimate targets?"
"That's a very unbecoming question."

Dear god. He's not antiwar... he's actually on the other side.

So, presumably, it would be OK with Pilger if native Australians - Aborigines, if that term is still permissible - rose up against their caucasian invaders in widespread acts of terrorism? He would of course oppose any outside intervention, and would in fact aid the natives in eliminating the illegal occupiers. By, say, capping himself?

Dave P.: that's what I'm saying.

Oh and BTW, I misphrased one of my comments - I meant to say Pilger and Streicher were propagandists, not the ABC.

Damn, somebody already stole my American Civil War remark.
I think Pilger and his type should be given a turban and a camel and dropped off in the Pakistani/Afghanistan border region, where they can join their friends in repelling the "occupiers" (liberators) of Afghanistan.

Hey, I know you Australians don't like to acknowledge this, but that John Curtin of yours was dropping opponents in plastic shredders all the time. What do you think happened to Menzies, anyway? In office for, what, two months? That's suspicious.

John Pilger knows this, which is why the Japanese invasion analogy is so apt.

Most remarkable: this man has absolutely no shame whatsoever, no fear of embarrassment. I'm guessing that he thinks -- and is regarded by like-minded individuals -- he is speaking truth to power. (More: it simply doesn't occur to him that were citizens of the countries he defends to similarly criticize them, they would face the plastic shredder.) It is a sign of the utter debasement of the Left.

He would of course oppose any outside intervention, and would in fact aid the natives in eliminating the illegal occupiers. By, say, capping himself?

You have to remember that Pilger is one of the good whiteys, who would undoubtedly be spared because of all he's done for their cause.

(Yeah, right.)

Hey, I know you Australians don't like to acknowledge this, but that John Curtin of yours was dropping opponents in plastic shredders all the time. What do you think happened to Menzies, anyway? In office for, what, two months? That's suspicious.

Anyone know what the fuck he's talking about?

Hey, I know you Australians don't like to acknowledge this, but that John Curtin of yours was dropping opponents in plastic shredders all the time. What do you think happened to Menzies, anyway? In office for, what, two months? That's suspicious.

What was really cool was how he managed to stitch himself together afterward, found the Liberal party and rule as Prime Minister for over twenty years.

It's a successful moral argument. It ends with nobody convinced of anything but that the other guy is a moral incompetent. That's what moral arguments are supposed to achieve.

And that's how the politics takes it too; if you pick out what is not important, you lose the argument.

All that I know is that Pilger, if an Iraqi, would have been a Baathist torturer, cheering from the sidelines as people were killed.

I fear that Western Civilization is done. This is what passes for our intellectual class. It is over.

Try the stinking, traitorous bastard.

Quentin,

you nailed it, that's the mentality of Pilger and cohorts.
I bet he has an erection any time an American soldier is killed.

Pilger isn't an intellectual he is a propagandist masquerading as a journalist.Just because somone can write doesn't mean that the content isn't rubbish.
Of course he is on the other side, he always has been,it is just that his bile chimed with the prevailing liberal left viewpoint, but in the light of the events of recent years this is beginning to look increasingly insane.
Julius Streicher? He was writing for the committed,Pilger is more like Lord Haw Haw,but I agree string him up.

Stunning. Absolutely stunning. You can tell Pilger has never lived under a regime like Saddam & Sons. The Iraqis should have freed themselves?!
Good grief.

"I'm baffled. That man is a fucking imbecile"

You're being too kind.

What does the media and the institution of journalism think it is actually accomplishing by giving a forum to this waste of space?

What do they actuall spend time doing in journalism school anyway!!! Seriously, what are the courses offered and are there any on the dangers of providing sunlight to the dangerous and poisonous mind-mushrooms like this twat?

Charlie -- meant as sarcasm, my friend. It's the Pilgers of the world who think that all countries at all times under all conditions are equally vile (except those which oppose the United States, which are moral bulwarks).

Excuse me but, really, that's an unbecoming question.
Huh? He just finished saying it and now he's getting his panties in a bunch when the interviewer repeats and clarifies his previous statement?

Is this guy living in an alternate dimension where everyone's memory gets wiped every five seconds? What amazing chutzpah. It's getting so bad that the real world is starting to look like a Monty Python sketch.

"I'd like to leave the Army, sir."
"Why?"
"It's dangerous! The people on the other side have guns! And some of 'em have got tanks!"

anne
United States

I watched the interview last night. Of course, I have known for years that Pilger is an ugly extremist with a loopy view of the world and a willingness to lie his head off "for the cause". I mean, even when I was a pretty solid leftie myself, I hated him (agreed 100% with Bob Hawke about Pilger re Gulf War I). But he excelled himself last night.

The depth of this man's inherent dishonesty coupled with his smug self-righteousness; his determination to hammer every round peg of reality into the square holes of his strightjacket ideology; his readiness to resort to outright lies when "necessary"; and the moral repugnance to which all of this leads - all these mark him as something special. Not just dull, biased, out of touch with reality and petulant like, say, Robert Fisk.

I was looking for a suitable word to describe the vile creature on my TV screen. I could only come up with one that seemed to fit - "evil". This man is truly evil. There! George Bush has made me use the "E" word!

Two points. The Iraqis did rise up after the 1991 Gulf War, which led to a massacre of Kurds and Shia. The US/UK and (for a time) French stepped in and occupied Iraqi airspace. So, better late than never?

Also, as much as he may want to justify the "resistance" targeting coalition forces, targeting the UN, the ICRC, other humanitarian NGOs, and Iraqi civilians is a BIG no-no.

He's more widely published than most, but he's just one more sorry, grotty Baby Boomer who has never got over his conflicted relationship with his father --- and proceeds to transfer that hatred to any and every authority figure available.

The simple fact that he hasn't been snuffed by the authorities reveals all he says about the US and UK to be so much deluded nonsense.

Australia has Pilger, we have our Chomsky. The curse and burden of free societies is the hatred of some of their own intellectual 'elite'. The fact that this hatred so often comes from people who enjoy the high side of the benefits of free society in terms of financial success and free speech is baffling. It seems to universally escape them that they would never enjoy those same benefits espousing similar hatred if they lived under the governments and in the societies they admire so, but would go to the wall rather quickly. Perhaps, on the other hand, in those societies they would stay true to their ideals and be apologists.

Pilger's take on the world is certainly baffling and certainly abhorrent, but not unique in any free society.

"Popped his clogs?" Gillies, anyone, what's the basis of this quite funny expression?

Blood! I demand blood!

He has the freedom to say what he want, and the American military should have the freedom to shoot him for it. And then there will be order in the world.

So after Iraqis vote, he'll support the government that results?
The guy makes Chomsky look like Reagan.

Pilger: Five star General of the 5th column.

I was absolutely gobsmacked watching this. It is not statistically possible for the US to be 100% wrong 100% of the time. This man simply hates the West and especially the US. I suspect this comes from a deep loathing of himself rooted in a traumatic childhood experience. The man simply looks ill and is consumed with a frustrated hatred. Saying that the US army is slaughtering people in Iraq every day, US will be in Iran next etc this shows his grip on reality has slipped. He should be pittied more than anything else.

Many diplomats around the world are actually spies, even if their diplomatic credentials are in order.
Pilger is actually an enemy propagandist. "Journalism" is just a cover.

What's really pathetic is how "left wing intellecutals" will make a special point of fawning all over Pilger's comments. What's worse many of the commenters comments above would only solidify their dedication to Pilgers twisted logic - simply to prove their credentials as "left wing intellecutals."

It doesn't have to make sense. In fact the less sense it makes the better since the wackier the statement, the more your believing it goes to prove that you're part of the club.

Damnably Pathetic.

>Australia has Pilger, we have our Chomsky. The curse and burden of free societies is the hatred of some of their own intellectual 'elite'. The fact that this hatred so often comes from people who enjoy the high side of the benefits of free society in terms of financial success and free speech is baffling. It seems to universally escape them that they would never enjoy those same benefits espousing similar hatred if they lived under the governments and in the societies they admire so, but would go to the wall rather quickly.

I do find that incredible. My wife's aunt and uncle are fairly wealthy. I have never heard them or their kids ever say a good thing about the US (they are immigrants).

I think it comes down to inconvience when dealing with their other elitist friends. For some reason, there are a group of people that want the affirmation of other elites. And these elites usually are European. And usually left wing.

Or maybe it is just cool to be a traitor to your class or some such nonscense. My parents grew up poor (and never became rich), so I guess I never got inculcated with that.

I know a guy who is a rich trust fund kid who went to provate schools, yet loves to act as though the "Man is putting him down." I like to remind him he would not have lasted 5 minutes in my nice suburban middle class high school, let alone some of my friends schools.

I just do not get it. Is it just cool to hate western civilization? Does it prove you are ironic?

Maybe Orwell was right in "Notes on NAtionalism."

Monkeyboy said it best:

So to continue the WWII analogy, if Australia had been invaded by the Japanese he would have wanted the US to stay out and let you Aussies handle it alone?
I guess the NY firemen should have stayed outside the WTC and just shouted encouraging slogans at the people trapped inside.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Pilger is full of it and has double standards on every principle.

Behind it all, Pilger only has one standard - anti-Americanism.

I try not to read about Pilger because he is one guy who makes me seriously angry.

But take comfort from this- he is a very bitter, very unhappy old failure. All his hopes and dreams have faded with the workers paradise and this lonely atheistic old buffoon is left to face his aproaching death knowing he made no difference.

Secondly he does alot of good work for the Libertarian/conservative cause, remember that elections are decided by the swing voters. The rainbow brigade will always support idiots like Pilger, to their cost when his revolting views are paraded befor reasonable, undecided voters on national broadcasters like the ABC.

This guy is working for us, so take heart.

"I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

Orwell noted it 60 years ago.

Iran, then North Korea, then China?

Well, Iran doesn't sound so bad, but I would add, Syria/Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to the list. The war has already quietly expanded to Pakistan, and Iran just needs a little shove. Invasion in Iran probably not necessary, but a few assasinations, combined with bombing runs over key facilities ought to do the trick. What we need in Iran is an identifiable internal ally to "request" assistance.

Syria probably requires an invasion which will free up Lebanon, and allow Israel to take care of Palestine for us. The hard nut to crack is Saudi Arabia. Perhaps, the Iranians, Iraqis, and Kuwaitis can do that for us with a little help from their friends.

Leave China alone, and they will take care of North Korea for us. A little nuclear blackmail by the US, i.e. the threat of arming Japan and Taiwan should do the trick there.

I'm completely at a loss. There is no logic here. Could someone explain this bizarro world crap to me, or at least pass me some of whatever good shit these folks are smoking? Why is it that the trans-nationalists are the greatest proponents of untouchable national sovereignty? Why is it that the same people who tell us the government is always full of the most ruthless, evil people on Earth also want to increase the power and wealth of the government through nationalization of industries and socialization? Why is it that the same people who yell loudest about racism want to implement the most racist of policies? Why is it that the same people who rant about fascism from sun-up to sun-down complain the loudest when fascist regimes are destroyed? Why is it that the same people who see bigotry and hatred against women, minorities, gays, and wiccans everywhere they look in the west can't see bigotry in places where it's a daily fact of life? There's a disconnect in there somewhere for these people. Because none of this crap makes any fucking sense.

Sometimes I want to just give up and beat idiots with a shovel. But, of course, eventually I come to my senses and realize that this is not the way to enlightening the world. Because beatings are way too labor intensive.

I'm an American who is familiar with Pilger only through random blogwalks. (Instapundit referred me.) Although I agree with much said already, I question whether I should care about his views at all.

One earlier post commented that the ABC was not the propagandist, but this is where I part company. Pardon my ignorance, but is the ABC publicly supported like the BBC? If so, why should Austrailian citizens be forced through tax revenues to support the publication of such extreme anti-Western views? What make him more newsworthy than, say, a neo-Nazi?

Even if the ABC is not supported by taxes, however, I absolutely blame them for giving Pilger air time.

By the way, Robin, that is a great post.

Pilger does have one redeeming feature: He doesn't like John Kerry.

I actually made the mistake of reading the transcript.

Here's one for ya:

"Robert Fisk, the independent correspondent, reckons that something like between 500 and 1,000 Iraqis are killed indirectly as a result of the American presence every week in that country."

Pliger citing Fisk is as good as it gets.

Unless, MoDowd cited Arianna Huffington or a retarded guy cited a more retarded guy.

The sad part is, that the minor parties in Australian politics (Democrats and Greens) and even some in the Labor party actually view the world in the same demented way as Pilger.

Why do we put up with this? One day the these fools will just push it too far and the "silent majority" will become organised to silence this crap for good.

Never heard of him, but I gather Mr. Pilger is a hack journalist of the far left, rather like Robert Fisk, who he quotes approvingly. This sort has always been with us. They defended the Soviet Union when it was in the process of slaughtering millions to consolidate the revolution. Eggs have to be broken to make an omelette. When the last detail was tidied up, everything was finished, there would be paradise on earth. These people are disassociated from reality, lost in fever swamps of ideology. People are abstractions meant to dance to abstract imperatives, not living flesh and blood. I suppose the media must expose us to them in order to quicken distaste for their sheer inhumanity.

John Pilger is simply channelling Tariq Ali's recent comments in the newspaper published by the failed Pabloites of the Fidel Castro franchise called the 'Democratic Socialist Party'. In their 'Green Left Weekly' newspaper Tariq Ali said of those Iraqis working to build a free democratic Iraq:

"In Vichy France and occupied Yugoslavia and later in Vietnam, Algeria, Guinea and Angola, collaborators were regularly targeted. Then, as in Iraq today, the resistance was denounced by politicians and the tame press as “terrorists”. "

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/573/573p28.htm/

Imagine a resistance against an occupying Japanese Army ?!!!
If the Japs had managed to pull it of, the army would have been replenished from within Australia.

That the Japs were determined, dogged soldiers and ruthless not only against soldiers but, as their occupation of China shows, also against civilians. Enough to put what sort of resistance might have been mounted: out in the Simpson desert with which the Jap wouldn't have been bothered with.
Pilger is a moron.

i sure pilger is due for honorary degrees from duke university fairly soon, perhaps even a spot on the faculty

"Imagine a resistance against an occupying Japanese Army ?!!!
If the Japs had managed to pull it of, the army would have been replenished from within Australia."

If the Japs had managed to pull it off, they would have been out numbered and outgunned by the existing Australian troops in Australia.

Read A.T Ross "Armed and Ready", it's a dull book, mostly about industry (defence related) build up in Aust.

However, it does show that Aust could have put together 8 Divs with full equipment (in Mid 42) from existing units in Aust at the time.

The "Aust was defenceless" myth is well past its use by date.

Doug: 'popped his clogs' - buggered if I know. This guy doesn't know either. It's just one of those silly euphemisms like 'shuffle off this mortal coil', 'snuff it' etc..

In response to an earlier comment by Peter UK: you're right, the better analogy is with William Joyce, a.k.a Lord Haw-Haw, rather than Julius Streicher. Trouble is, during the War the Manchester Guardian didn't quote Joyce's words as if they were reportage.

They're illegally occupying a country.

Mr. Pilger is either lying or not aware that he is in fact wrong. The coalition occupation IS legal. UN Security Council Resolution 1483 authorizes the occupation.

Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the
specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the “Authority”),

Noting further that other States that are not occupying powers are working now or in the future may work under the Authority,

Welcoming further the willingness of Member States to contribute to stability and security in Iraq by contributing personnel, equipment, and other resources under
the Authority,

Of course what Mr. Pilger ignores is the fact that "the resistance" is not predominantly attacking soldiers from foreign armies but in fact attacking Iraqi policeman, Kurdish Iraqis and Shi'a Iraqis.

Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ali had a great debate about "the resistance" on the American radio program "Democracy Now". Hitchens destroyed Ali's propogation that there was/is a legitimate resistance to the international occupation. John Pilger could do the people of the world a great service by watching it.

I'm nice. Feel free to watch the "Democracy Now" show yourself. Send it to Pilger if you can.

Perhaps the most telling comment from Pilger was that the only countries he feared the US might go after were all fascist dictatorships.

I see that like most left-wingers, Pilger has absolutely no idea of historical realities. Ignoring his mish-mashed view of 20th Century history, can anybody enlighten me as to what the hell he is talking about about Gauls crossing the Rubicon ? Yes, Gauls did threaten Rome at one time, but this was in early Republican days, well before Caesar. Caesar crossing the Rubicon (and bringing his army into Rome, which was expressly forbidden) to many denotes the real end of the effective power of the Republic, but I get the impression that Pilgers view of history wil always be exactly what Pilger wants it to be. A lot like the idiot UK MP for Europe who talks about Crusaders attacking Istanbul and the innocent Turks, thereby proving to the world that he has no conception of one of the root causes of Greek/Turkish antagonism, when of course, to our shame, it was Western Crusaders sacking Constantinople and its Orthodox Christian inhabitants in 1204, only for the Turks to do it again in 1453.
Still, as many of your correspondents have pointed out, Western Civilzation is what these people hate, so why should they bother to learn its history ?

Has anyone considered that the majority of "Iraqi freedome fighters" that have died attacking coalition forces are actually Syrian or Egyptian? Presumably Pilger will be interviewed by Al Jazzera next and exhort the suicide bombers to go home and let the Iraqis kill themselves?

Oh gee, Harry, that "use by" meme has gotten sooo tired. You might say it's past its use by date.

In any event, no history of Australia's defense industry (the topic of the justifiably out-of-print Andrew Ross book) would be complete without acknowledging the great contribution of the Beaufort bomber, Cruiser tank and the Owen gun to Australia's defense. The defense industry and government certainly learned a lot about fighting each other.

So when the Indonesians were fighting to get rid of Dutch colonial rule in the late 1940s, and Australian unionists were refusing to let Dutch ships load or refuel in solidarity, PIlger would have been telling them "No! No! This is a matter for the Indonesian people themselves to settle!"?

Or with the Timorese 1975-99?

DTS. GBTMWYS. [*]

[*]= "Didn't think so. Get back to me when you're serious". I use the phrase so much in debates with Lefties these days, it's easier just to acronym.

Eg: "So you'd cheer if Bush did go on to topple Assad, Mugabe, Boy Kim and the SLORC? You wouldn't be out in the streets screaming 'US imperialism!!!`? No? DTS. GBTMWYS."

Or: "You think straights like Britney have trivialised the institution of marriage already? So you'd be happy to abolish no-fault divorce? No? DTS. GBTMWYS."

Save your throat and your typing finger.

I'll be happy when assholes like John Pilger are considered legitimate targets.

Doug- I believe the phrase comes from the involuntary reflex of one's toes "curling up" upon death, causing wooden shoes to pop off the deceased's feet; it was popularised by a character in VIZ called Suicidal Sid, who was always trying to pop his clogs, pop his cork etc.
In the case of Pilger, I think the epithet die horribly and in great pain from an incredibly slow-growing bowel tumor, you loathesome, spotted reptile woud be more appropriate.

Tuttle, I'm well aware there were `divisions' in barracks - that does not make a fighting force, raw material yes but not a fighting force. There is a hell of a difference, as the history of warfare shows.A difference telling when the enemy is battle hardened, has regrouped and ready to push on.And the Jap soldier was no choco Tuttle.

Moreover, my post responds to the if case put by Pilger, Japanese army occupying OZ.He is putting the if case of imagining resistance with the japs firmly planted in OZ, as an analogy to Iraq.I'll say it again, on that scenario alone, resisters, with or without chocos, would have had a snowflake's chance in hell.

P.S. I'm acquainted with some who were in the `spare divisions', nothing related by them suggests they were capable of mounting battle.

Its a Western, Democratic, Capitalism-dominated world as led and represented by the hyperpower and mega-power ascending United States of America.
What the post-USSR Western and Free world is dealing with are knowingly failed, but STILL power-mad COMMUNISTS and their aligned DESPOTIC/COMMAND SOCIALISTS-WELFARISTS STILL BENT ON CONQUERING THE WORLD BY FORCING [FAILED] DOMESTIC SOCIALISM AS WELL AS EXTERNAL INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONTROL ON THE USA, via UN-BASED GLOBAL GOVERNMENT (OWG), BY 2015-2020 ACCORDING TO SOURCES ON THE AMERICAN INTERNET! As far as I am concerned, what PILGER, as well as the American Clintons, US POTUS Candidate Democrat John Kerry, and American Democrats in general, are trying hard NOT to say is that they covertly but PC want the US and its Coalition to take military action against these so-called "rogue states" in the hope of discrediting and ultimately destroying successful Republicanism-Rightism vis-avis PER SE US MILITARY ANDOR POLICY FAILURE/DEFECT in these international troublespots. It must be understood that since the implosion of the former USSR and the end of the Cold War, Ultra-Left Communist and Ultra-Right Fascist now sleep and work together in the common cause of SAVING LEFTISM-SOCIALISM, TO INCLUDE COMMAND SOCIALISM, and under the PC guise of national and global [RIGHTIST/Right-Leaning]UNITARIANISM - as represented by the Communist American Clintons, Clintonian CENTRISM ie UNITARIANISM allows these dedicated Communists anti-Americans, and anti-Westernists to WORK BOTH FOR AND AGAINST ALL SIDES, in the hopes of INTERNALLY disrupting and fractionalizing both American society and America's traditional two-party government establishment. As self-proclaimed, PC "Centrists" the Clintons hope to discredit and destroy America's Right-Wing by first IMPERSONATING THE RIGHT BUT THEN ABUSING OR PERVERTING IT IN ORDER TO VALIDATE ITS OPPPOSITE- why do you think Bill Clinton both accepts and rejects him being labeled "Republican", and why every other "Republican" in Bush-led America is a FASCIST or RADICAL RIGHTIST-EXTREMISTS save himself; AND WHY DESPITE BEING PRAISED BY MANY DEMOCRATS' AS THEIR PARTY'S FORMAL, ALLEGED SUCCESFUL IDEOLOGICAL ANTITHESIS TO FORMER US PRESIDENT REPUBLICAN RONALD REAGAN, BILL HIMSELF HAS DENIED SEVERAL TIMES BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WHOLE OF AMERICA'S ALLEGED SUPER-PROSPEROUS "CLINTON" REPUBLICAN ECONOMY! Some of you may have subtledly notice that in America, many pro-Left or pro-Democrat expert interviewees on American television no longer or have cut back on direct referrals-credits to Bill Clinton for the 1990's -these now tend to proclaim only that during the post-Bush 1 1993-2000, "more Americans were working" than under Bush 1 or even Reagan. If the Clintons are INTERNALLY DISRUPTIVE for the cause of SOCIALISM in America and OWG, EXTERNALLY the Communist-dominated Unitarians have GLOBAL hotspots like those PILGER HAVE MENTIONED, where the intent is to wilfully but indirectly/alteriorily, and PC of course, cause or induce America to take unilateral and decisive milpol action against MINOR international sovereign "rogue" states vis [GLOBAL] REGIONAL LIMITED WARS, aka FORCED EVOLUTION AND CREATION OF AN AMERICAN-CENTRIC GLOBAL WELFARE STATE, this latter eventually to come under anti-American and non-AMerican Communist-controled, [Unitarian] Socialist OWG! As a matter of ECONOMICS, the COMMUNISTS and Failed Left are looking to FASCIST SOCIALIST ECONOMICS to be their answer to the dominance of American-Western global capitalism, where although all matters of local, state, regional, and global governance will be COMMUNIST-CONTROLLED - read, RUSSIAN-CHINESE - for the new Socialist world order, ECONOMICS-MATERIALISM per se WILL BE FASCIST - read, under DE-REGULATED, LOCAL, REGIONAL, CANTON, OR CORPORATE AUTONOMOUS, NEW COMMUNISM! Why should anyone be surprised that for the PC Clintons, there are no COLD WAR COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST LABELS ANYMORE, ONLY FEDERALISTS AND SUPERFEDERALISTS, jusT like there are no AMERICAN DEMOCRATS or LIBERALS, only REPUBLICANS, QUASI-REPUBLICANS, REPUBLICANISTS, RIGHTISTS-CONSERVATIVES, and RIGHT-LEANING or CENTER-RIGHT CENTRISTS-MODERATES, versions of the GOP-Right! As the old saying goes, "GERMANY and JAPAN WON WW2, didn't they - the Clintons and Communists are only acknowledging and obeying the merits of that adage, aren't they!? As indicated by 9-11, it does NOT matter anymore to the Communists and the failed Left if hyperpower America is ISOLATIONIST, NEUTRAL, or EXPANSIONIST-IMPERIALIST - America will be violently or militarily attacked as many times as needed, or otherwise caused or induced to take defensive international actions, as many times as needed, to force it to adopt SOCIALISM and be anti-sovereignially suborned under INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST OWG CONTROL! THE ANTI-AMERICAN EURO-SOCIALISTS ARE MAKING A GRAVE, GRAVE MISTAKE IF THEY BELIEVE THE CLINTONS ARE ON THEIR SIDE, OR THAT ONCE AMERICA IS UNDER SOCIALISM AND OWG, THAT RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL MAKE DEMOCRAT-SOCIALIST EUROPE THEIR "PEER" AS TO MUTUAL POWER- AND RESOURCE-SHARING - THEY ARE IDEOLOGICALLY DESPERATE AND IN THEIR PROVERBIAL "LAST-STAND" OR "FINAL BATTLE", "KILL OR BE KILLED" MODE. BETTER THE WHOLE WORLD DIE THAN FOR FAILED COMMUNISM TO NOT RULE, BY 2015-2020, OR AFTER!

So if Australia was ruled by the murderous dictator Saddam Hussein, and the US came to liberate us, we would all be out there blowing up anyone who dares help out the liberators??? I don't think so, Pilger.

Good god, JosephMendiola, I don't know if I agree or disagree with you, but please learn to use the enter key (twice in succession works well for splitting up ideas coherently). And forget that caps lock exists.

John Pilger’s new film is called Breaking the Silence ??!?? Is this sarcasm ? The guy never shuts up!

Breaking Wind might be a better title.

Could it be possible that some of what Pilger has said may be illegal? i.e inciting violence. I have no idea what the laws are but maybe some of you are lawers and can enlighten me?

So if the Iraqi policemen are legit targets because they are US puppets, can I legitamtely shoot Pilger for being on the other side?

Fisk it, Tim!

We have repugnant people like Chomsky and Ramsey Clark... why can't they ever go to the front lines and accidently get fragged, or have horrific accidents like Rachel Corrie and lose an argument with a D9?

Freedom of speech is a wondrous thing which is why we can turn these whacked out idiots off, but is why we have to put up with the likes of Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand and other moronic celebrities. But, just once I'd love to line them up against a wall and allow my friends rather large st. bernard dog walk down the line and urinate all over their legs..

"what you have going on in Iraq now is a kind of re-Nazification, the same sort of thing that went on in Germany after the Second World War."

The man doesn't have a moral illness, he has a mental illness. He thinks the US "re-nazified" Germany after WW2. I guess Schroeder and the Greens are just some kind of cover...

While it's true to say that the reserve Australian divisions were not battle-hardened I'd say that wars of national defense tend to create very tough, determined armies very fast (see russia vs hitler).

Since the remanent of the Australian forces in Papua were able to fight the much larger Japanese forces to a standstill in the jungle, I don't think that bodes well for Japan's ability to take over the Australian homeland, fighting hundreds of miles from their home country on Australian home turf with the entire population against them.

Come on, 'hardened' or not, the Japs would have been eaten alive. I think your forgetting the fighting record of the Australian soldier.

Schroeder, Greens, Nazis? I've made that connection before. But I don't believe it was what the allies had in mind when we re-democratized Germany.

Good god, JosephMendiola, I don't know if I agree or disagree with you, but please learn to use the enter key (twice in succession works well for splitting up ideas coherently). And forget that caps lock exists.

Of course, if your ideas aren't coherent, no amount of punctuation will fix that.

“In any event, no history of Australia's defense industry (the topic of the justifiably out-of-print Andrew Ross book) would be complete without acknowledging the great contribution of the Beaufort bomber, Cruiser tank and the Owen gun to Australia's defense. The defense industry and government certainly learned a lot about fighting each other.”
Posted by: Lee at March 11, 2004 at 10:21 AM

------------------------------

There were certainly stuff ups, but then the successes outweighed them, the Rifles, Mgs, Mortars, Arty, all the ammunition, radars, optics, etc.

BTW, the Cruiser tank was found to only need a lttle development (like every other prototype tank ever made) and it would have been an excellent Veh – it was dropped because it wasn't needed anymore, not because it was not a good tank.

-------------------------------------

Tuttle, I'm well aware there were `divisions' in barracks - that does not make a fighting force, raw material yes but not a fighting force. There is a hell of a difference, as the history of warfare shows.A difference telling when the enemy is battle hardened, has regrouped and ready to push on.And the Jap soldier was no choco Tuttle.
Moreover, my post responds to the if case put by Pilger, Japanese army occupying OZ.He is putting the if case of imagining resistance with the japs firmly planted in OZ, as an analogy to Iraq.I'll say it again, on that scenario alone, resisters, with or without chocos, would have had a snowflake's chance in hell.
P.S. I'm acquainted with some who were in the `spare divisions', nothing related by them suggests they were capable of mounting battle.
Posted by: d at March 11, 2004 at 11:08 AM

---------------------------

And again the myth rears its ugly head – the Armys own report (AA MP729, series 6, file 42/401/142) stated that 22.5% of all major units were ready for mobile offensive ops at Bde or higher level; 48% were ready for static or semi static ops at Bde or higher level; 81% of all major units were ready for static or mobile ops at Bn level. 19% had not completed Bn level training.

Clearly, “D”, you are in no way aquainted with the 'spare divs' would you like to produce some cites to back your position?

BTW, the Japanese Army acknowledged that their experience in the jungle did not prepare them for warfare in Aust, see D.S Detwiler (ed) War in Asia and the Pacific 1937 – 1949 Vol 7, 'The Southern Area Part 2' section 4 document 55412.

and the Japanese Army had not regrouped and was utterly incapable of 'pushing on'

29 Jan 42 Yamamto was only prepared to commit to invasions of Lae, Salamoa, Tulagi and Port Moresby. He was not interested in an invasion of Australia, that was a waste of manpower and too roundabout a way to end the war speedily.

(BBS, Daihon’ei kaigunbu, rengokaitai, Vol 2, p.309; and Nanto homen kaigun sakusen, Vol 1 p.355).

7 Mar 42 at the Combined IJA and IJN HQ liaison conference mid level naval officers put forward a plan to invade Australia, it was ridiculed by the IJA leadership as ‘gibberish’ and it was noted that troops were not available and logistic problems were quoted.

The IJN leadership (the direct superiors of the officers proposing the invasion) left it at ‘shipping is not available’.

From that conference emerged the ‘Fundamental Outline of Recommendations for Future War Leadership’ paper, signed by the Combined IJN and IJA HQs at the liaison conference and presented by Tojo, Sugiyama and Nagano to the emperor on 13 Mar 42 states in Paragraph 3, as a “future option to demonstrate positive warfare” that ‘a temporary invasion of port Darwin , if and when the situation allowed; that is, if Chaing Kai Shek could be brought down and the Soviet threat removed’

(BBS, Daihon’ei kaigunbu, rengokantai, Vol 2, pp 337-8).

So to make a LIMITED invasion of Aust practical, all the Japs had to do was defeat China AND the USSR, thats pretty likely...

Remember, the people making this assessment (Combined IJN and IJA HQs) are the ones that could see Japans real logistic position, productive capacity and ongoing fuel, stores and munitions requirements and production levels..

BTW, the Allies knew the Japs were not coming as of mid April 1942 as noted in the Allied Combined Operations Intelligence Centre minute, 11 Apr 1942, [NAA] MP1587;218s SRs 575 ‘Magic summary’, 18 April 1942, RG257, US National Archives and Records Administration.

Before Coral Sea.

Thanks Tim for bringing this outrage to wider attention. Here's John Anderson's press release...I thought your readers might be interested...

Toxic Pilger Must Retire to the Media Pasture

A33/2004 11th March 2004

The long and sad decline of Australian “journalist” John Pilger is now complete after his utterly disgraceful comments on ABC television last night where he said Australian soldiers were “legitimate targets” in Iraq and should be killed by resistors.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of The Nationals, John Anderson, said this well known apologist for Saddam Hussein’s unbelievably brutal Baathist regime in Iraq had completely lost his marbles.

“It’s not my style to make personal attacks, but these stunningly dangerous views as expressed by Pilger really need to be exposed to the public and demolished by
other more sensible members of the media,” Mr Anderson said.

“I fear that those in Australian society who were opposed to the use of outside force in the liberation of Iraq will be swayed in some way by Pilger’s former reputation as an ‘independent commentator’.

“However, I doubt anybody other than the stark raving mad would subscribe to his views when he suggests that it is ‘incredibly important’ that Saddam’s allies are able to stage a successful resistance to stop the United States from engaging in more wars. Apparently even China will be invaded by the US in the next 10 years, according to Pilger’s toxic rantings.

“Pilger saves his worst when he tries to explain how internal Iraqi resistance would have somehow removed Saddam, even though after 30 years he remained untouchable within Iraq until the Coalition removed him. That resistance now has the right to kill Allied soldiers, Pilger says.

TONY JONES: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?

JOHN PILGER: Well yes, they're legitimate targets. They're illegally occupying a country. And I would have thought from an Iraqi's point of view they are legitimate targets, they'd have to be, sure.

“How astonishing is this? Pilger has forgotten that Saddam’s tyrannical regime left more than one million people dead. Does he really think the vast majority of Iraqis or indeed those in the Arab world want a madman like Saddam back in power?

“Pilger’s wild statements do not end there. He also cites incredible claims that upwards of 1,000 Iraqis are being killed every week, and 55,000 during the actual invasion. Not even the looniest left-winger with the barest grasp of reality has come up with these numbers.

“I am glad that Pilger with his nutty extremism was not around to ‘report’ during the Second World War. It’s all too easy to imagine him condemning Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt for ‘invading’ Europe in June 1944.

“The public should see what Pilger really stands for. I urge them to visit ABC Lateline’s website and see this tripe for themselves.”

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1063309.htm

Media contact: Paul Chamberlin 02 62777680

P.S. Orwell was a damned genius with tremendous insight. For a long time I thought double-think and new-speak were interesting speculative ideas, until I saw them in their full splendor in the wild. Fiction ain't got nothin' on reality, 'cause the real world ain't.

John Pillager.

Robin,

Your first post had me thinking there's a name for the "disconnect" of which you speak . . .

Your last post brought it to mind . . . Orwellian irony otherwise known as doublethink.

Scary thoughts indeed.

Harry

Try a compromise, The US helped prevent Japan from extorting influence over Australia if they had secured Indonesia. And I think Japan was likely to restart its expansion to grab Australias resources at a later date.

I thought the whole interview was poorly handled. Jones seemed to be confused when Pilger stated that the Iraqi's viewed the invaders as legitimate targets, he seemed to be implying that Pilger himself viewed them as legitimate targets. The interview got bogged down on those semantics.

I would have liked to have seen Jones really attack the "Iraqi's should have brought regime change themselves" comment, and also "how important the resistance is to the rest of the world because otherwise its China within a decade". Both of those viewpoints are hard to take seriously and deserved more exploration.

O.K. I'm wrong on the history of capacity Tuttle.I 'll say that, freely. I stand corrected.

That case is of course far different from Pilger's scenario of an analogy.

Try a compromise, The US helped prevent Japan from extorting influence over Australia if they had secured Indonesia. And I think Japan was likely to restart its expansion to grab Australias resources at a later date.

Posted by: Gary at March 11, 2004 at 01:50 PM
-----------------------

Not even that, Japan had no ability to do more than bomb Nth Aust and that would be rapidly curtailed by better Australian fighters (The CA-14A, a turbosupercharged version of the much derided Boomerang that was not pursued vigorously, was found to compare favorably with the SpitVC, P-47 and P-51 - AAC Minutes 5 July 1943).

Japan had no ability to blockade Aust - too many big ports too far south.

Japan was in deep shit with the USSR, they still held Russian territory and Russia was planning on getting it back with interest once Germany was dealt with, Japan did not have a long term military future but hadn't realised it yet.

Japan was far more concerned about the Soviets than the US, in reality one or the other was going to nail them.

-----------------------------

O.K. I'm wrong on the history of capacity Tuttle.I 'll say that, freely. I stand corrected.

That case is of course far different from Pilger's scenario of an analogy.

Posted by: d at March 11, 2004 at 02:34 PM

---------------------------

I agree with you there, I think the solution is to drop Pilger into North Korea and let him explain to the NK peasants how they must free themselves.

I give him 15 mins before he is sold out to the security forces for 1/2 a cabbage and another 20 mins before the electrodes are applied.

But it will give him a chance to try out his ideas in the real world.

Has any society that has been conquered by a superior force ever been able to evict the conquerors by themselves?

Given enough time, most conquered societies have been able to assimilate their conquerors into their own society. It takes a long time.

I don't no what your getting at Harry, is it that Australia didn't need US help. or what? If so don't you think things mite have changed Japans plans?

"I give him 15 mins before he is sold out to the security forces for 1/2 a cabbage and another 20 mins before the electrodes are applied."

Harry, I give him ten minutes before he is stew meat. He could feed a village.

As someone wrote above, it is highly unlikely that the USA /(insert John Pilger here) is 100% wrong all the time.

Pilger saying that Amercan/Australian troops are legitimate targets is as foolish, though less inciting to violence, than a commander-in-chief proclaiming "bring it on".

The fact is invasion http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/71.htm (even if for humanitarian reasons) is expensive. And some folk http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2732.htm might view what you believe is a humanitarian reason, as being done out of self motivation alone.

There were many many dirt poor, hungry Vietnamese (1979-1989) who thought the government should have just said fuck it to the problem in Cambodia. They were supporting an internationally acknowledged economic basket case!

Cheers to the knuckle draggers who want "a cap in the back of Pilger's head", you are so brave so brutal and so beyond the curve.Wow.

"I don't no what your getting at Harry, is it that Australia didn't need US help. or what? If so don't you think things mite have changed Japans plans?

Posted by: Gary at March 11, 2004 at 04:05 PM "

---------------------

The simple fact is that Aust didn't need US help as Japan was unable to invade Aust in the timeframe they had, they lacked the forces, the intent, the shipping and the oil to invade.

That timeframe was dictated by the amount of time it took the USSR to finish Germany, because the USSR was always going to crush Japan once Germany was sorted.

Nothing Japan could do changes that simple fact.

It's also worth remembering what President Truman said in regard to lend lease/reverse lend lease -

"on balance, the contribution made by Australia, a country having a population of about seven millions, approximately equalled that of the United States" (report to congress on lend lease, 27 December 1946).

Up to your old tricks again, Timmy? If you'd post the whole transcript and comment on it, or quote the transcript verbatim, you might just win yourself some credo, but seeing as you prefer to have things sound your way, the latter is unlikely to occur.

"Given enough time, most conquered societies have been able to assimilate their conquerors into their own society. It takes a long time."

Harold,
I suppose going on a case by case basis *might* prove you right but it seems to me to be the other way around, as evidenced by the fact that the languages of France, Spain, Portugal and Romania are all *Romance* languages rather than the Celtic tongues they'd previously been prior to Roman conquest. Likewise, the Britons in the Saxon lands were so assimulated by the Saxons that archeaology and the occasional folk tale is about the only way we can trace the fact that they existed. Their assimulation was that complete. I suppose you *could* argue that Saxon England absorbed the Normans, but note that the English we debate this question in would be unrecognizable to the Saxons whose own tongue was more akin to Danish. Time alone did not do that. Offhand, I'd say that the question of who assimulates who depends on the number involved of conquerers to conquered and the level of dominance and legitimacy in the eyes of the conquerred that the conquerer has been able to establish.

- S.P.M.

I'm sure most of the Vietnamese were grateful for the Pol Pot diversion, as most of them were busy putting together rafts with which to die on the open seas. Expensive, indeed. You are sooo civilized, sir!

As for Pilger, such world-class delusion is truly terrifying. Faced with such unflinching faith, I can't help but think of the Soviet apparatchniks in the 30's stoically awaiting their bullet in the neck for the good of the party. The only problem is, the Pilgers of the world want to take all of civilization them to their martyrdom.

Pilger is sanitizing scum who not only attack troops while pretending to be civilians, but they are deliberately killing civilians.

So for this asshole (John Pilger) you have to depose dictators by yourself. Fortunately brave Americans, British, Aussies, Kiwis,etc. did not think so 60 years ago. My uncle leaved Buchenwald concentration camp thanks to Allied forces freeing Europe. In italy we could not win fascist loyalists and germans by ourselves. Vaffanculo to the John Pilger men of every country.

Unless Tim is selectively quoting, it sounds as if Pilger is supporting the "resistance" for the sake of America (and other countries), with not a word of it being for Iraq's benefit. Self centred? The America-haters? Gosh, who would have thought.

See Michael Quinion's World Wide Words site for all your clog-popping needs.

Teenage Diplomat: That World Wide Words site is great. Tks for the link.

Ah, moral equivalency at its finest.

"Up to your old tricks again, Timmy? If you'd post the whole transcript and comment on it, or quote the transcript verbatim, you might just win yourself some credo, but seeing as you prefer to have things sound your way, the latter is unlikely to occur."

Posted by: Niall at March 11, 2004 at 06:23 PM

What's the matter niall? Pilger's own treacherous comments not enough for you?

SFC McElroy US ARMY

Niall: Actually, posting the whole transcript might violate little things like copyright laws. Maybe Tim should have just posted the link to the transcript and then quoted his favorite quotes... oh wait, he did that.

Notice that Niall didn't actually bother to quote anything that would change the tone of what Tim quoted.

Pilger is a moron, no doubt. But his kind of lunacy is not solely the property of the left. Has anyone here heard of Ann Coulter, the right-wing nutcase who accused every liberal in America of treason?

So Brad, if Ann Coulter were to accuse Pilger of treason that would be wrong?

By the way, News flash this morning from Glenn Reynolds found at The Smoking Gun:

"A former Democratic congressional aide was arrested today on charges that she worked as an Iraqi spy. Susan Lindauer, 41, has been charged with conspiring to work with the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions with Saddam Hussein's government, according to the below indictment unsealed today by federal prosecutors in New York. Lindauer, arrested this morning at her Maryland home, allegedly met with Iraqi agents during several visits to the country's U.N. mission, where she "accepted various payments" in return "for services provided to the IIS in the course of her ongoing intelligence relationship with them."

I think Susan is a liberal/lefty. The courts will decide if this is treason.

Has anyone else noticed this ironic little quirk of the word processor spell check? These words aren't recognised, and are substituted thus:

Pilger = Pillager
Fisk = Fiasco
Saddam = Sadism

If I knew more about this Pilger guy, maybe I would assess the ambiguous parts of his statements more harshly. Maybe he really is a Ramsey Clark kind of guy. But I've read the excerpts from his interview, unemotionally, and am hard pressed to locate any serious misstatement of FACT. Every nation has the sovereign right to repel invaders. That includes the nation of Iraq - no matter how appalling and felonious Americans find Hussein's murderous regime.

Maybe America has a moral obligation to rescue oppressed people, like the Iraqis, and maybe it doesn't. But who decides whether we send the army to Iraq, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Haiti, Venezuela, Palestine, Columbia, Sierra Leone, or the shores of Tripoli? Who's our conscience, Ted Kennedy? Dan Rather? Pat Buchanan? Would some American's decision make the Iraq action legal? By whose definition, the UN's?

Had Pilger not acknowledged Hussein's abuses, then we'd have a problem. But he simply applied the same logic to Iraq as we would use to explain why it's OK for another country, say Kuwait, to expel visitors hostile to its sovereign government. His point is academic, and is not the same thing as excusing the actions of a law-breaking mob whose cause one finds agreeable.

That said, here's to hoping that the US and President Bush are wildly successful in the boldest example of nation-building, for the right reasons, in my lifetime. Let Pilger rest in the ivory towers, and let's concentrate on the media that can't seem to cover anything except the daily body count - leaving us ignorant of the progress made by the coalition in everything from local governance to electricty production to currency stabilization. We're missing out on breath-taking history.

Hmmn, Harry might have ahppened on something, re cabbage leavs. Pilger a rabbit,to be used for experiments, vivisectional, in neuro-science, at Girton, Cambridge once it has been built.

I thought I was the only person on Earth who realized what John Pilger is...so reading the posts here has been a morale-booster...it is heartening to see that I'm not alone.

Still I notice that no one here mentions Pilger's "report" aired on BBC World, "Killing The Chidren Of Iraq." This, along with the BBC's stunningly unprofessional coverage of the war in Afghanistan and the lunatic babble of Tim Sebastian, finally led me to realize the scope and depth of anti-USA and anti-Western sentiment and prejudice at the BBC. A little reading in British sources clarified things for me. Hatred of the USA, a distrust of liberty and a sympathy for the fascist/socialist/communist regimes of the world are features of the Oxbidge mentality.

The smug British elite generally falls into two camps: the hard-shelled Tories and the lame-brained Lefties. Pilger is a conspicuous spokesman for a cultural phenomenon, namely, a generalized self-hatred and contrarian mindset. The Beeb's employees are almost all drawn from this gaggle neo-Marxist, quasi-Stalinist "progressives." They live and breathe a bias that they no longer recognize, which makes the BBC little more than a propaganda vehicle masquerading as a news service.

The problem Western civilization faces is not its alien opponents, but its enemies who are within the gates.

To truly see the depth the BBC has sunk to, click on the Biased BBC link at Instapundit. It is mindnumbing!!

As for Pilger; who cares? A little man with a little mind and no powers of reason of his own. Just trying to get a little recognition and attention. Much like a child uttering an obscenity at the dinner table. Hasn't a clue as to what it actually means - but it sounds important.

The late Auberon Waugh had Pilger worked out nicely; uncovered a fabrication Johnny invented about child prostitution somewhere or other. He invented a verb "to pilger" . Can't remember what it means now; something along the lines of bare-faced lie.
Anyway Pilger is quite mad. Heard someone on the ABC conversation hour talking about guests he'd met on the show, and all he could offer was that Pilger was the weirdest he'd come across. Humourless idealogue who got very stoppy if his point of view was challenged. John boy overlooked one minor detail with his "occupation" analogy; Australia was democratic sociey in 1940s, Iraq in 2003 fell a couple of feet short of the mark in this regard.
If anyone wants to start a satirical magazine taking the piss out of these loonies, get in touch. Trouble is, would be harder to be funnier than people like "radical John"