June 22, 2004

LABOR'S TERROR POLICY: CLOSE EYES, HUM LOUDLY

Labor appeasement spokesman Kevin Rudd wants out of the war against terror:

Howard argued from the outset that the Iraq war was necessary to reduce the overall threat of terrorism to Australia. Barely a week before major hostilities in Iraq began, he argued: "I see disarming Iraq as being part of the wider war against terrorism."

And everybody, repeat everybody, knew the "war against terrorism" meant the "war against al-Qa'ida," as Howard deliberately conflated the two.

The Prime Minister's problem is that this entire argument came apart last week when the September 11 inquiry concluded there was "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved with al-Qa'ida's September 11 attacks on the US.

Howard spoke of Iraq in the context of a "wider war" against terrorism. Rudd seeks to undermine him by narrowing Iraq's role to a possible involvement in September 11 -- which nobody asserted in the first place. Rudd, you get the feeling, doesn’t read much beyond headlines.

Here in our own region, the Howard Government has had even greater difficultly sustaining the political fiction that the Government's participation in the Iraq war has had no impact on the JI threat.

The head of Indonesia's intelligence service Ahmad Hendropriyono confirmed only last month that the Iraq war has further stimulated JI activity in Indonesia. Tracking down JI is Hendropriyono's main job. You would think he would know what JI is up to.

And you’d think the Rudd would know that the Bali attack preceded our involvement in Iraq. Terrorists wanted us dead before Iraq, and they want us dead now. This is because they are terrorists.

The Iraq war and our involvement in it makes it easier for JI to recruit in Indonesia – just as it also contributes to the increasing Middle Easternisation of Islamic politics in South-East Asia. And for Australia, lying next door to the largest Islamic country in the world, it is not helpful for our national security.

We certainly will be lying if Rudd has his way. Face-down and pleading; not exactly a position of strength. Rudd deserves to be run out of Parliament for these achingly empty lines:

This is John Howard at his Orwellian worst. Trying desperately to convince people that black is white – and that white is black.

When he's got nothing to say, Kevin says it twice.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 22, 2004 12:24 PM
Comments

What makes me mad is this 'if we stay quiet and do nothing,they will leave us alone' mindset.

It doesn't work in a school playground with bullies and it certainly doesn't work in the wider world. There are a number of countries and or their citizens attacked who have played no part in the war against terror, what of them?

Do we sit back and watch other,nations get attacked and say nothing, for fear of what might happen. This makes us cowards in the extreme, let it happen to others, but please don't let it happen to us.

The penny hasn't dropped with the left, eat as many kebabs as you like , terrorists hate us for who we are, what we do or don't do is immaterial. This leftist onanism about 'the noble freedom fighter', there must have been something to have annoyed them, gets my goat.
(with apologies to Habib, who, I know is sensitive about his goat)

Posted by: nic at June 22, 2004 at 12:35 PM

And everybody, repeat everybody, knew the "war against terrorism" meant the "war against al-Qa'ida," as Howard deliberately conflated the two.

Not Me. Repeat, Not Me.

Posted by: Johnny Wishbone at June 22, 2004 at 01:00 PM

Pix wants to boost terrorist recruiting. If fighting back and killing the losers boosts recruiting, just think how recruiting will be boosted if they think they can win.

Posted by: John Paulson at June 22, 2004 at 01:28 PM

stupid fucking bush and his poodles! if they wouldnt have started the war in Iraq, 9/11 would have never happened!!!

Posted by: Oktober at June 22, 2004 at 01:42 PM

John Paulson - BAM! hits the nail on the head! right on man

Posted by: Oktober at June 22, 2004 at 01:46 PM

The troops will not come home under Labour. They will simply designate them as peacekeepers police or aid workers and all will be the same as before.

Posted by: Le clerc at June 22, 2004 at 01:47 PM

If memory serves me and it does, one Kevin Rudd went out of his was lasy year on the Seven Sunrise show to make it clear and I quote "It has always been Labor's view that Iraq not only possesses WMD's but is involved in acquiring Uranium from Africa and also negotiating weapons sales with teror groups like Al-Qeada".

He further claimed that "After reviewing our own intelligence we believe that Saddam Hussein is in breach of resolution 1441 and has failed to supply proof of his claims he has no WMD's.

Labor have their own intelligence???

As i recall Labor have made unsubstantiated claims that the Howard government knew of impending danger in Bali and refused to act. On the other hand, the Howard government have acted on credible evidence about Iraq, evidence that wasn't at the time disputed by Labor, and now Labor are saying they shouldn't have. I'll wager that if the Howard government hadn't of agreed to go to Iraq Labor would have called them cowards.

As you said nic, countries that have no involvement in Iraq are being attacked so running away like labor cowards sin't the way to act. They killed more than 200 people in Bali, 88 Aussies, so taking hostages and claiming it is in response to our agression is bullshit. These filth are just starting to realise we have more guts than them and don't like the fact we are fighting back. If Latham gets elected we will be high on the list of Soft Targets.

P.S. As for Oktober, learn your history you fuckwit. The first attacks on the WTC were on February 26, 1993 and were from a car bomb. The coalition forces went into Iraq in 1991 to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Saddam Hussein was directly linked to the funding of those attacks. So maybe if Hussein hadn't of been such a malicious fuckwit none of this wouldn't have happened...

Posted by: scott at June 22, 2004 at 01:56 PM

I can't take little Kev seriously as a potential Foreign Minister: with his owl-like face, the round glasses and his beatific countenance, put him in a gown and ruffles and he'd look just like a choirboy - one who hasn't yet been abused.

Posted by: narkynark at June 22, 2004 at 02:19 PM

Kevin Rudd, speaking in Parliament on September 17, 2002:

[Saddam] has invaded his neighbours, in complete violation of international law, and he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which in the past he has used against his own people as well as his neighbours. None of these matters are the subject of dispute.

More recently, he had this to say regarding the UN, hindsight and international affairs:

When the history of this century is finally written, it may well be that those who follow us look back at 2003 in the same way as we look back at 1945, at 1919 and even 1815.

According to this logic, people in the future will therefore rejoice that a great and murderous evil in Iraq was toppled. They will be disgusted with Kevin Rudd for turning a pragmatic and procrastinating - if not actually blind - eye to Saddam's mass murder. After all, as Rudd continues,

It is impossible for any moral human being to remain unaffected by those [Nazi concentration] camps.

Just as it is impossible for any moral human being to remain indifferent to inhumanity and injustice wherever it may occur.

And Kofi Annan would be well advised to follow this piece of advice from the Pixie-Metternich of the antipodes when he contemplates his and the UN's criminal negligence regarding Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia and Sudan:

Remember the essential condition of international humanitarian intervention is that the intervention must occur now - to either prevent or ameliorate large-scale killings, mass murder or crimes against humanity. And it should be done through the Security Council.

Trouble is, of course, the Babelesque Security Council has never managed to have its presumably limitless translation facilities come up with a functional definition of 'now'. So people die by the tens of thousands. Rudd would have that continue for the sake of legalistic elegance.

Now he and his leader would endanger Australian lives by courting a Spanish-style attack on Australians in order to boost their prospects at the next election.

Cowardly, snivelling, dangerous, lying little chiwawa.

Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 22, 2004 at 02:22 PM

That is a slur on chihuahuas, CurrencyLad. On all dogs, in fact.

Retract!

You can call him a rat instead if you really do require a comparison with the animal kingdom, but even rats don't lie.

Posted by: ilibcc at June 22, 2004 at 02:28 PM

Eloquently put Currencylad.
This guy running Foreign affairs sends chills down my spine.

Posted by: Yasonas at June 22, 2004 at 02:35 PM

I firmly believe that George Orwell has surpassed William Shakespeare as the most misappropriated and misunderstood author of the English language.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at June 22, 2004 at 02:36 PM

Cowardly?

Reminds me of the behavior of all those pro-war people who had the opportunity to serve in a war they believed in (Vietnam) but chose the National Guard or deferments. Nothing dishonourable about being against the war, going to protest marches etc., but to be in favor of it and opt out: now that's cowardice.

Posted by: Adam at June 22, 2004 at 02:45 PM

Adam, you really shouldn't defame Bill Clinton like that. You have no idea how difficult that decision must have been. Not that he needs to worry about your opinion, seeing that he's still the media darling, judging by his $10 million book advance and Dan Rather's laughably obsequious interview.

Posted by: Spiny Norman at June 22, 2004 at 02:54 PM

Timbo,
If you wish to use pejoratives such as appeaser look in your own backyard.

The main reason for AQ gaining in strength was the appalling attempt by Bush et al to eliminate AQ in 2001.

Why did he not finish the job instead of cutting and running?
If he had finished the job it is problematic whether Bali wuold have happened!
That is why the world is in the mess it is now. Imagine all those billions being used to eliminate AQ instead of being used to destroy an imaginary WMDs of Hussein who had imaginary collaboration with AQ who posed an imaginary threat to imaginary countries.

By the way the spanish voted against Aznar who was caught out bigtime lying through his teeth concerning the explosions. It is misleading to say otherwise.

Can I end in saying in terms of today's Newspoll, I told you so!!!

Posted by: Homer Paxton at June 22, 2004 at 02:59 PM

And Adam, I suggest that you sit down and watch the AEI saddam era torture video so you can see what peace is you dumbfuck, if you can sit through that and tell me it wasn't worth it to liberate these people then you have no soul.

The link is right here, now go and watch it.
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp


also


Tracking down JI is Hendropriyono's main job. You would think he would know what JI is up to.

Hmmm, the man that has been failing in his fight against a domestic terrorist organistation has found a reason to pin blame on an outside event, im sure that he genuinely feels that way and it isnt Indonesia's fault at all that JI continues to operate.

Posted by: JBB at June 22, 2004 at 03:01 PM

Wait, jumped too quickly, sorry. Comment still stands for anybody who is antiwar, sorry Adam.

Posted by: JBB at June 22, 2004 at 03:03 PM

the Iraq war has further stimulated JI activity

Give me a freekin' break. The fact that I have a flush toilet and they don't would stimulate further terrorist activity. Gonna' go flush it now!

Posted by: Wallace-Midland, Texas at June 22, 2004 at 03:04 PM

Homer, if you're going to recite rote-learned talking points, could you at least try to do so in a manner that doesn't make you look like such a total feeb?

Re Newspoll: if Labor won as many elections as they win surveys, they'd never be out of office.

Posted by: tim at June 22, 2004 at 03:05 PM

ilibcc: Very well.

I cateorically withdraw my offensive slur against chihuahuas.

And the crime against spelling that attended that slur.

And I apologise to all (including Tim's canine readership) for bringing chihuahuas down to Rudd's level.

Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 22, 2004 at 03:23 PM

The Bali bombers specifically mentioned the
Liberation of East Timor, as did Bin Laden.

Funnily enough this never gets a mention from
the likes of Kevin Rudd.

It upset the extremists,but does that make it wrong?

Should we have done it?

Jack Roche's plans predated 911,Bali and Afghanistan.

Perhaps Kevin could write a letter to Bin Laden
pointing out he shouldn't antagonise Western Armed
forces.

Posted by: fred at June 22, 2004 at 03:46 PM

PAsstor neumuller put it in a nutshell when he stated ipso facto :

Yesterday the took one of my neighbours away
he was a communist. i said nothing because i am not a communist.
This morning they took another neighbour.
he was a Catholic. i said nothing because i am not a catholic.
This afternoon they took another neighbour
He was a Jew . i am not jewish so isaid nothing.
Tibight they took me away and there was no one left to speak for me.

Posted by: davo at June 22, 2004 at 04:26 PM

Such is the level of anti americanism today that pacts are made in hell by the left to support their hideous ideology of appeasement.
The alliance with Islamic jihad is such a pact and god help us if these blinkered loonies ever get into power.
Useful idiots, lenin called them, and he purged them when the time was right.
The wedge that has been driven between America and the west is the work of islamic Jihadism to isolate the Us and overstretch its defence capabilties.
So hungry for oil that they will demonize the people who liberated them from eurpopean fascism !
how sick have we become ?

Posted by: davo at June 22, 2004 at 04:44 PM

The most concerning thing about all these responses is the inference that Kevin Rudd would be somehow inferior to that brown lipped pufferfish that we currently have in Foreign Affairs. I can understand a conservative bent, but i simply can't understand anyone supporting the minister for sycophancy. Downer has developed a reputation as the easiest sell in the west and is the butt of jokes for diplomats the world over. Need a stool pigeon? I'll just get little Alex's number for you sir.

Posted by: Disturbed by you at June 22, 2004 at 05:36 PM

Disturbed by you? I disagree.

Downer has developed a reputation as the easiest sell in the west and is the butt of jokes for diplomats the world over.

An easy thing to assert. Where's your evidence?

Posted by: Quentin George at June 22, 2004 at 05:44 PM

The idea is misleading in that the right has equate all methods other than the use of force is appeasement. Simply to put it, the Democrats is not so simplistic in their thinking. The fight against terror cannot be totally on military campaigns, more so on unjustified ones. After all, the events shown that you cannot bomb terrorism away like Rumsfeld and his proteges might have fallaciously thought.

Posted by: sp at June 22, 2004 at 06:10 PM

http://bunyip.blogspot.com/
SLightly off topic , i know but an indication of Islamic preparation of jihad.
It is the Duty of Muslims to repossess the lands taken away from them by the Infidels.
Although spain is a long way away, and the glory of Al ANdalus must be restored to the Umma, few would consider that Australia is also part of dar al Islam.
Canadians have also been informed that early Islamic sailors mated with Canadian Indians to bring the country into "Land that must be reposseded.
Trust the Age to fulfil its role as a dhimmy pub and print trash like this.

it seems we are all "proto muslims" who have not seen the light as were JC and Avraham.
Will labor endorse these views of Aussie history?

Posted by: davo at June 22, 2004 at 06:13 PM

"After all, the events shown that you cannot bomb terrorism away like Rumsfeld and his proteges might have fallaciously thought."

Please suggest alternatives to fight Islamic Jihad or terrorism as you euphemistically call it.

Posted by: davo at June 22, 2004 at 06:16 PM

As if plagiarising Bubba was not bad enough, the ALP now appears to be borrowing liberally from the John F-ing Kerry playbook:

"LABOR would not oppose draft laws setting up the free trade agreement with the United States when they go before the House of Representatives, Labor's Caucus decided today.

However, it might oppose the laws in the Senate, the party said."

In other words: They'll vote for it before they vote against it.

Posted by: Alex Robson at June 22, 2004 at 06:18 PM

davo,

Apart from attacking military targets, there are also policies and actions to put in place socio-economic systems that will neither tolerate or support terrorists. Or hadn't you noticed?

I know name calling is pretty low in terms of political debate but mate, you are a fucking idiot if you think that military action is all that is occuring.

Posted by: Razor at June 22, 2004 at 07:26 PM

Oops, sorry Davo. sp got me all fired up and I read the wrong posters name.

sp - what I said to Davo above.

Posted by: Razor at June 22, 2004 at 07:28 PM

"the Pixie-Metternich of the antipodes" CurrencyLad hits the jackpot for the sledge of the day.

Come on Tim, give him a prize.

Posted by: Scott Wickstein at June 22, 2004 at 07:42 PM

I just want to interject this in support of Oktober, above: he was obviously being sarcastic. Gotta use them tags!

Anyway, I love the position of this Rudd fellow. So we should have stuck to just going after Al Qaeda? And what if that group decides to reform under another name, as is so common with this shifty horde of fanatics? I guess then we should leave them alone. What as ass.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 22, 2004 at 07:53 PM

Re: saddam's own torturers.

So? We've now filled his prison with our own torturers. And we've brutalised a whole new generation of Iraqis, who can take up Saddam's old habits all over again after we leave.

Posted by: Jeremy at June 22, 2004 at 08:36 PM

Jeremy, did you even watch the video? Show me one instance where those hicks torture prisoners, what they did is clearly abuse and if you have the stomach to sit through that video you may see the difference.

Posted by: JBB at June 22, 2004 at 09:10 PM

sp:

Where were you before the Iraq war? Can you link to any statement you made proposing a clear alternative then, which would have liberated the Iraqi people?

I seem to remember the question being put to many on the left at that time, and invariably that question was dodged.

Posted by: 2dogs at June 22, 2004 at 09:28 PM

JBB
those hick torturers sure deserve dealing with but not for the obvious reasons.
-for the perverse pleasure they show in their dirty work.
Had Atta been caught and tortured before 911 and 3000 people saved i for one believe that the ends would have justified the means.
however i am sure we would have had hordes of students demonstrating against his brutal interrogation.
Anyone who has seen the horrific film of Saddams own tortures at Abu Ghraib can see that ths Us torure was mild in that is was mostly degrading and not genocidal.
It seems the left wnat jihadists to be treated like supermarket shop lifters.
But of course when an American or even a supporter of America kicks over a pot plant in Iraq, it becomes a war crime akin to Nazi brutality.
It is a shaameless exploitation of anti americanism by the left and its journalist cohorts.

Posted by: davo at June 22, 2004 at 09:52 PM

JBB, torture can be defined as "extreme mental distress". So it's not unreasonable to argue that Abu Grahib prisoners were tortured. However, any rational-minded person can see that this torture is incomparable to Saddam's torture.

My local dental surgery is in fact a torture chamber.

Posted by: Dan at June 22, 2004 at 10:08 PM

See but extreme mental distress can also fall under abuse, a lot of what went on is blatant mistreatment and it becomes very difficult to define. It is either minor torture techniques or bad abuse, either way its despicable but it should be dealt in its context. I think it is discraceful because of how many innocent lives will be taken and blamed on the abuse not to mention the additional threat to the troops because of it.

One possible benefit is that we have found nudity is a definite trigger for the Jihadists, it seems that men who are willing to die for a cause aren't quite up to task of standing around tackle out, this may be very useful in future.

Posted by: JBB at June 22, 2004 at 10:27 PM

The fight against Islamist extremism involves not only military means such as targted assaults on Al-Qaeda leaders but also secret covert operations to thwart possible terrorist attacks. It is clear that a war against a regime supporting Osana is justified if the link is proven and clear in the case of Afghanistan. However in Iraq the case for war is now not even clear. Are we in for the weapons of mass destruction or really altrustic nation-building in the Middle East? The basis of war in Iraq keep on changing and its hard to convince people of its righteous.

The US should have concentrated on building consensus and cooperation with other countries on figthing terror. Undermining the UN is already self-defeatist and to no benefuit to the US. Its blind support for Israel should be replaced with a more even-handed approach. Without putting all these genuine efforts to change America's image, the tonnes of democraic rhetoric and advertisement will not convince the Muslims of the goodwill of the US. Its abnout winning the hearts and minds of the people, who ever4 succeeds takes it all. But all the US belligerence seem to generate more potential Osamas and help Al-Qaeda in its effort to turn this war against terror into a Islam-Western civilisation conflict. Save us all the talk about building democracy in Iraq, we all have heard that from Britian's white man's burden to France's mission civilisation. After all haven't the Grand Old Party the most severe critic in the nation-building effort of the Democrats before the advent of George W Bush? How ironical!

Posted by: sp at June 22, 2004 at 10:39 PM

JBB- it seems that men who are willing to die for a cause aren't quite up to task of standing around tackle out, this may be very useful in future.

It may be useful to get people to nude-up prior to boarding an aircraft or passing through a security checkpoint. All who do not wish to flop it out are obviously Jihadi's and should be arrested and transported to Abu-graib ASAP.
It's not racial profiling if we all have to get naked!

Posted by: Yasonas at June 22, 2004 at 10:41 PM

Hm, to bring this back to the actual subject and stop a troll/logical person flame thread, nude security checkpoints should be Labours alternative airport security plan - I mean its original, has some merit and fits in about where the other pieces of policy are.

Posted by: JBB at June 22, 2004 at 11:09 PM

And you all seem to think the preemptive strike and occupation of a conutry will stregthen America's security? Think again! The Iraqi debacle not only strain US military resources but also gave Al Qaeda a cjance to send its fighters into post Saddam iraq to further turn the country into a nightmare for US and her allies, dragging them into a Vietnam style conflict with no end in sight. And did the so-called resolve to strike and use force on the part of the US righten Kim Jong Il or the radical Islamist regime in Teheran? The US seems to be tamed after the Iraq war such that she had to continue with the Six Way talks in Beijing even though she is reluctant to do so. Meanwhile the mullahs in the Iranian theocracy tighten their political grip on the country and snubbed efforts to make its nuclear progam more open. So boefore you start defending that cruel assault on the Iraqi people and the meaningless loss of lives of Brave coalition troops, you make want to present a clear report card on what have we gain in undermining Al Qaeda and her tenacles of terror.

All we have are loss of lives, an impossible task of rebuilding a shattered Iraq, the loss of moral authority and humanity in the eyes of the rest of the world, increase in the intensity of terror attacks etc etc. So try harder on telling us the results on the war in Iraq. We will deeply appreciate it on behalf of the rest of the world.

Posted by: sp at June 22, 2004 at 11:14 PM

SP is a bit of a git isn't he? As usual he spouts all that lefty softly, softly stuff, without realising that there are probably lots of covert actions being conducted by the allies as we speak. In any case what is wrong with the Iraq invasion? 25 m illion people have been freed from a dictator, the dictator's payment of Palestinian suicide bombers has been stopped, Sudi Arabia has been put on notice that it cannot support terrror any more, casualties ahve been ibncredibly light, local government elections have been held across Iraq. Almost 90% of Iraq is already pacified, we are attracting all the loonies into the other 10% and killing them. But most of all we are showing these islamo-facists that we can take them on and kill them.

The modern lefty reminds me of the craven Sir Robin in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". After the King Arthur and the Knights have been bested by the evil rabbit, and Sir Robin has pooed himself with fear, he suggest that "perhaps if we run away more, it will help to confuse it." Along with King Arthur I say to our modern Sir Robins, such as sp and Kruddy the dog-faced boy, "shut up, and go and change your amour."

Posted by: Toryhere at June 22, 2004 at 11:33 PM

First of all, if it is so altruistic after all, whu=y didn't Bush use the toppling og Saddam to free the Iraqi people as his case before the conflict? Why??? This was only conveniently slotted in after not finding any weapons and the war seems to become a quagmire that he couldn't get out. Where is the freedom and liberty of the Iraqi people when Abu Gharib was not only operational after Saddam's fall, its as if Auschwitz was still ran by the Allies after the fall of the Nazis.Many Iraqis were caught in the cross fire in the war, lives lost, homes destroyed. This is what you call freedom? Seriously you need a dictionary to know its true meaning?

90% of Iraq pacified? If thats really the case, why was there a concern that the Pentagon need to ask Washington for more troops in Iraq? Why did the anti-UN Bush Admin had to beg the UN for assistance and even try to mend fences with Chirac? Why is there an escalation of violence and hostage taking in Iraq? Why are more US troops being killed during the occuaption than those in combat?

Showcase the extremists how you can kill them? Militant Islam is an evil serpent that you can never stop it from growing by simply chopping off its head. They have recriuts in thousands and millions. Look at how swift they appoint a new leader to take over in Saudi. And you think the House of Saud is being pushed by the war in Iraq to reform? I don't see any reformist moves on the regime's part and its disassociation with Wahabbism, since rocking the zealous ideology would mean a tottering regime for the Sauds.

Maybe you should consider learning the meaning of "Pyhrric Victory" to understand the situation in Iraq.

Posted by: sp at June 22, 2004 at 11:58 PM

stupid fucking bush and his poodles! if they wouldnt have started the war in Iraq, 9/11 would have never happened!!!

LOL!

Seriously though, although Bali happened before we invaded Iraq, Bali did happen while debate on war with Iraq was raging, and Howard gave the strong impression that if the US decided to go to war, Australia would be there.

First of all, if it is so altruistic after all, whu=y didn't Bush use the toppling og Saddam to free the Iraqi people as his case before the conflict?

Bush mentioned it as part of the case for war beforehand.

Posted by: Andjam at June 23, 2004 at 12:23 AM

First of all sc
it us not about us eternally appeasing the Muslim world by throwing israel to the wolves.
That appeasement has been done already by the european community and they are still targets of Islamic jihads
It is about understanding Islam and its persecution of minority religions throughout history.
Why not look up the decline of christian communities under dar al Islam in the last few hundred years.
You might start with the Armenians, then the Egyptian coptic christians , and then the maronites who fled to lebanon into the arms of Arafats PLO.
The you might look up the fate of the Assyrian CHristians who still hold their services in the abncient aramaic language.
And then the Zaroastrians and the chaldeans and nezorites.
And lastly the fate of Jews under Islam.
The treatment of Black people in America is delightful compared to the fate of these non Islamic communities.
And of course in the modern era take a look at the Sudanese christians, the Indonesian christians and the Nigerian christians and others i can not think of at the moment.
When you have looked at the history you may understand the present situation.
Every day in every country clerics are preaching Jihad to Muslims. The threat is real and it is here. appeasement is a spent option and our governments need a clear and decisive message from its voters to deal with its danger, not continual stabs in the back.

Posted by: davo at June 23, 2004 at 12:24 AM

90% of Iraq pacified?

Yup.

If thats really the case, why was there a concern that the Pentagon need to ask Washington for more troops in Iraq?

Because the Pentagon is inhabited by bureaucrats, and asking for more troops is the bureeaucrat's ass-covering reflex.

Why did the anti-UN Bush Admin had to beg the UN for assistance and even try to mend fences with Chirac?

I don't recall any begging. And why not? Its cheap, might get some help, and we didn't give up anything in the attempt.


Why is there an escalation of violence and hostage taking in Iraq? Why are more US troops being killed during the occuaption than those in combat?

Because the combat was over in three weeks, and the occupation has been going on for over a year. Because our enemies are desperate, and know their only hope of victory is to cause the likes of sc to cut and run before their window of opportunity closes.

Militant Islam is an evil serpent that you can never stop it from growing by simply chopping off its head. They have recriuts in thousands and millions. Look at how swift they appoint a new leader to take over in Saudi.

All is lost. Time to buy a prayer rug and stick your ass in the air.

Posted by: R C Dean at June 23, 2004 at 12:54 AM

sp

If you have ever played or watched football you would know that the first rule is to play in the oppositions half. Get the ball as far away from your own tryline and closer to the oppositions.

One aspect of taking the war to Iraq is that we take the war away from our own territory and set the field of action closer to the enemies territory. Thus Iraq becomes the honeypot attracting the terrorists. The more terrorists we attract there the more we can kill and the safer our homelands become.

Posted by: pat at June 23, 2004 at 01:35 AM

SC still hasn't checked that video and is making outlandish claims about comparisons and moral relativism between Coalition Forces and Saddams Baathist Thugs.

A quagmire, gee that's original, you would think that these types would use quickSAND for the ME but evidently that anti-Bush paranoia has rotted their brains. This is not a vietnam situation, operationally it is totally different, troop size and tactics are totally different and the mood of the public (at least for most) is totally different. You also forget that Vietnam was a foreign civil war that we intervened into, it held very little benefits for the wider war against communism in SE Asia. Iraq on the other hand is critical for sucess in defeating Islamism, if we can setup a stable democracy of some type that manages to take hold then it is likely that it will usher in change all over the middle east and wider arab world, do not underestimate how much good peace, freedom and democracy can bring to the downtrodden of the world. If Iraq suceeds and the people are better off then sooner or later muslims all over the world will start to demand freedom from their repressive regimes and eventually the entire failed concept of Islamic Theocracy and Corrupt Arab Dictatorships will fail and collapse into free states. Then and only then will we truly "win" the war on terror and that is the long term strategic goal. Viva La Liberal Revolution!!

You sight kidnappings as an example of our failure, that is short sighted and ignorant. The escalation in hostage taking only shows how desperate these Jihadists are, if they were truly in power then they would have leveled the Al Rasheed and made the Green Zone burn, they would have killed all the governing council and set back the transfer of power. They are on the loosing end of this war and Al Qaeda has lost a lot, it cannot sprout another head if the entire body is dead!. Make no mistake when hostage taking fails to sway governments which it WILL they will stop and try a different tactic but judging by the sucess of previous methods such as sabotaging Iraq's oil and power which does NOT win friends in Iraq they will fail.

Maybe in addition to that he or she should consider that the reason there hasn't been a terrorist attack on western soil barr Madrid is because of Bush's agressive military campaign against Al Qaeda and terrorist sponsering states coupled with an effective covert war that is claiming many Al Qaeda scalps, more work needs to be done but make no mistake about the facts.

- We are at war with Islamism, it is a Fascist political ideology with doomsday Religious overtones that will doom humanity if they obtain WMD's.

- We can fight them militarily and kill them provided we have good intelligence.

- We can prevent others taking their place and taking up the cause if we reveal their true nature to the world and shut down the factory that produces them a.k.a. the muslim world.

- Under GWB there has not been a terrorist strike on US soil since 9/11 the only reason is because of his decision to wage war on our terms and not theirs.

Posted by: JBB at June 23, 2004 at 01:36 AM

Rudd's just another damn coward. I'd rather be a chickenhawk than a chicken.

Posted by: Mark from Monroe at June 23, 2004 at 02:40 AM

Kevin Rudd is a real dickhead

Posted by: max power at June 23, 2004 at 03:18 AM

To Homer Paxton:

read the UN inspections report on those WMDs before saying Saddam didn't have any. Dozens of weapons, weapons-making products and other materiel were found in Iraq AFTER Saddam got the boot. Pieces of his nuclear weapons program were found in its chief scientist's yard.

As for Aznar, his government at first blamed ETA, then a couple of hours later said it was AQ.

Once, just once, I'd like to see, hear or read a cogent anti-war argument based on fact. People like Homer need to take a long, hard look at themselves and ask what they're really fighting for. That of course would require courage, something none of them have.

Posted by: gary at June 23, 2004 at 04:37 AM

The war wiht Islamism is not new. it has been waged since the seventh century. occassionally there is a truce or rather a HUDNA , a time for rearmement of the jihadists.
Our forefathers were well aware of this eternal war but our easy lifestyles and complacent liberalism have made us forget it.
It is time to remember and read the history books that have not yet been tampered with.
Now a young Korean is the latest victim. A victim like the others who died because they had forgotten or were ignorant of the evils of jihadism.
We are the Victims. they are the aggressors. DO NOT FORGET THAT TOO.

Posted by: davo at June 23, 2004 at 09:04 AM

I tried to read everything sp was saying, but I started to fall asleep at the first mention of "Vietnam." I have too much to do, so -- thanks, guys, for taking him, her, or it on! You must have needed gallons of espresso...

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 23, 2004 at 11:49 AM

First of all, the Republicans had always been skeptical of promoting democracy and so-called nation-building projects, its amazing how quickly thet reverse their position on that. I do not recall Bush making democracy as the main case for going to war in Iraq.. His State of the Union Address a year ago was solely focused on the alleged but never existant WMDs in Iraq. Perhaps its time for you to read his speech again.

If bureaucracy is really the problem in Pentagon for asking for more troops in Iraq, i wonder why Rumsfeld had to slap himself like that, after all he is the one who declared that the Iraqi operation does not need to have huge troop deployment.. If there is no real need to contain the heightened insurgency, why would the sabre-rattling Secretary want to embarrass himself like that?

Requesting UN help is an euphemism for begging, after all the undermining of the UN by US action, why do Washington still think that the dead letter UN would be of any use to them? Hasn't it lost all its credibility for failing to confront Saddam? I wonder why? And you think the US didn't give up anything? Well, they compromised on the choice of the interim Iraqi leadership, they watered down the resolution before it can be passed, and most of all they had to talk more nicely to Chirac beacuse he held the veto. Isn't it clear that US prestige is blunt?

Face the fact, US troops are now facing escalating level of violence in Iraq.. first its Fallujah then Najaf and foreign fighters from the rest of the Muslim world.. No roads are deem safe to travel other than the main ones in Baghdad and even the local Iraqi security forces had to change into civilian clothes after knock off fearing possible assault. Tell me how secure it can be if the secuirty themselves are cowed like this? What sort of pacification are you talking about here?

I did not said that you don't take the front line to the enemy, i supported Afghanistan but not Iraq. Why? Because Iraq cannot be viewed as part of the war on terror. It is solely a selfish political capital building game on the part of the Bush Administration. First where are the weapons? Where is the evidence of a link between Al Qaesa and Saddam? If Saddam is deem as so evil, why didn't Senior Bush removed him during Gulf War I and let him contuinue his tyranny for more than a decade? The problem of preemptive strike is it can be very subjective so it can only be the last resort. But Bush very gave diplomacy a real chance and insist operating war machines first. This is very damaging to US ability later to cement alliances and preserve her interests.

Vietnam's ghost seems to come back to haunt Iraq. Remember Westmoreland asking more troops? Remember how Vietnam wsa seen as a crucial domino in the fight agianst communisjm in Southeast Asia? The same applies to Iraq. Prentagon asking for more troops, Iraq seem to be the centrepiece of fighting terrorism and building democracy in ME. So welcome back to the Indochinese nightmare in the Arab dessert now. And how the US downplayed Ho as a seventh grade foe just as they deem Iraqi insurgents as ants that can be crushed?

Posted by: sp at June 23, 2004 at 12:11 PM

First of all, the Republicans had always been skeptical of promoting democracy and so-called nation-building projects, its amazing how quickly thet reverse their position on that. I do not recall Bush making democracy as the main case for going to war in Iraq.. His State of the Union Address a year ago was solely focused on the alleged but never existant WMDs in Iraq. Perhaps its time for you to read his speech again.

If bureaucracy is really the problem in Pentagon for asking for more troops in Iraq, i wonder why Rumsfeld had to slap himself like that, after all he is the one who declared that the Iraqi operation does not need to have huge troop deployment.. If there is no real need to contain the heightened insurgency, why would the sabre-rattling Secretary want to embarrass himself like that?

Requesting UN help is an euphemism for begging, after all the undermining of the UN by US action, why do Washington still think that the dead letter UN would be of any use to them? Hasn't it lost all its credibility for failing to confront Saddam? I wonder why? And you think the US didn't give up anything? Well, they compromised on the choice of the interim Iraqi leadership, they watered down the resolution before it can be passed, and most of all they had to talk more nicely to Chirac beacuse he held the veto. Isn't it clear that US prestige is blunt?

Face the fact, US troops are now facing escalating level of violence in Iraq.. first its Fallujah then Najaf and foreign fighters from the rest of the Muslim world.. No roads are deem safe to travel other than the main ones in Baghdad and even the local Iraqi security forces had to change into civilian clothes after knock off fearing possible assault. Tell me how secure it can be if the secuirty themselves are cowed like this? What sort of pacification are you talking about here?

I did not said that you don't take the front line to the enemy, i supported Afghanistan but not Iraq. Why? Because Iraq cannot be viewed as part of the war on terror. It is solely a selfish political capital building game on the part of the Bush Administration. First where are the weapons? Where is the evidence of a link between Al Qaesa and Saddam? If Saddam is deem as so evil, why didn't Senior Bush removed him during Gulf War I and let him contuinue his tyranny for more than a decade? The problem of preemptive strike is it can be very subjective so it can only be the last resort. But Bush very gave diplomacy a real chance and insist operating war machines first. This is very damaging to US ability later to cement alliances and preserve her interests.

Vietnam's ghost seems to come back to haunt Iraq. Remember Westmoreland asking more troops? Remember how Vietnam wsa seen as a crucial domino in the fight agianst communisjm in Southeast Asia? The same applies to Iraq. Prentagon asking for more troops, Iraq seem to be the centrepiece of fighting terrorism and building democracy in ME. So welcome back to the Indochinese nightmare in the Arab dessert now. And how the US downplayed Ho as a seventh grade foe just as they deem Iraqi insurgents as ants that can be crushed?

Posted by: sp at June 23, 2004 at 12:12 PM

I am so tempted to take the last two posts by our latest troll-bore and replace them with "Blah bla Rethuglicans blah bla Vietnam blah blah Bush=Hitler! Blah BLAH blah-di-blah blah RUMMIESADDAMHANDSHAKEHALLIBURTONCHENEYOILOILOILLLLLLL!

So tempted. Should I, guys?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 23, 2004 at 12:18 PM

"Vietnam's ghost is haunting Iraq" -- gosh, I didn't know Vietnam was dead. Last I checked, it was a live, viable country.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 23, 2004 at 12:21 PM

Andrea Harris,

The very fact that one sneer at the other's argument without concrete facts seems to bring out that the Right are only experts at generating advertisement and propaganda.. jargon but at the end they are only paper tigers and empty vessels.

Posted by: sp at June 23, 2004 at 12:26 PM

sp Empty vessels make the most noise. Review your posts.

Posted by: Greg at June 23, 2004 at 12:41 PM

sp - Saddam had Abu Nidal and the guy from the Achille Lauro hijacking/murder as house guests. Also, they allowed Ansar al Islam to operate within Iraq against the kurds. If that isn't direct support of terrorists - what the hell is?

Dickhead!

Posted by: Razor at June 23, 2004 at 12:45 PM

Damn, sp, that's the most amount of leftist clichés I've seen in one post in ages. Are you using the Lefterator?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 23, 2004 at 01:30 PM

"Also, they allowed Ansar al Islam to operate within Iraq against the kurds."

"They" did no such thing. Ansar al Islam operated in Kurdish territory, which was effectively a UN protectorate thanks to the enforcement of the no-fly zone. Saddam had no control over this territory. If he had, it's a fair bet he would have treated Ansar al Islam the same way he treated Shiite fundamentalists within Iraq proper. One of the favoured methods was to force them to lie down in the street and pour hot asphalt over them.

Posted by: tim g at June 23, 2004 at 02:48 PM

tim g - ok, I'll conceed you the Ansar al Islam, but what about the others including support for the families of the pali splodydopes? Isn't that support for terrorists?

Posted by: Razor at June 23, 2004 at 03:15 PM

I believe Rudd cries himself to sleep every night for having to spout such utter crap that originates from his deluded, and dangerously off balance boss Latham.

Please help me out here..how could ANYONE vote Latham for PM. I read in The Australian letters a few days ago that Latham PM filled the writer with as much confidence as finding out the Vivian (punk from the Young Ones TV show) was going to be his brain surgeon. Touche!

Posted by: Dog at June 23, 2004 at 04:10 PM

Damn, sp, that's the most amount of leftist clichés I've seen in one post in ages. Are you using the Lefterator?

No, the Lefterator would have produced something that made slightly more sense.

Posted by: Sortelli at June 23, 2004 at 04:50 PM

Razor:
Bush's main case against Saddam was his alleged links with Osama but no such link has been established. On top of that if Saddam's links with other groups other than Al Qaeda warrant such naked military action, first why didn't Senior Bush removed him once and for all? Secondly if that justifies the invasion of Iraq, Pakistan should also be invaded by the US with its long term support of the Taleban and the Islamist terrorists in Kashmir. Why wasn't that apply to Pakistan as well? Most important of all, the CIA wasn't also guilty of supporting terrorist groups in countries where the US does not favour the local govt? First it is the SWAPO in Namibia, the Contras in Nicaragua etc? Double standards are what the rightists most capable and talented in.

And all the rigid conservatives here have not even other to provide the answer asa to why North Korea and Iran have not been invaded. Instead the conservative are so soft as to participate in a fruitless Six Way Talk with that Stalinist state while the radical Iranian mullahs has so far called Bush's bluff to be more open with their nuke program? Just tell me where is the resolve and firmness of the Right in regards to these two rogue states? Why did your adopt soft "Leftist" appeasement here? After all, it seems that you are doing what you are criticizing.. Churchill will be ashamed of your if he is alive... that his conservative successoprs have tilted left.

Posted by: sp at June 23, 2004 at 06:18 PM

Razor:

Yes, I certainly agree that Saddam was a long-term supporter of terrorists both in Iraq and abroad. In fact, ask any Kurd, or Shiite, or Marsh Arab (if you can find one still alive) and they will tell you that Saddam was a terrorist. Only a government that rules by terror would ever get a vote of 99% in an election.

The point I was trying to make was that the relationship between Saddam and Isalmic terrorists like Al Qaeda was more problematic than a lot of contributors at this blog and elsewhere acknowledge. It's certainly true that, especially in later years, Saddam tried to "Islamicise" his regime, building lots of mosques, adding the words "Allah Akhbar" to the flag and so on. It's also true that none of these things seem to have changed the way that bin Laden and AQ viewed him. Almost every Al Qaeda pronouncement about Saddam and the Baathist regime contained the word "apostate", in other words "bad Muslim" - pretty much the worst word of abuse in their lexicon. This means they put Saddam in the same basket as the governments of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other Arab states that they would like to see toppled and replaced with Taliban-style theocarcies. Apparently a mosque-building program doesn't compensate for having Christians in your government and allowing women to work. (And I don't think that pouring hot asphalt over Shiites helps the relationship either.)

It's worth remembering that at the time of the first Gulf War, bin Laden actually made an offer to the Saudi Arabian government to use al Qaeda against Saddam, so they wouldn't have to call on the American infidels.

In summary, the Saddam-Osama relationship is far from the open-and-shut case that Dick Cheney and his fellow travellers would have you believe. Which is a fairly important point to consider if you're going to use it to justify an invasion and occupation of another nation - it might be useful to make sure that you're not inadvertently helping the people you are trying to defeat.

Posted by: tim g at June 23, 2004 at 07:08 PM

sp – no, Bush’s main case was not a link with AQ but the potential for Saddam to attack the West through any of his links with terrorists, all terrorists. The reason Bush Snr didn’t remove him was because of the limp dicks at the UN and in the State Department who advised that such a move would cause a power vacum/chaos/end of the world as we know it, so they stopped before Baghdad. Should have, but they didn’t. Now it’s been done – problem fixed. As for Pakistan – ever heard about cost-benefit analysis or the National Interest? As soon as it became in the National Interest of both the US and Pakistan to take-out the Taleban, that occurred. Late, but it happened. Just like Australia’s support for the East Timorese – didn’t see to much protest from the socialists in Australia after 25 years of genocide by the Indonesians with Bob Hawke and Paul Keating high-fiving with the Indons all the time. As for the US supporting terrorist organisations – that was also part of reasonable foreign policy and generally against pretty vile governments. Go and read Mark Steyn’s latest piece on democracy in South America following US support of terrorist organisations. Took 20 years, but we’re not baking a cake here.

As for taking care of business with North Korea and Iran – time and a place. Just like Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor the time and the place will come for those countries to be sorted out. I spent 13 years in a combat arm of the Australian Army and one thing you learn pretty quickly is always fight a battle on your own terms and at a time a place of your own choosing, whether it’s in a pub in Australia or a far flung country – time and a place.

Posted by: Razor at June 23, 2004 at 07:52 PM

Tim g

You guys just don’t get – I don’t give a rat’s clacker about whether Saddam had links with AQ or not. He supported terrorists that were a threat to the West and if those terrorists got their hands on NBC weapons then 11 Sept 01 would look like a picnic. The US and the UK, with a Socialist Prime Minister for Christ’s sake, assessed this as a threat that was now untenable.

And since I raised Blair, the Socialist Oxford Graduate, I know all the anti-war types hate Bush and can understand that because he is a red neck, but explain Blair’s stance? Why was he so supportive? There must be some compelling case for such an intelligent poster boy of the left, or am I missing something?

You guys (you and sp) probably think that the recent 9/11 Commission finding that the Air Defence system of the US should have been able to react and shoot down the airliners before they hit the buildings. I think it is a fair analogy that invading Iraq is the equivalent of shooting down the airliners before they hit the buildings. If that had of happened – imagine the uproar – how could you prove that the hijackers meant to hit the buildings and what about all those innocent deaths? The 9/11 Commission posits that pre-emptive action should have occurred and that the Bush Administration failed for not taking it. On the other hand pre-emptive action against Iraq doesn’t cut it. I wish you anti-Bushies would make up your bleeding minds about how to conduct military operations – you want pre-emption but you don’t want pre-emption.

The major way we are helping those we want to defeat is by helping them martyr themselves – asap.

Posted by: Razor at June 23, 2004 at 08:13 PM

Razor:

I would tend to see Snr Bush's refusal to remove Saddam as a policy of national self-interest. He was there beacause Saddam was threatening Western oil supplies and geopolitical interests. Fair enough for him.

I cannot see how interests of the US can be protected as long as Pakistan is infested with terrorists and Islamabad has not cut off their ties with Kashimiri extremists who are suspected to be associated with Osama. Secondly the Pakistani military regime is now wobbly given militant Islam's fierce opposition, what if Musharraf cannot hold the ground and Pakistan's nukes fell to the mad clerics? Do you forsee that? Its time to get out of your political myopia. I could not say anything about Australia's actions in Timor Leste but i definitely know the US role in it. The CIA was behind the bloody coup of formere President Suharto in order to oust the PKI-influenced Sukarno. The US also actively supplied the arms used to slaughter the Timorese because they perceive Gusmo Xanana as a pro-communist of course they were mistaken and their error meant genocide in Dili. Who is the US to decide other countries' govt as vile?? I am shocked at this but understand why you hated the UN so much. So i presume that if Australia elects a Labor govt today and Washington deems it as vile, tomorrow are we gonna find Tomahawks crushing at our homes or Canberra being razed to ground by F-16s? Who is the US to judge? Where is her legitimate authority? So Botrous Ghali is right about the US being another Ancient Rome whose power can trample on other states without justification. Friend, if thats the case we are living in a very dangerous world.

I never declared that preemptive strikes should be ruled out BUT it should be the last resoort and the attack is imminent. The 9/11 commission gives me this impression, i cannot fault Bush and Chenney for failing to shoot down the planes because it is unfair since they had only ten min to react. But the objectionable thing is why did Cheney still gave order to shoot down the planes even though the planes had crushed into the towers for more than an hour? Don't tell me that communication is so poor that in an hour he did know that the tragedy already had happened? If Osama and his associates know this, they would be probably laughing till they drop dead in their Afghan hideout.

As for North Korea, Pyongyang had called Bush bluff because the Stalinist state can witness the US quagmire in Iraq. It is almost like telling them a joke that the US is gonna strike at them any time soon. So they would carry on their mischief of hide and seek and brinkmanship with the US since Iraq demonstrated to them the limit of US military power. Iran on the other hand continue its rigid conservatism and repressive theocratic rule and its nuke program. The rise of the Shias in Iraq even serve their strengthen their political clout inthe Middle Esat. So tell me how long does it take to bring these regimes actions to an end? You don't even have a clue to whats going on, i suggest you buck up on your political knowledge rather than your military hardware handling. You "time" argument is like building castles inthe air.

Posted by: sp at June 23, 2004 at 11:05 PM

sp - you are the one who doesn't understand politics, and you don't appear to understand what the islamofascists want - to kill you, me, all of us. This is WWIV. If you don't understand that I suggest you move yourself and your family and friends, especially the female ones, to one of the middle east countries and see how long you last.

I bet you have never served your country, run your own business and created jobs for others or paid more taxes than it costs for an annual unemployment benefit. Your sort attitude sickens me.

Out.

Andrea, sort this fruitcake out will ya?

Posted by: Razor at June 24, 2004 at 12:08 AM

"You guys (you and sp) probably think that the recent 9/11 Commission finding that the Air Defence system of the US should have been able to react and shoot down the airliners before they hit the buildings."

I 'probably' don't think any such thing. I don't think Razor would have any idea what I think about the 9/11 commission, since I've not commented on that subject in this or any other thread anywhere. I can't help thinking that all the other comments here are redundant - we should just sit back and let Razor argue with the voices in his head.

Just in case you're curious; I don't belong to the ranks of those who would try to pin the blame for the events of 9/11 on the Bush administration, whether through negligence or something more sinister. To try and lay that at the feet of an administration less than eight months old is, in my view, plain nuts. The 9/11 attacks were set in train when Bush was still managing baseball teams, and could only have been foiled in the same way that the 2000 New Year attacks were - with a large measure of luck.

But I do hold Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co accountable for what they have done since 9/11. Some of their actions have been commendable (Afghanistan), some a lot less commendable (Iraq), some so bonkers that they defy rational explanation (playing footsie with so-called 'allies' like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).

"I think it is a fair analogy that invading Iraq is the equivalent of shooting down the airliners before they hit the buildings."

Maybe. The other possibility is that invading Iraq - not the mere fact of it, but the way it was done - has helped to perpetuate the cycle that sent those airliners on their way in the first place.

Posted by: tim g at June 24, 2004 at 12:22 AM

Here's are excerpted articles backing the Clinton adminstration's belief of connections twixt the evil twins:

"Saddam link to Bin Laden

Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? US says dealings step up danger of chemical weapons attacks

By Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday February 6, 1999
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq..."

CNN Feb 13, 1999

"Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers..."

And back to the future: Big Media these days disengenuously claims that no credible sources ever believed that Saddam and Osama could link up for terrorist sport and that Bush and his evil neo-cons are deluded or lying.

Posted by: c at June 24, 2004 at 12:56 AM

Vladimir Putin has weighed into the debate over Iraq by last week claiming that Saddam Hussein was indeed plotting to attack the US.

Considering Putin's stance on Iraq, or lack there of, it would seem that there would have to be some merit to his claim. I'll wager though that the leftoids have a spin they can put on that too to make it look like he's now sucking up.

The fact of the matter is Bush/Blair were right and the left cannot accept it. The UN were co-conspititors in Iraq's demise with the Oil for Food scandal, so little wonder the UN didn't want to spoil their little racket they had going in Iraq. Which by the way was at the expense of the Iraqi people.

Can the left also explain in detail how it is the Al-Qeada were able to so easily find there way into Iraq, considering of course that none of the left beleive that Al-Qeada were active in Iraq????
No need, I already know the answer to that. Al-Qeada were already there!!!

The left deny fact because they defend a lie.

Posted by: scott at June 24, 2004 at 01:00 AM

One thing I did notice on the news after the death of the young Korean translator is the protests in the street where Koreans burnt pictures of Islamic militants..

Cutting innocent peoples heads off only works for so long, after that people want revenge..

He's a tip..Rid us of Kevin Rudd...

Posted by: scott at June 24, 2004 at 01:03 AM

Razor:

Who says i have not served my nation? While i am talking to you now, i am now serving military service and sacrificing my own civilian life for the country. Because i being a soldier, understand war and thus hated it thoroughly. Many people in the Bush Admin dot not even understand what a war really involoves, the physical and psychological sacrifice make by both soldiers and civilians. They seem to see war as some sort of easy child play where you can engage in as and when you like it.

As the famous conservative president Herbert Hoover put it, "Older men declare war; but it is youth that must fight and die." He was on the Right but none of his predecessors seem to be as englightened as him.

The very disturbing thing is the Right still cling on the Al-Qaesa link with Saddam as ytheir basis for war even though there is no evidence that they cam present. In fact, the Osama-Saddam alliance is as good as linking the Hugenots with the Catholic Church. In Gulf War I, Osama appeal to help the Saudi regime to repeal Saddam from Kuwait in order to prevent US military presence in the Arabian peninsula but it failed. Secondly, Al Qaeda had frequently put the Baathist regime together with those in Jordan, Egypt as "godless" and "apostate", "corrupt" which they wanted to overthrow and replace with Taliban style theocracies. Why would Saddam want to supply weapons to a group that would use his weapons against his Baathist regime? Anwer all these questions if you can.

The cruel matter-of-fact is that Bush has been desperately searching for several reasons to jusitfy his unjust war. One of then being the Osama-Saddam link. When this link began to unravel, his credibi;ity also unravel which is why he stubbornly stick to it evn though he ahd no evidence of it.

As to why Al-Qaeda fighters are able to operate so suddenly and quickly in Iraq after the American incursion, it is pretty apparent if you are not so ignorant. Iraq's borders are quite porous and Saddam could not even have effective control especially in the Kurdish north and the Shitte south. In Vietnam, even though US had half a million troops there, the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese were still able to penetrate and infiltrate into Saigon. So doesn't all these give you some knowlegde? Perhaps its time you get an Idiot's guide to urban warfare.

Posted by: sp at June 24, 2004 at 01:01 PM

Scott:

While the Right can carry on ranting anti-UN rhetoric, it is clear that you all still need the UN. But of course it is frustrating when an organisation tried to restrain a wayward superpower to abide by rules and regulations. After all powerful mafia bosses and drug lords doesn't like to be contained.

And the US had the guts to extend the one-year immunity for its soldiers from the ICC after the horrors of Abu Gharib.

Posted by: sp at June 24, 2004 at 01:06 PM

Oh dear, sp has caught us out: if the UN should just up and go, what would we on the "right" do for our ranting needs?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 26, 2004 at 01:59 AM