http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Peter007666/Bush1.jpg

from the Daily Flute:

http://dailyflute.com/

---

From the Daily Flute

---

This thread should be re-titled: 'Post your stupid anti-American pics here'

That is so funny DT!  I think this thread might be successful if we can post pictures of how we see the Iraq War.  You're not offended I hope!  :o

http://dailyflute.com/

---

No offended in the slightest mantra, please continue. I think 'some' anti-American pics are quite clever. That is, of course, if your intention is to be anti-American.

DT - I don't think these pictures are anti-American - they are anti-Iraq.  The leaders of the Coalition of the Willing are all guilty of exacerbating the misery of the Iraqi people - so these pictures are just telling a story.

I agree. They are only anti-American if you adhere to the 'with us or against us philosophy,' but by those standards most of the world is anti-American.

My mistake. Please continue.

I love this picture.  A tribute to those who made a  contribution on behalf of Australia to the Iraq War.

From an article in the Daily Flute.

---

Nice find mantra. its nice to see that girl alexander downer going under....... if only costello would trip!

Heres some anti-american sentiment,
Bush has lost war, so this is what bin-laden has done.

---

That was a bit naughty - Aussie N.  

This is another photo borrowed from an article in the Daily Flute

---

Im a naughty man. :D

Mantra..


I love your Rumsfeld pic, its really good.

"Yes-let me dictate..?"



So the poll didnt really give us a choice did it?    For who among us would dare to dictate?

ocean_blue. wrote on Mar 25^th, 2007 at 2:44pm:

"Yes-let me dictate..?" So the poll didnt really give us a choice did it?    For who among us would dare to dictate?

Would you like to retain freedom of speech and expression or censor everything.
The pic shows how george w tried to f*ck bin laden, but instead bin laden ended up smacking george w.

Hahahha - some great pics . Esp the osama/george bush billboard !

I voted for freedom of speech but find the pic ausnat has up loses its impact after a while. Funny as it is.

Always nice how questions can be slanted to give the desired answer.

ok- but that didnt answer my question? :)


Why didnt the poll just go..yes or no? would have got a more honest outcome in the poll result... ;)

ocean_blue. wrote on Mar 25^th, 2007 at 5:02pm:

ok- but that didnt answer my question? :) Why didnt the poll just go..yes or no? would have got a more honest outcome in the poll result... ;)

Its an effective tool isnt it! ;) I wanted my pic to remain there so i made it harder on the peoples concience. its a form of propaganda.

well arent you sneaky.? :)


I have that same pic and posted it on Cracker..it has stayed I think.

Quote:

well arent you sneaky.? :)

I sure am! ;D

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-Marine-urinated-on-dead-Iraqi/2007/05/10/1178390427262.html

Angered that a beloved member of his squad had been killed in an explosion, a US Marine urinated on one of the 24 dead Iraqi civilians killed by his unit in Haditha, the Marine testified.

Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz, who has immunity from prosecution after murder charges against him were dismissed, also said he watched his squad leader shoot down five Iraqi civilians who were trying to surrender.

In dramatic testimony in a pretrial hearing for one of the seven Marines charged in the November 2005 killings and reported cover-up at Haditha, Dela Cruz described his bitterness after a roadside bomb ripped Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, known as TJ, into two bloody pieces.

Dela Cruz said he had earlier he watched squad leader Sergeant Frank Wuterich shoot five men whose hands were up near a car, then admitted to shooting them as they lay on the ground.

Wuterich "walked to me and told me that if anybody asked, they were running away and the Iraqi Army shot them," testified Dela Cruz.

The Marine Corps initially reported the deaths as a result of the bombing and a firefight with insurgents. Reporting by Time magazine in January 2006 finally prompted the Marine Corps to investigate the killings.

John Howard has decided to send another 60-70 Defence Personnel to Iraq to train the Iraqi troops - against strong opposition to it.  He hasn't ruled out sending further troops to Afghanistan or Iraq in the immediate future.

Hasn't this gone on for too long?  Is Howard only pandering to Bush or trying to promote himself as a strong, decisive leader - doing what he believes is right, even though it's wrong?  

Shouldn't a plan of action be put in place now to begin withdrawing our troops?  Some experts believe that once the occupying Coalition forces have withdrawn, the insurgents may begin to withdraw as well and the Iraqis will begin to rebuild their shattered country without interference.

I couldn't give a rats @ss about the 'people of Iraq' or the 'children of Iraq' when it comes to politics, mantra.  ::)

If we pull our troops out now, what kind of a message are we sending to the terrorists?

Answer: -That terrorism pays off!

Do you really think we should send that message, mantra? I hardly consider that wise.



Quote:

Some experts believe that once the occupying Coalition forces have withdrawn, the insurgents may begin to withdraw as well and the Iraqis will begin to rebuild their shattered country without interference.

Who are these 'experts' mantra? Where are you getting your sources from?

The insurgents are in Iraq because we are there.  They want us to leave and can you blame them?  Once we're gone, and a new ruler establishes himself - the bombings will stop or at least decrease in ferocity.  That's blatantly obvious.

If it's such a bad idea, why has Blair already started on troop withdrawal - while suckers like us are sending in more trainers.  The "war on terror" (Bush's slogan) has been exacerbated by the Coalition of the Willing and they also have the ability to slow it down as well.

There is an interesting article called the Jones Report - it sounds believable. This is an extract.


Quote:

Russo states that Rockefeller told him, "Eleven months before 9/11 happened there was going to be an event and out of that event we were going to invade Afghanistan to run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we were going to invade Iraq to take over the oil fields and establish a base in the Middle East, and we'd go after Chavez in Venezuela." Rockefeller also told Russo that he would see soldiers looking in caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan for Osama bin Laden and that there would be an "Endless war on terror where there's no real enemy and the whole thing is a giant hoax," so that "the government could take over the American people," according to Russo, who said that Rockefeller was cynically laughing and joking as he made the astounding prediction.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/290107_rockefeller_microchipped.html

The article is quite interesting and points out how the elite have these grand plans for us "serfs" and over a period of time their power and influence ensures these plans come to fruition.

Quote- mantra

''The insurgents are in Iraq because we are there.  They want us to leave and can you blame them?  Once we're gone, and a new ruler establishes himself - the bombings will stop or at least decrease in ferocity.  That's blatantly obvious.''

What a load of crap!
They will continue to do it long after we are gone, in fact it will intensify, it is a war of runs against SUNNIS for domination.
We are just in the crossfire. Iran is rubbing its hands with glee as we prepare to pull out, i assure you, they will invade the country once we are gone at the call of the runs and iraq will become a satellite country of fundamentalist iran.
The only reason we have lost the war there, is because of the half arsed occupation we have imposed, what was needed was TOTAL OCCUPATION where we suppress any opposition with BRUTE force.
The terrorists would be too scared to step out their door.
No country has EVER won a war through timidity.

Forgive me for my ignorance, mantra, who's this Nick Rocketfeller guy?

You can almost see Howard crouching down in preparation for an impressive backflip. Just mind you don't stumble Johnny:

PM warns Iraq: make progress or we'll go

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-warns-Iraq-make-progress-or-well-go/2007/08/11/1186530650411.html

Prime Minister John Howard has warned the Iraqi government that unless it makes faster progress towards resolving the country's political differences it faces the prospect of Australian and other Western troops withdrawing.

In a letter to his Iraqi counterpart Nouri al-Maliki, Mr Howard urges the Iraqi government to speed the sharing of oil wealth among all sections of the Iraqi community, including the minority Sunni population, The Weekend Australian newspaper reports.

Mr Howard warns that if the Iraqis fail to make progress, the public support for Australia's military deployment to Iraq may not be sustainable.

Iraq have been liberated for some time now.
They had their first general election some time ago.
Well by now everyone could have reasonably expected there to be peace and progress there.

If they want to follow mohammads footsteps, up to them. We can't expect to stay there till they murder each other till the last one is standing.

Flip flopper Howard.

What about the possibility of pulling out of Iraq, letting Iran invade and lose resources fighting their own kind,
and then come in and mop up the dregs?

The US have been given the opportunity on a few occasions to communicate with Iran but have refused each opportunity.

The Democrats believe that reaching some sort of solution by having discussions with Iran would be helpful to the Iraq solution.

Conditions are only deteriorating in Iraq and before the rest of the Middle East is dragged into this war - the Americans need to find a middle ground.

Remember they are the ones who invaded Iraq illegally and it's many of their foreign policies in the Middle East causing the dissension.

wrote on Mar 30^th, 2007 at 4:46am:

What about the possibility of pulling out of Iraq, letting Iran invade and lose resources fighting their own kind, and then come in and mop up the dregs?

That is the worst thing that can happen.
Iran is a shite muslim country, and it is their intention to invade iraq later if the U.S does leave.
Iraq is 40% shite and 60% sunni. Imagine what will happen to the sunni's. (not that i care).
Iran will have no trouble walking in, they will lose very little resources and in fact gain more by taking the oil fields.

''come in and mop up the dregs''?
No. iran would be more powerful than ever.

Quote:

That is the worst thing that can happen.

Agree. Mainly because they will continue the march west.


Quote:

Iraq is 40% shite and 60% sunni. Imagine what will happen to the sunni's. (not that i care).

Wrong. Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%. See the CIA website for yourself.


Quote:

Iran will have no trouble walking in, they will lose very little resources and in fact gain more by taking the oil fields.

Oil is of no value if it cannot be traded. Embargoes would be placed on all Iran in the event of an invasion.

mantra wrote on Mar 30^th, 2007 at 7:37am:

The US have been given the opportunity on a few occasions to communicate with Iran but have refused each opportunity.

Are you talking about current events? The US have been negotiating (albeit indirectly) with Iran and Syria over the last few months.

This is an interesting development. It puts the US and Iran on the same side against the terrorists:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/alQaedalinked-group-threatens-Iran/2007/07/09/1183833378690.html

The leader of an al-Qaeda-linked group in Iraq has vowed to attack Iranians unless Iran cuts off its support for the Iraqi government within two months.

"We give the ... Persians in general, and leaders of Iran in particular, two months to withdraw their support and presence in Iraq," Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq, said in the 50-minute audiotape posted on Islamist website which has often carried al-Qaeda statements.

In the first such threat by his group, Baghdadi said that unless Iran meets his demands, the group will wage a "brutal war" against Iranians.

Sounds like more of the same to me freediver .

Muslims murdering

Iraq makes progress on constitution plan
May 16, 2007 - 8:44AM
An Iraqi committee has agreed to send to parliament a plan to reform the constitution.
It's an important step towards implementing national reconciliation laws that Washington says are critical to ending violence.
Once-dominant Sunni Arabs, who make up the backbone of the insurgency, have long demanded changes to a constitution they say concedes too much power to majority Shi'ites and ethnic Kurds, who were persecuted under Saddam Hussein.
US President George W Bush, under pressure to show tangible progress in the four-year-old war, has piled pressure on Iraqi leaders to agree power-sharing legislation.
Such laws, which include sharing Iraq's vast oil wealth and ending a ban on former members of Saddam's party from public office, are particularly aimed at assuaging Sunnis Arabs and bringing them firmly into the US-backed political process.
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe welcomed the move, but said: "There is more work to be done, but this step will help in the process of bringing all Iraqis together to help build a stable, secure and unified democracy."
In another sign of political progress, Sunni Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi said the presidential council would soon send to parliament a draft proposal to allow thousands of ex-Baath party members to return to public jobs, another Sunni demand.
The council comprises Hashemi, President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and Shi'ite Vice-President Adel Abdul al-Mahdi.
Hashemi's Accordance Front had warned it might quit Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government if Sunni grievances were ignored, but a visit by US Vice-President Dick Cheney to Iraq last week appears to have softened the Sunnis' stance.
The bills are likely to face fierce debate in parliament.
Sunni Arabs, meanwhile, fear federalism will allow Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south, where Iraq's oil reserves lie, to break away into their own states. Sunni Arabs live mostly in central and western Iraq, which is poor in oil.

Iraq 'a terrorist Disneyland' if US goes
From correspondents in London
May 16, 2007 04:34am
A US troop pullout from Iraq would leave the country as a potent launchpad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al-Qaeda expert said overnight.
Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al-Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.
If US, British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries - countries in Europe, North America - would become such that after two or three years, the US forces will have to go back to Iraq".
The Singapore-based academic and writer said the epicentre of international terrorism had already switched from Afghanistan to Iraq.
"In many ways, the terrorist threat has now shifted 1500 miles closer to Europe."
Republican President George W. Bush is locked in a standoff with a Democratic-led Congress over funding for the war in Iraq, now in its fifth year, in which more than 3400 American troops have been killed.
Democrats are pushing for a time frame for withdrawal, something the White House opposes as sending the wrong message to US forces, allies and enemies alike. Some Republicans are also questioning the war more publicly.
Britain, the leading US partner in Iraq, is scaling back its troops there, although the idea of an immediate pullout was rejected this week by Gordon Brown, the man expected to succeed Mr Bush's close ally Tony Blair as prime minister next month.
A former head of Britain's foreign intelligence service MI6 described Mr Gunaratna's analysis as convincing.
"Clearly al-Qaeda are focusing on Iraq now, and focusing on some sort of propaganda victory over the United States," Sir Richard Dearlove said.





Pollies want to ban Islamic minarets
correspondents in Zurich
May 15, 2007 08:08pm
A GROUP of right-wing politicians are gathering signatures to try to force a national vote on banning the construction of minarets in Switzerland, the leader of the campaign said today.
The planned building of minarets, the towers attached to mosques from which the Islamic call for prayer is issued, in small Swiss towns has sparked local protests.
A group of politicians from the Swiss National Party and Federal Democratic Union are seeking to prevent the construction of minarets in national law, saying they are a symbol of power and threaten law and order in Switzerland.
The campaign has to gather 100,000 signatures by November 2008 to force a national vote on the initiative which, if it gains a majority vote, would then be written into law.
"We have no doubt that we'll reach the goal," said Ulrich Schlueer, a Swiss National Party parliamentarian for Zurich who is heading the initiative. "We've now been collecting for a week and we've already got 10,000 signatures."
There are currently only two minarets in Switzerland, in Zurich and Geneva. The call to prayer is not made from these minarets.

"Iraq 'a terrorist Disneyland' if US goes"

I was watching the Daily Show on the Comedy Channel a few days back, it's hosted by Jon Stewart and is a news parody show but it raises a few interesting points and i find it more reliable than ur mainstream news.

First of all, it bought footage of George W Bush prior to the Iraqi war saying we must invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein so to stop terrorists having a base of operations. It then bought footage of a recent press coverage where George W Bush is saying if we leave now the terrorists will have a base of operations. To which Jon Stewart noted:

"we needed to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein to stop the terrorists from having a base of operations, which we did. however, we can't leave since leaving will mean that the terrorists will have a base of operations due to Saddam Hussein no longer being there".

;D ;D ;D ;D - i think that's a fair point.

Jon Stewart also had an interview with a Middle Eastern expert from the CBS network called Reza Aslan, this guy mentioned that Al-Qaeda represents a minority of the total insurgency (only about 7%) and they are currently tolerated. He believes that now they are tolerated since they are fighting the US alongside the other insurgents, however if the US leaves then the Al-Qaeda insurgents will most likely be the first to be wiped out. That could be a solution  ;)

That view is different to this other Middle Eastern expert that's mentioned in the article posted, it gives the impression that Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq is significant. either that, or they are labelling all insurgents as Al-Qaeda.

Pollies want to ban Islamic minarets

Why? I understand if they were making the call to prayer from those minarets, then u could argue that the noise is a nuisance. But that's not the case here.

Besides, how is that different from the towers u find on churches and synagogues?

Islamists starved of funds


ISLAMIC extremists in Australia are being starved of money by an unprecedented crackdown on the secret flow of funds from Saudi Arabia.

ASIO and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have quietly spearheaded the disruption of funding from Saudi charities and Saudi nationals, reducing it to only a trickle after concerns the money could be used to fund terror plots in Australia.
The Government's push has robbed local extremists of a traditional source of funding from a country that has invested more than $120 million into Australia's Islamic community since the 1970s.
Saudi Arabian money has been used to build mosques and schools in Australia but it has also helped to promote extreme Wahabist interpretations of Islam.
Saudi Arabia has been accused by the US Government of tacitly funding extremism via quasi-government charities that promote Wahabism.
Washington says Saudi government-sanctioned charities have secretly bankrolled the Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah, responsible for killing 92 Australians in the two Bali bombings.
Despite this, Australia has won strong Saudi government backing for its crackdown here, with Riyadh instructing its embassy in Canberra to alert DFAT to any Saudi funds flowing into Australia.
Islamic sources claim less than $1million has flowed into Australia from Saudi Arabia in the past 12 months - barely one-fifth of estimated funding levels before the September 11 terror attacks of2001.
The Australian understands that ASIO has issued confidential reports opposing the proposed use of Saudi funds to build mosques in Belmore in Sydney in 2004 and the Park Holme mosque in Adelaide this year.
The ASIO assessments prompted DFAT to express concern to the Saudi Government, which promptly cut the flow of Saudi funds for the projects.
The "tip-off" agreement between the two countries was initiated by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in 2004 after a visit to Saudi Arabia.
"As a result of my visit to Saudi Arabia, they introduced a new system of transparency,' Mr Downer told The Australian yesterday.
"Prior to that system we don't know what funding they provided so we can't compare what was done before with what is done now, but we do know that they now report (to us)."
Saudi Arabia's co-operation with Canberra on the issue of funding is part of its renewed global effort to rebut allegations that its charities are used as fronts to provide funding for extremists around the world.
"The Saudis have proved true to their word so far about consulting with us about Saudi funding proposals," one well-placed government official said.
However, Australian authorities remain wary about the possibility of private funds flowing into Australia without the knowledge of either government.
The Government carefully monitors the activities of Saudi diplomats in Australia, who are believed to directly pay the wages of selected imams in Australia.
One of these imams, Mohammed Swaiti, was removed this month as the spiritual head of Canberra's Abu Bakr Mosque amid claims he was too radical in his teachings.
In January, the reconstruction of Adelaide's Park Holme mosque was halted when planned Saudi funding was withdrawn by the Saudi Government after DFAT expressed concerns about the project.
The mosque is considered Adelaide's most radical prayer centre. It was frequented by an Australian Iraqi Kurd, Warya Kanie, who was captured in Baghdad in October and detained for engaging in anti-coalition activities.
Similarly, Saudi funding of Sydney's Belmore mosque was halted in 2004 after concerns were expressed about the mosque's links with radical sheik Abdul Salam Mohammed Zoud.
The Saudi embassy did not return calls from The Australian yesterday.



I wondered where terrorists get funding from. That is only the funds they tell us about.
JJJ - the above newsreport answers your queries.

sprintcyclist, that newsreport has nothing to do with my queries.

Hi JJJ,
We see things differently.
You can poke fun at anything you want.  Isn't that a great feaure of a free society ?

Quite unlike an islamic country, where questions are crushed.

Mahdi militia 'will target Prince Harry'
Print this page
Last Modified: 28 Apr 2007
Source: ITN


A special militia unit has been set up to track down and capture Prince Harry if he is sent to Iraq, a Shia commander has claimed.

article continues below...

Abu Mujtaba, a commander in the Mahdi army, said he had informers inside British bases who would leak information about Harry's arrival in the country.

He told a newspaper: "One of our aims is to capture Harry, we have people inside the British bases to inform us on when he will arrive.

"Not only us, the Mahdi army, that will try to capture him, but every person who hates the British and the Americans will try to get him, all the mujahideens in Iraq, the al-Qaeda, the Iranians all will try to get him."

The reports will provoke further debate about whether the Prince should be sent to Iraq, for his own safety and that of his comrades.

After one of the bloodiest months so far for British troops in Iraq, speculation has continued about whether Prince Harry's arrival there would increase the risk of attacks on his colleagues in the Blues and Royals.

His planned deployment next month comes after the death of 11 servicemen, including two on April 19 who were doing the same job the royal officer was expected to take up on his six-month tour.

Friends of the 22-year-old Prince said he would be "very disappointed" if he was not allowed to go but would stay with the Army."
---------------------------



This seems like madness to let him go in light of what they know.

There would have to be safety issues to be considered not just for Harry but the rest of the his section?

It is madness - can we be sure that he really is being sent there?  Iraq is such a desperate, filthy and out of control civil war - all sides are blowing each other up and nobody is safe.

The insurgents would love to capture Harry.  They could demand anything they wanted - first and foremost - get the Americans out!

mantra wrote on Apr 28^th, 2007 at 9:58pm:

It is madness - can we be sure that he really is being sent there?  Iraq is such a desperate, filthy and out of control civil war - all sides are blowing each other up and nobody is safe. The insurgents would love to capture Harry.  They could demand anything they wanted - first and foremost - get the Americans out!

I agree mantra- there is no way they could guarantee his safety, not to mention the safety of those in his section.

This surley is just one more complication in an already ,as you say 'out of control civil war'.  

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Prince-Harry-wont-go-to-Iraq-UK-govt/2007/05/17/1178995260260.html

Prince Harry will not be sent to serve in Iraq after military commanders decided it would be too dangerous, Britain's Ministry of Defence says.

Insurgents have made specific threats against Harry, saying he could be a kidnap target.

"I've decided the risk to Prince Harry is too great," Richard Dannatt, the head of the British army, told reporters.

"I've also decided that the risk he brings to his troop and his squadron ... is also too great."

we already knew this, but i reckon it's good to hear it from the horse's mouth.


Quote:

Oil behind Iraq war: Government July 05, 2007 09:27am http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22021230-5001021,00.html THE Federal Government has admitted the need to secure oil supplies is a factor in Australia's continued military involvement in Iraq. Defence Minister Brendan Nelson today said oil was a factor in Australia's contribution to the unpopular war as "energy security" and stability in the Middle East would be crucial to the nation's future. Speaking ahead of a key foreign policy speech today by Prime Minister John Howard, Dr Nelson said defence was about protecting the economy as well as physical security - and it was important to support the "prestige" of the US and UK. "The defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them," he said. "The entire (Middle East) region is an important supplier of energy - oil in particular - to the rest of the world. "Australians and all of us need to think well what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq?" Dr Nelson said the primary reason for Australian troops remaining in Iraq was to prevent violence between the Sunni and Shia population, and to bring stability to the region. Mr Howard is to today rule out a withdrawl of combat troops from Iraq. The Australian newspaper reports he will insist our 550-strong force will stay until the Iraqi Government says they are no longer needed. "We're also there to support our key ally - that's the United States of America - and we're there to ensure that we don't have terrorism driven from Iraq which would destabilise our own region," Dr Nelson added. "For all of those reasons, one of which is energy security, it's extremely important that Australia take the view that it's in our interests ... to make sure we leave the Middle East and leave Iraq in particular in a position of sustainable security." Isolationism would not make Australia safer, he said. When Australia joined the US-led invasion force of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2003, the Government said it was primarily because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could pose a threat to the US and its allies. Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd will outline a section of Labor's foreign policy today in a speech in Sydney.

No, that can't be right, we went into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction  ::) ::) ::)

Oh well, at least the Government was nice enough to admit that the Iraqi war was about the oil.

oil was not the reaosn we went to war. There was a mass murdering madman named sadam hussain.

oil is cheap, compared to the price of waging a war. We still have to buy it anyway.



"the primary reason for Australian troops remaining in Iraq was to prevent violence between the Sunni and Shia population, and to bring stability to the region. "
"We're also there to support our key ally - that's the United States of America - and we're there to ensure that we don't have terrorism driven from Iraq which would destabilise our own region," Dr Nelson added.

"For all of those reasons, one of which is energy security, it's extremely important that Australia take the view that it's in our interests ... to make sure we leave the Middle East and leave Iraq in particular in a position of sustainable security."

Isolationism would not make Australia safer, he said.  "



oil is only a minor consideration.

[quote]
Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 12:30pm:

oil was not the reaosn we went to war. There was a mass murdering madman named sadam hussain.

Dont be stupid Sprint, there wasnt any MASS murdering going on over there.
Saddam was good for Iraq. he kept order.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 12:30pm:

oil was not the reaosn we went to war. There was a mass murdering madman named sadam hussain. oil is cheap, compared to the price of waging a war. We still have to buy it anyway. "the primary reason for Australian troops remaining in Iraq was to prevent violence between the Sunni and Shia population, and to bring stability to the region. " "We're also there to support our key ally - that's the United States of America - and we're there to ensure that we don't have terrorism driven from Iraq which would destabilise our own region," Dr Nelson added. "For all of those reasons, one of which is energy security, it's extremely important that Australia take the view that it's in our interests ... to make sure we leave the Middle East and leave Iraq in particular in a position of sustainable security." Isolationism would not make Australia safer, he said.  " oil is only a minor consideration.

Yeah sure Sprint..and guys only read Playboy for the informative articles ::) ::) :o :o :o ;D

It must be so easy in the world  in which you live..la la land.

wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 2:50pm:

[quote] Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5th, 2007 at 12:30pm: oil was not the reaosn we went to war. There was a mass murdering madman named sadam hussain. Dont be stupid Sprint, there wasnt any MASS murdering going on over there. Saddam was good for Iraq. he kept order.

Ill second that..  ;)

oil is cheap, compared to the price of waging a war

You sure about that?

"In December, 2003, following a tip-off from an intelligence source, US forces found Saddam Hussein hiding in an underground refuge on a farm near Tikrit. It was decided that Saddam should be charged with the massacre in the small town of Dujail in 1982"

yes, he did keep order, in a way.


the war is costing US billions of dollars a day. whether US "wins" or not, they still have to buy oil.
At best it is the difference in price of oil under a "US" iraq, or a "nonUS" iraq they are looking at.

Oil prices are set by supply and dem,and worldwide.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 3:46pm:

At best it is the difference in price of oil under a "US" iraq, or a "nonUS" iraq they are looking at.

that can be quite significant given how much the US is dependent on foreign oil.

also, what happened to just "Iraq"? why do u refer to a US Iraq and a non-US Iraq? It doesn't seem right that the US wants to control another country.

I meant an iraq  how it would have been without US liberating it
Or iraq how it is now, with an elected govt.

(How is that for a one eyed view ?)

The oil market is not openly competitive. OPEC openly engages in anti competitive behaviour. That was the reason behind the first gulf war. Interfering in the middle east to ensure a copetitive market place could save the US significant amounts of money.

OK, so I don't watch much soccer, but I did feel a bit embarrassed when Iraq beat us. Now they've gone on to win the Asia cup - well done!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/Iraq-beat-Saudi-Arabia-to-win-Asian-Cup/2007/07/30/1185647769210.html

Iraq has won the 2007 Asian Cup in a victory that represented one of the most inspiring moments in sport, but one that was also weighted by the tragedy from which the team has only temporarily emerged.

A 1-0 victory over Saudi Arabia clinched Iraq's first ever Asian Cup, with a squad drawn together in ad-hoc circumstances from all parts of the Gulf, and with its players straddling the bitter and violent ethnic divides.

And it was no lucky win. Iraq dominated the final against a heavily favoured Saudi Arabia, a three-time Asian Cup champion.

At the final whistle, captain and goal scorer Younis Mahmoud sprinted across the pitch with his elated teammates in pursuit before they collapsed into a pile, overwhelmed with their achievement.

But that elation was juxtaposed against the tragedy in their homeland, and as coach Jorvan Vieira and Mahmoud sat wearing black armbands in the post-match news conference to commemorate the dozens of fans killed during post semifinal celebration, they represented the victory's bittersweet nature.

As boring a game as soccer is, good on them.




Who cares - what about Cadel Evans !!!!! Got 2nd in the worlds premier event.

i love the tour, and go cadel! but there is no way cyclings event is the world premier event...

you forget yourself sprint.

world cup and then olympics, then the tour.

anyway good on Iraq, they played with hearts, even though Korea, Saudi and Australia whom they all beat are way better teams, it  goes to show a lot of heart (and a good european coach) can get you a long way.

Don't take this the wrong way people... but...

bugger Iraq.

Do you guys realise what happened when this barbaric country made the semi-finals? In celebrations after the game in Bagdhad... about 20 people were killed.

Iraqis can't go five minutes without killing someone... why? Because they aren't civilised and are the armpit of th world.

They'll get no respect from me... ever.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html

DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003, indicates that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein's regime despite the collapse of security and lack of public services.

The survey, published yesterday, found that contrary to the views of many Western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are in a civil war.

Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll, conducted by the Opinion Research Business, a British market research company that funded its own survey of 5019 Iraqis over 18.

But the poll highlights the impact that sectarian violence has had. About 26 per cent of Iraqis - 15 per cent of Sunnis and 34 per cent of Shi'ites - have suffered the murder of a family member.

Kidnapping also plays a terrifying role: 14 per cent of Iraqis have had a relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33 per cent in Baghdad, since the fall of Saddam.

But 49 per cent of those questioned preferred life under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to living under Saddam, while 26 per cent said things were better in Saddam's era, 16 per cent said they were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in the statistics: Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Ba'ath Party regime (51 per cent) while the Shi'ites (66 per cent) preferred the Maliki Government.

A surprise was that only 27 per cent believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41 per cent of Sunnis believing Iraq was in civil war, while 15 per cent of Shi'ites thought things were that bad.

In a boost for the other arm of the surge, Sunni tribes from Anbar have united to oppose al-Qa'ida, sending thousands of young men to join the government security forces and co-operating with US and Iraqi commanders.

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. About 53 per cent of Iraqis believe security would improve after the withdrawal of foreign forces, while only 26 per cent think it will get worse.

Despite the sectarian divide, 64per cent of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.

One statistic that bodes ill for Iraq's future is the number of people who have fled the country, many of them middle-class professionals. Baghdad has been hard hit by the brain drain - 35 per cent said a family member had left the country.

My stance is there was more order there when saddam was leader.
Sure, some might suffer, but isnt that the price to pay for the greater good? ie- peace!

wrote on Mar 19^th, 2007 at 5:22pm:

My stance is there was more order there when saddam was leader. Sure, some might suffer, but isnt that the price to pay for the greater good? ie- peace!

Hmm, I agree.

Although I would be a supporter of change were Saddam never ousted, I would support that change from within, not from outside.

Quote:

Hmm, I agree. Although I would be a supporter of change were Saddam never ousted, I would support that change from within, not from outside.

Same here. a slow democratic change would have been ideal for Iraq. Saddam would have been the mediator.

Saddam would have been the mediator.

;D He could have also handed out fairy floss on the street corner.....

Yes a slow deomcratic change.

Um did you read the article, 2/3 of the Iraqi people prefer that America Invaded, who cares what you prefer it is their country.

Once Saddam died his children would have taken over just as in North Korea, it would have taken hundreds of years for a "slow democratic change", thats how long it took in europe.

Since when is Peace of greater importance than Freedom? If peace were so important we should capitualte in every war and put up with everything in the name of "Peace".

I guess with your logic a Peaceful Nazi Europe with the mass murder of Jews and Slavs amongst many other minorities would have been a worthy price to pay for a greater good of "Peace".

Peace is overrated.

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 9:29pm:

Yes a slow deomcratic change. Um did you read the article, 2/3 of the Iraqi people prefer that America Invaded, who cares what you prefer it is their country. Once Saddam died his children would have taken over just as in North Korea, it would have taken hundreds of years for a "slow democratic change", thats how long it took in europe. Since when is Peace of greater importance than Freedom? If peace were so important we should capitualte in every war and put up with everything in the name of "Peace". I guess with your logic a Peaceful Nazi Europe with the mass murder of Jews and Slavs amongst many other minorities would have been a worthy price to pay for a greater good of "Peace". Peace is overrated.

Pender is a juden ;D

Quote:

Um did you read the article, 2/3 of the Iraqi people prefer that America Invaded, who cares what you prefer it is their country.

You idiot, of course they like the fact that he is gone. saddam was a sunni muslim, the shites are the ones who hated him and are now in control. they are the most evil of the muslims.
As a jew i thought you would have known that.

The Australian Wheat Board included $290 000 000 worth of bribes to Saddam Hussein as deductions in it's tax return. The Australian Tax Office saw no problem with this and has accepted their inclusion. Meanwhile Australian farmers are rallying behind the AWB, despite the risk of economic fallout for them resulting from the kickbacks scandal. I guess they considered the risks and thought they would get more money with the AWB doing 'whatever it takes' to sell their product for them.

Terence Cole's report found that the kickbacks to Saddam were not a bribe - first I've heard of it.  The ATO is using Cole's "findings" to make this $290 million a tax reduction and Costello is going along with it.  If the Cole report recommended charges be laid against 11 AWB executives and if this money wasn't a bribe - then why should these executives be charged?

[But a spokesman for Mr Costello said a section in the appendix of the Cole report, showed that the criminal code had not been breached]

Can anyone understand this ruling by the ATO and Terence Cole?  Nothing makes sense - only the fact that our laws are a farce.  If there was nothing illegal, even though every other country believes there was, why did we have this inquiry - at great expense?

The fact is - there's one rule for multinationals and the elite and another for us ordinary folk.

To me this indicates that foreign troops are still having a net beneficial effect in Iraq (though it would be good to see the actual numbers). Having destabilised the country politically and destroyed many of their critical institutions, we should feel obligued to help them rebuild.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22337285-31477,00.html

THE US troop surge in Iraq has thrown al-Qa'ida off balance and produced a dramatic reduction in sectarian killings and a drop in roadside bombings.

David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, said the build-up of American forces in Baghdad since late January had produced positive outcomes. These included the killing or capture of al-Qa'ida fighters, causing the terrorist group to lose influence with local Sunnis.

General Petraeus told The Australian during a face-to-face interview at his Baghdad headquarters there had been a 75 per cent reduction in religious and ethnic killings since last year, a doubling in the seizure of insurgents' weapons caches between January and August, a rise in the number of al-Qa'ida "kills and captures" and a fall in the number of coalition deaths from roadside bombings.

---

AWB breaching the law, says Labor

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/AWB-breaching-the-law-says-Labor/2007/09/13/1189276890657.html

A fresh ruckus is erupting around AWB as the disgraced company prepares to handle one last wheat pool.

Labor and farm groups are outraged by an apparent attempt to insert extra costs into the 2007-08 wheat pool.

Opposition primary industries spokesman Kerry O'Brien says the costs of winding up AWB International along with costs from previous seasons are being included in the up-coming pool.

"I have received legal advice which raises serious concerns about AWB's conduct in relation to this final pool," Senator O'Brien told the Senate.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2007 at 3:51am:

This thread should be re-titled: 'Post your stupid anti-American pics here'

I agree.

People who have no argument love to edit photographs.

How do we feel about that?

I feel as though he is a just a  sacrifice for the Bush administration.

Supposed to have killed thousands but being charged and convicted over the death of 147 kurds..

Whats going on???

You charge a criminal for the crimes you have evidence for. Al Capone got done for tax fraud. He is not just a sacrifice for the Bush admin - that kind of trvialises the suffering his people endured under him. Even the thousands he killed are small compared to the millions who died in the pointless wars he started.

I'm just hoping that things cool down a bit over there when he dies. He was such a dominant leader that his followers would be lost without him. But I suspect it isn't about the baath party any more anyway.

I have a different view.  Saddam has only been charged for the death of 142 Kurds - who apparently had plotted to kill him.  In many countries, this massacre would have been accepted as retribution and only fair as an assassination attempt had been made on their leader's life.

I believe the US is getting rid of Saddam as quickly as possible because they don't want the world to know the role they played in aiding and abbetting him.  This is happening too quickly.

There are other nations who want Saddam tried in the International Court of Justice in order for all his atrocities to be made public.

The Iraqi Government was only recently handed power (on paper anyway) by the US to make this trial independant - you have to wonder why?

142 - that's a lot of people. Did he give them any kind of trial, or was it more of a 'shotgun' approach to justice. I'm guessing it was the latter and that he murdered a lot of innocent people out of convenience.

Bush did a Pontius Pilot with Saddam.

What about the American Indians they tried wiping them out for their own gains. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Yes, the US has done alot for its gain. It's a ruthless country. Alot of tribes or native people around the world get 'conquered' and still do. It is a sad world.

About Saddam, the was just not right or at the right time. It could be a costly decision to the US. It was errie the old president Ford died after Xmas and in the US they put a big and drawn out memorial for him while Saddam got a small and crude memorial/funeral. That's awful. So what about Bush and his army that kill thousands of Iraqs and Afghans during the conflict? Where is the justice for them? What about other dictatorships in the world? Where is their justice? Who is going after the innocent, genocide or communism murders?  :-/

The rich and powerful are usually immuned from punishment - unless they're put into the official category of "dictator" - although some get away with it.

Saddam knew too much that was the problem.  Who knows how many people Saddam was responsible for killing - but Bush & Co. are certainly catching up quickly.

This article is spot quoted, for clarity.


"Why did Iran stop its nuclear weapons program? According to the NIE, "the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure".

But, as Claudia Rosett pointed out in a trenchant analysis in the Philadelphia Inquirer: "If international pressure achieved such sterling results in Iran four yearsago, then surely we deserve to know what, exactly, impressed Iran's rulers so thoroughly that they might have slammed on the brakes."

What did that pressure consist of?

As Rosett puts it, that "was the year in which Saddam Hussein became Exhibit A of the post-September-11 era for what could happen to terror-linked tyrants who ignored America's demands that they abjure weapons of mass murder".

Did anyone notice? Muammar Gaddafi did. Libya, in late 2003, gave up its nuclear weapons program (which was, incidentally, more advanced than the IAEA had believed) and invited US experts in to dismantle it.

Perhaps Iran's mullahs also noticed. Perhaps they noticed, too, a large US-led military force just across their border.

More determined and stronger than Gaddafi, the mullahs did not dismantle their program. Iran quite openly forged ahead with its easier-to-defend-publicly "civil" uranium enrichment program. And rather than dismantling or scrapping the "weapons" part of the program, Iran merely "halted" it.

The final part is victory in Iraq. President George W.Bush's successful shift in strategy in Iraq a year ago, as part of his commitment to finishing that job, remains his greatest contribution to peace in the Middle East.

The complete and unequivocal defeat of al-Qa'ida and of Iranian-backed proxies in Iraq is the best way to show Iran that the US is a serious power to be reckoned with in the region.

Resisting the temptation to throw away success in Iraq by drawing down too fast or too deep is the greatest service this President can render his successor. Only if Bush wins in Iraq will the next president have a reasonable chance to defeat the threat of a nuclear-weapons-seeking Islamic Republic of Iran. "




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22895461-15084,00.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search forum- 'The following edited excerpt from Bob Ellis' essay in SMH asks why our leaders' criminal behaviour is exempt from scrutiny. i think they should be brought to account.
Excerpt.
[Those who watched] may ask: if a head of state can hang by the neck until he is dead for having ordered, or countenanced, or signed off on, or not punished, or failed to countermand the torture and killing of 148 Iraqis guiltless of any great crime, what will happen to the generals, bureaucrats, prime ministers and heads of state who ordered, or countenanced, or signed off on, or did not punish, or did not countermand, the killing of 150,000 Iraqis guiltless of any great crime (the Iraqi Government's estimate of the dead) and the torture of ten thousand more? And how many Americans - Bremmer, Abizaid, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bush - should on this precedent be charged and hanged?
They may also ask… what was fair about a trial in which three of the defence lawyers were shot and those who survived forbidden to see the prosecution's testimony before it was unveiled in court, … And why this trial wasn't aborted, and another trial begun in The Hague… And why Saddam died so soon. Something to do, perhaps, with his coming genocide trials and the complicity of Germany, France, the US and Britain in the manufacture of his nerve gas, anthrax, cluster bombs and helicopter gunships, and his amiable business relationships with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush snr, once head of the CIA, in past decades, and how his genocidal methods back then did not greatly annoy them, not so long as he paid his bills.
And these are the freedoms we fought for… The freedom to ask, and not be told … what really happened,… Such were the freedoms Nixon encouraged in Chile when he helped Pinochet to censor, torture and kill those inconvenient to the many, many secrets America wanted to keep.
These are the freedoms we fought for, and will now defend in Iraq for decades if Bush and Howard, brothers-in-arms for "freedom", get their way.'

Blair's Office Says Manner Of Saddam Hussein's Execution Was "Completely Wrong"


Web Editor:  Matt Bush, Online Content Producer  
Created: 1/7/2007 1:39:20 PM
Updated: 1/7/2007 1:39:45 PM







 Email This Story
 Printer Friendly Version  
 Send Us A News Tip  
 Make WCSH6.com Your Homepage
 WCSH6.com/mobile

British Prime Minister Tony Blair believes the manner of Saddam Hussein's execution was "completely wrong."
 
 


Blair's office says the prime minister plans to speak about the hanging later this week, but he supports an Iraqi government inquiry. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered an investigation into the release of an unofficial video in which Saddam is heard exchanging insults with people attending the execution.

A spokeswoman for Blair says while the process was poorly handled, it should not overshadow "the crimes that Saddam Hussein committed."

Blair has been under pressure to share his views after his deputy and his likely successor both criticized the execution.

The death of a dictator


2007/1/7
The China Post



Few would shed tears over Saddam Hussein's hanging. The brutal dictator who ruled Iraq for 24 years was executed last Saturday for "crimes against humanity." His death should have been celebrated by people who embrace democracy and justice, particularly by the Iraqis who were victims of Saddam's tyranny. It should have become a milestone of George W. Bush's war on terror.
But this is not the case. For many Iraqis who hated Saddam before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, life seemed better under Saddam. "I wish Saddam was back," an Iraqi who danced the day when Saddam's giant statue fell on April 9, 2003, was quoted as saying in a dispatch from Baghdad by a Western paper. "For all the ills and atrocities of Hussein's rule," the dispatch said, "the country was better off then than it is now."

President Bush's invasion, dubbed "Operation Iraqi Freedom," did not bring the sort of freedom the Iraqi's wanted. It has only brought death and destruction to the ancient civilization. So far, more than half a million Iraqis, mostly civilians, have lost their lives in the war and in sectarian killings between anti-Hussein Shiites and pro-Saddam Sunnis.

For the American invaders, the death toll broke the 3,000 mark on New Year's Day, and the number is increasing day by day. The first Gulf War in 1991, when George W's father was president, cost some 380 American lives. Bush senior pulled out U.S. troops from Iraq right after defeating Saddam's army.

There is no denying that Saddam was a brutal despot, and aggressor to boot. His invasion and occupation of Kuwait prompted the first Gulf War. He was eying Kuwait's oil the same way as America is eying Iraq's. Saddam knew this and he told the world that George Bush's attack on Iraq was not because of his false accusation that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because it possessed oil.

It turned out that Saddam was telling the truth. Bush's hubris plus his over-confidence in America's military might has bogged the world's sole superpower down in a costly and unpopular war. He has succeeded in hunting down Saddam and sending him to the gallows, but he has failed to extricate American troops from the Iraqi quagmire and from preventing Saddam's ghost from haunting him.

Far from being "an important milestone in Iraq becoming a democracy," as President Bush so brazenly put it, Saddam's hanging is not an example of Western justice but instead of jungle justice. Saddam's worst crimes were committed when he was an American ally in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, but he was condemned only after he became America's enemy.

Saddam Hussein, the tyrant, dictator and despot, has suddenly become a martyr and hero in the Muslim world, and possibly beyond. In contrast, George Bush is seen as a bully and an aggressor.

A milestone? Probably not. It is a millstone around Bush's neck. The mid-term elections last November spoke volumes of the voter's resentment of Bush, resulting in the GOP's resounding defeat in both houses of Congress. It seems that Bush's nightmare is just beginning, now that Saddam Hussein is dead.

avatar wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 7:55am:

The death of a dictator 2007/1/7 The China Post Few would shed tears over Saddam Hussein's hanging. The brutal dictator who ruled Iraq for 24 years was executed last Saturday for "crimes against humanity." His death should have been celebrated by people who embrace democracy and justice, particularly by the Iraqis who were victims of Saddam's tyranny. It should have become a milestone of George W. Bush's war on terror. But this is not the case. For many Iraqis who hated Saddam before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, life seemed better under Saddam. "I wish Saddam was back," an Iraqi who danced the day when Saddam's giant statue fell on April 9, 2003, was quoted as saying in a dispatch from Baghdad by a Western paper. "For all the ills and atrocities of Hussein's rule," the dispatch said, "the country was better off then than it is now." President Bush's invasion, dubbed "Operation Iraqi Freedom," did not bring the sort of freedom the Iraqi's wanted. It has only brought death and destruction to the ancient civilization. So far, more than half a million Iraqis, mostly civilians, have lost their lives in the war and in sectarian killings between anti-Hussein Shiites and pro-Saddam Sunnis. For the American invaders, the death toll broke the 3,000 mark on New Year's Day, and the number is increasing day by day. The first Gulf War in 1991, when George W's father was president, cost some 380 American lives. Bush senior pulled out U.S. troops from Iraq right after defeating Saddam's army. There is no denying that Saddam was a brutal despot, and aggressor to boot. His invasion and occupation of Kuwait prompted the first Gulf War. He was eying Kuwait's oil the same way as America is eying Iraq's. Saddam knew this and he told the world that George Bush's attack on Iraq was not because of his false accusation that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because it possessed oil. It turned out that Saddam was telling the truth. Bush's hubris plus his over-confidence in America's military might has bogged the world's sole superpower down in a costly and unpopular war. He has succeeded in hunting down Saddam and sending him to the gallows, but he has failed to extricate American troops from the Iraqi quagmire and from preventing Saddam's ghost from haunting him. Far from being "an important milestone in Iraq becoming a democracy," as President Bush so brazenly put it, Saddam's hanging is not an example of Western justice but instead of jungle justice. Saddam's worst crimes were committed when he was an American ally in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, but he was condemned only after he became America's enemy. Saddam Hussein, the tyrant, dictator and despot, has suddenly become a martyr and hero in the Muslim world, and possibly beyond. In contrast, George Bush is seen as a bully and an aggressor. A milestone? Probably not. It is a millstone around Bush's neck. The mid-term elections last November spoke volumes of the voter's resentment of Bush, resulting in the GOP's resounding defeat in both houses of Congress. It seems that Bush's nightmare is just beginning, now that Saddam Hussein is dead.

---

He was - according to the media and our PM - a very cruel and sadistic man - but then so are many men.  While Mugabe gets away with having millions slaughtered in Zimbabwe, Saddam gets executed.  The trial of Saddam was so regressive - you would assume it was a scene from the Dark Ages.

For some reason - the scenes of Saddam being caught in that hole, humiliated on TV, his appearances in Court & finally the hanging - make me feel very sad that his life was used as an example to prove to the world that the US is just as barbaric as those they accuse of the same crimes.

You have to wonder how 3 men could cause such misery and damage - morally and socially.  The changes to society have just happened too quickly in the past 10 years as this psychophant Howard has just allowed his mate Bush to run roughshod over us to become a part in this Iraq/Afghanistan War.  

Bush, Blair, Howard, etc will not hang
It's unlikely they'll ever be indicted

By not stopping Saddam's execution
The West has proved itself no better than the people it's fighting

But maybe I'm a hypocrite because I don't feel pity for Saddam

This, I think will be fact.

---

Another George Bush hater.  ::)

quote-avatar
'' And how many Americans - Bremmer, Abizaid, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bush - should on this precedent be charged and hanged? ''

They wont be hung, because they are jewish.(rice and bush are honorary israelies)

Yeah I agree nothing will happen unless, we the people want it bad enough. There is a protest that many groups are supporting , which may well force the money men to change their support over that war.
It is in the states but we need to show support globally as the companies that do hold the power are selling their stuff all over the world. Do you want to know more ?

2007 the deadliest year for US in Iraq

http://news.smh.com.au/2007-the-deadliest-year-for-us-in-iraq/20071231-1jm8.html

The second half of 2007 saw violence drop dramatically in Iraq, but the progress came at a high price: The year was the deadliest for the US military since the 2003 invasion, with 899 troops killed.

American commanders and diplomats, however, say the battlefield gains against insurgents such as al-Qaeda in Iraq offer only a partial picture of where the country stands as the war moves toward its five-year mark in March.

Two critical shifts that boosted US-led forces in 2007 - a self-imposed ceasefire by a main Shiite militia and a grassroots Sunni revolt against extremists - could still unravel unless serious unity efforts are made by the Iraqi government.

Iran also remains a major wild card. US officials believe the neighbouring country has helped quiet Iraq by reducing its flow of suspected aid to Shiite fighters, including materials needed for deadly roadside bombs.

---

The CIA operation that should have prevented the Iraq war

http://news.smh.com.au/the-cia-operation-that-should-have-prevented-the-iraq-war/20080205-1q62.html

When Saad Tawfiq watched Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations on February 5 2003 he shed bitter tears as he realised he had risked his life and those of his loved ones for nothing.

As one of Saddam Hussein's most gifted engineers, Tawfiq knew that the Iraqi dictator had shut down his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes in 1995 -- and he had told his handlers in US intelligence just that.

And yet here was the then US secretary of state -- Tawfiq's television was able to received international news through a link pirated from Saddam's spies next door -- waving a vial of white powder and telling the UN Security Council a story about Iraqi germ labs.

"When I saw Colin Powell I started crying. Immediately. I knew I had tried and lost," Tawfiq told AFP five years later in the Jordanian capital Amman.

Now in his fifties, a round-faced man with a small moustache and lively eyes behind delicate spectacles, Tawfiq described how the CIA set up an elaborate operation to recruit Iraqi weapons scientists and then ignored the results.

From the end of 2002 the US spy agency had sources inside Iraq's weapons plants telling them clearly what the whole world now knows -- that Saddam had ended efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Nevertheless in March 2003 the United States and Britain invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam of this non-existent arsenal and in the process triggered the effective collapse of the Iraqi state, plunging it into chaos and bringing thousands of deaths.

Tawfiq picked his sister up from Baghdad airport on September 9, 2002. Her homecoming was emotional, but the pair had work to do. They met secretly at night in the family garden and took walks together in the city.

The weapons engineer was astonished by the CIA's questions, which he thought showed the depths of the agency's ignorance about events in his country.

"I went crazy. The questions were dumb. She was telling me: 'They know you have a programme,' and I was saying: 'There is nothing. Tell them there is nothing, absolutely nothing. They have left us with nothing'," Tawfiq said.

"She was taking notes. There were 20 major questions, and to all of them the answer was: 'No, no, no...' I kept swearing on the grave of my mother."

According to Tawfiq, Saddam Hussein gave the order to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes in 1995, after his brother-in-law and arms chief Hussein Kamel defected and briefed the UN inspectors.

---

Iraq violence surges in February

http://news.smh.com.au/iraq-violence-surges-in-february/20080301-1w4x.html

The number of Iraqis killed in February rose by 33 percent over January, reversing a six-month trend of reduced violence, in a setback to the US military plan to curb the bloodshed ravaging the country.

The combined figures obtained by AFP from the interior, defence and health ministries showed that the total number of Iraqis killed in February was 721, including 636 civilians, compared with 541 dead in January.

Red Cross slams 'critical' situation in post-invasion Iraq

http://news.smh.com.au/red-cross-slams-critical-situation-in-postinvasion-iraq/20080317-1zvi.html

The humanitarian situation in post-war Iraq five years after the US-led invasion is one of the most critical in the world, the International Committee of the Red Cross said in a report late Sunday.

Millions in the country had no access to drinking water, sanitation or healthcare. Decades of previous unrest and economic sanctions had exacerbated the situation, it stressed.

"The fact that some people in Iraq are now relatively safer must not make us forget the plight of millions," said Beatrice Megevand Roggo, the Red Cross head of operations in the Middle East and North Africa.

Although the situation had improved in some areas, Iraqis were either killed or wounded in daily attacks or violence with civilians often being targeted, said the report. Healthcare was far too expensive for the average citizen, it added.

A recent World Health Organisation and Iraqi health ministry report estimated that 151,000 people were killed between the start of the invasion on March 20, 2003 and June 2006.

Other estimates have put the number of civilian deaths as a result of the conflict between nearly 48,000 and as high as 601,000.

and who is killing all these iraquis ?

Oh, muzzies

Plenty of Christians and atheists too.

http://news.smh.com.au/red-cross-amnesty-paint-grim-picture-of-postinvasion-iraq/20080317-1zzy.html

Yes I agree FD.  Iraq has been brought to its knees.  The christians, atheists and muslims are doing the slaughtering because there's no one in control.  

In retrospect Saddam at least maintained some sort of civil order, regardless of the tactics he used.  No doubt there were far less deaths under his regime than the chaos existing there now.

http://news.smh.com.au/iraq-invasion-was-successful-cheney/20080318-201o.html

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has declared the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq a "successful endeavour" during a visit to Baghdad, on the same day a woman suicide bomber killed 40 people.

"If you look back on those five years it has been a difficult, challenging but nonetheless successful endeavour ... and it has been well worth the effort," Cheney, an architect of the invasion, said after meeting Iraqi leaders on Monday.

Quote:

US Vice-President thingy Cheney has declared the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq a "successful endeavour" during a visit to Baghdad, on the same day a woman suicide bomber killed 40 people.

He would say that - his company Haliburton (of which he is now only a director - although he still maintains a major shareholding) has reaped a fortune from the misfortune of Iraq.  Haliburton & subsidiaries have their fingers in most of the pie by not only supplying all the catering & accommodation to the US marines, but construction & maintenance, oil supply & distribution and arms manufacturing.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 8:57am:

US Vice-President Dick Cheney   <snip>

Thingy Cheney?    :D

UN refugee agency says Iraq fuelling rise in asylum seekers

http://news.smh.com.au/un-refugee-agency-says-iraq-fuelling-rise-in-asylum-seekers/20080318-207z.html

Iraqis are still fleeing their country five years after the US-led invasion and top the list of asylum seekers in the industrialised world, the UN refugee agency said Tuesday.

In 2007, the number of new applications for refugees in 43 industrialised countries rose 10 percent to 338,000 from 306,300 the previous year, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees said in a report.

Iraqis topped the list of asylum seekers in industrialised countries for the second year running, accounting for more than 10 percent of the total with 45,200 applications last year, the UNHCR said.

"It is important to bear in mind, however, that Iraqi asylum seekers in industrialised countries represent only one percent of the estimated 4.5 million Iraqis uprooted by the conflict," the report said.

Two million Iraqis have fled to neighbouring Jordan and Syria, where social and health services are struggling with the influx, while another 2.5 million people are internally displaced.

---

Clinton says 'we cannot win' Iraq war

http://news.smh.com.au/clinton-says-we-cannot-win-iraq-war/20080318-204r.html

Hillary Clinton said on Monday the Iraq war may end up costing Americans $1 trillion and further strain the economy, as she made her case for a prompt US troop pullout from a war "we cannot win".

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, but voters now say the economy is their top issue in the campaign for the November presidential election.

Clinton, the former first lady who is trying to convince voters she has foreign policy gravitas, criticised both her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Senator Barack Obama, and the Republicans' choice, Senator John McCain.

She said the war has sapped US military and economic strength, damaged US national security, taken the lives of nearly 4,000 Americans and left thousands wounded.

Clinton said that while Obama insists he will withdraw US troops in Iraq within 16 months of taking office, his former foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, had said he might not follow through on the pledge.

---

Nats against laws to abolish single desk

http://news.smh.com.au/nats-against-laws-to-abolish-single-desk/20080318-203v.html

The Nationals will oppose federal government legislation aimed at abolishing the single desk wheat marketing system.

Nationals Leader Warren Truss says his party has been a lifelong supporter of the current system.

"The single desk had served the Australian wheat industry and the nation well for more than 60 years," he said in a statement.

"The majority of wheat growers still support the single desk."

I disagree entirely.
The alllied forces (not christians and athiests) are killing hardly anyone.
The muslim terroritst (muslims) are mass murdering anyone and everyone.

Who is causing the problems there ? Muslims

The alllied forces (not christians and athiests) are killing hardly anyone.
The muslim terroritst (muslims) are mass murdering anyone and everyone.

So all those bombs they dropped - they only damaged buildings? If you destabilise a country and create a power vacuum, aren't you at least partly responsible for the inevitable violence that ensues?

Very few bombs were dropped.  All at military targets.
remember the tanks racing across the deserts and towns welcoming the alied forces ?

The violence now is hardly inevitable.
Germany and japan did not have murder themselves by the hundred after the war.
There is no power vacuum, there is a democratically elected govt there.

Very few bombs? Do you know how many were dropped? They were dropped in cities. I don't remember anything about tanks welcoming allied forces. If they did that they would have been lucky not to get blown up. And the violence was inevitable. Iraq is not the same as Germany or Japan. It was barely holding together under Saddam. To expect the same outcome as in Germany or Japan is just naive.

Japan and germany were 60 years ago !!!!!!

Is iraq STILL behind that ? What is holding them back ?

Foreign interference.

---

Rudd says Iraq is still a major blunder

http://news.smh.com.au/rudd-says-iraq-is-still-a-major-blunder/20080319-20di.html

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he hasn't changed his view that the invasion of Iraq almost five years ago was a major blunder.

But it was not the fault of troops, he said.

Mr Rudd, who visited Australian troops in Iraq while in opposition and as prime minister, said they were doing a first class job.

"So there is no criticism of them at all, in fact nothing but praise," he told reporters.

During the election campaign, Labor described Australian involvement in Iraq as the "greatest single failure of national security policy since Vietnam".

"On the overall wisdom of embarking upon this war in the first place, our position is well known," Mr Rudd said.

"If you are going to embark on a war like that, have it very clearly in mind from day one what your exit strategy is to be and what your mission statement is to be," he said.

"That has been one of the problems which the operation in Iraq has confronted from day one."

---

Kind of an empty promise, but it's the thought that counts, right?

Five years on, Bush vows victory in Iraq

http://news.smh.com.au/five-years-on-bush-vows-victory-in-iraq/20080320-20kh.html

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday defended the launch of the war against Iraq five years ago, vowing no retreat as he promised US forces would triumph over Iraqi insurgents.

"Five years into this battle, there's an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it. The answers are clear to me," Bush said at the Pentagon.

http://news.smh.com.au/bush-urges-patience-with-iraq/20080320-20la.html

http://news.smh.com.au/five-years-on-bush-says-iraq-war-will-end-in-victory/20080320-20k5.html

---

About 160 anti-war protesters held in US

http://news.smh.com.au/about-160-antiwar-protesters-held-in-us/20080320-20la.html

More than 160 people were arrested across the United States on Wednesday as protesters marked the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.

There were 32 arrests in Washington after demonstrators attempted to block entrances to the Internal Revenue Service, while 30 others were arrested outside a congressional office building, police said.

Protesters had hoped to shut down the IRS, the US tax collection agency, to highlight the cost of the war. Police cleared the building's entrances within an hour.

from crikey:

US backs good, rich Shi'ites against the bad, poor ones
Jeff Sparrow writes:

According to George Bush, "Iraqi security forces are waging a tough battle against militia fighters and criminals in Basra, many of whom have received arms and training and funding from Iran."

But hang on a minute. In that "tough battle", isn’t the US providing air support for an organization called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Wasn’t the SCIRI (more recently known as the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) founded 25 years ago as an Iranian proxy? Didn’t, until May last year, the SCIRI/ICI explicitly take its spiritual direction from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

Isn’t, in fact, the SCIRI/ICI the same organisation which the International Crisis Group says "has never quite managed to shake off its past as an Iran-bred group of exiles with a narrow sectarian agenda enforced by a potent militia"?

So why are the Americans fighting for Iranian-backed theocrats, even as they complain about Iranian interference? And why did George Bush shake hands with the head honcho of the SCIRI/ISCI and call him "one of the distinguished leaders of a free Iraq"?

Because – wait for it! – the SCIRI/ISCI represents the good, rich Shi'ites instead of the bad, poor ones.

The International Crisis Group continues:

As long as the U.S. remains in Iraq, its alliance with ISCI will help entrench the party in the country’s governing, security and intelligence institutions, in Baghdad as well as most southern governorates. Its only true challenger remains the Mahdi army, which despite its ruffian credentials and bloody role in sectarian reprisals enjoys broad support among Shi'ite masses. Their rivalry now takes the form of a class struggle between the Shi'ite merchant elite of Baghdad and the holy cities, represented by ISCI (as well, religiously, by Sistani), and the Shi'ite urban underclass.

You might think that an intervention against the nationalist underclass on behalf of the pro-Iranian merchant elite has "blowback" written all over it. CNN's senior military analyst, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Donald Sheppard, agrees:

We're looking at a situation that will be akin to Lebanon in the 1980s, with vicious, well-armed militia proxy wars where all the factions are supported by one foreign sponsor or another. But this will be Lebanon on steroids.

Au contraire, says the Pentagon. Actually, it says, the renewed violence in Basra and elsewhere actually demonstrates success, since the "Iraqi government has grown and increased in capability to the point where they now feel confident going after Shia extremists in a part of the country that they had not exerted great influence over."

It’s worth noting that, according to NASA, a human mission to Mars would cost about $40 billion. George Bush could, in other words, launch seven interplanetary invasions each year for less than he’s spending on Iraq.

Occupying Mars would be, of course, entirely insane. But considerably less so than the eye-poppingly bizarre campaign currently taking place in Iraq.

Thanks Oceans. This has come up in a few threads. Obviously the legality of a war always comes second to it's moral justification. For starters, to the extent that war is illegal, there is no-one to enforce the law, which makes it a bit pointless. However, since some people have gotten hung up on the technical legality, this is as close to a conclusive answer as you could hope to get:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/0916illegal.htm

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish." He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

---

When a soldier tries to stir up the emotions of local people by doing stupid stuff like this, he puts his mates lives in danger.

US soldier in Iraq shoots holes in Koran

http://news.smh.com.au/world/us-soldier-in-iraq-shoots-holes-in-koran-20080518-2fky.html

An American soldier has been sent home from Iraq after a copy of the Koran was found pocked with bullet holes at a shooting range near Baghdad, the US military said.

Such an act of desecration of the Muslim holy book could inflame anger against the US military presence in Iraq.

The US military said Iraqi police found the Koran on May 11 at a firing range in Radwaniyah village near Baghdad.

Colonel Bill Buckner, a US military spokesman, said the Koran was marked with bullet holes and also had graffiti scrawled inside the cover. It was not immediately clear if the Koran had been used for target practice.

"Coalition commanders have briefed local leaders on the results of the investigation and expressed their deep regret," Buckner said in a statement.

"They have also undertaken disciplinary action against the soldier who was involved and he has been removed from Iraq."

In his statement, Buckner stressed that the US military respected Islam and the Koran.

From the UK Guardian (19 March 2008):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq



Extract:
The Americans learned one lesson from Vietnam: don't count the civilian dead. As a result, no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed in the five years since the invasion. Estimates put the toll at between 100,000 and one million, and now a bitter war of numbers is raging. Jonathan Steele and Suzanne Goldenberg report

Lieutenant General Tommy Franks, who led the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan during his time as head of US Central Command, once announced, "We don't do body counts." This blunt response to a question about civilian casualties was an attempt to distance George Bush's wars from the disaster of Vietnam. One of the rituals of that earlier conflict was the daily announcement of how many Vietnamese fighters US forces had killed. It was supposed to convince a sceptical American public that victory was coming. But the "body count" concept sounded callous - and never more so than when it emerged that many of the alleged guerrilla dead were in fact women, children and other unarmed civilians.

Iraq was going to be different. The US would count its own dead (now close to 4,000), but the toll the war was taking on Iraqis was not a matter the Pentagon or any other US government department intended to quantify. Especially once Bush had declared "mission accomplished" on May 1 2003 - after that, every new Iraqi who died by violence would be a signal that the president was wrong, and would show that a war conducted in the name of humanitarian intervention was exacting a mounting humanitarian toll of its own.

....

Those who claim Saddam's toppling made life safer for Iraqis have a lot of explaining to do.

acid - many iraq civillians have died.
Other iraqs (muslims) are killing them.
Americans are not.

Sprint wouldn't it be great if they made some attempt to keep a body count? That way you would be able to back up that claim. But for some reason they prefer people not to know the facts.

The usual pundits have been saying that Osama was barracking for Rudd and Obama. How about Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki instead?

Maliki backs Obama's exit plan

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24048846-2703,00.html

IRAQI Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki yesterday appeared to endorse Barack Obama's timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, siding with the Democrat presidential nominee on a key policy difference with Republican rival John McCain.

The endorsement from the Iraqi leader came as Senator Obama was in Afghanistan to kick off a tour of the Middle East and Europe in a week that is freighted with importance for American politics.
"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," Mr Maliki told Germany's Der Spiegel magazine. "That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

But Mr Maliki's spokesman in Baghdad last night tried to hose down the comments, saying the Prime Minister's comments were "not conveyed accurately" by Der Spiegel.

Spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Mr Maliki did not endorse a specific timetable but instead discussed a "an Iraqi vision" of US troop withdrawals based on talks with Washington and "in the light of the continuing positive developments on the ground".

Der Spiegel's article quoted Mr Maliki as giving apparent backing to the withdrawal plans discussed by Senator Obama. The Illinois senator has pledged to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he is elected.

Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," Mr Maliki said. "Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems."

Asked when US forces would leave Iraq, he responded: "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned."

In the interview, Mr Maliki said he was not seeking to endorse Senator Obama.

Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to Mr Maliki, said later that Iraqi officials did not intend to be "part of the electoral campaign in the United States". "We will deal with any administration that comes to power," he said.

It was the first time Mr Maliki has backed the withdrawal timetable proposed by Senator Obama, and coming on the eve of the Illinois senator's second visit to the country, the comments will carry heavy weight.

Senator McCain has portrayed withdrawal timetables as something akin to surrender as he attempts to paint Senator Obama as weak and inexperienced on foreign policy and the war.

Senator McCain's foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, said yesterday: "Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground.

"Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honour, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama," Mr Scheunemann said.

Mr Maliki pointedly said in the interview that "Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," he said.

Mr Maliki's endorsement of Senator Obama's position leaves little room for the Democrat's critics, since even US President George W. Bush has said Mr Maliki is the legitimate leader of a sovereign country.

Senator Obama has argued for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and wants to pull out troops within 16 months and instead add more US soldiers to Afghanistan.

Asked if he supported Senator Obama's ideas more than those of Senator McCain, Mr Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

But he added: "Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of US troops would cause problems."

Then, in an embarrassing gaffe, the Obama camp even had the White House trumpeting the news. President Bush has been trying to hose down talks of withdrawal timetables lest it play in the Democratic candidate's hands, but inadvertently the White House press office emailed journalists the news that Mr Maliki was supporting Senator Obama's timetable, distributing a Reuters story under the heading "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine". The email was meant for internal distribution.

Senator Obama's senior national security adviser, Susan Rice, emailed reporters saying Mr Maliki's comments "present an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan".

The news comes amid huge expectation for Senator Obama's first international foray as the Democratic Party's choice for president.

Until now, Senator Obama's most defining moment in the crucible of the US's drawn-out presidential campaign was arguably a race speech in Philadelphia in March. He had been forced to respond to incendiary comments of his former pastor. The speech came off as a political masterstroke and saved his campaign.

In that address, Senator Obama proved that for a majority of Americans he could overcome the political baggage of race that until then had shadowed his candidacy.