4 years on

I suppose it's a difference of opinion. I think terrorism does need to be tackled, rather than just leave them to it. And by extremism, I mean such as the regime Saddam had in Iraq, which I think too should be tackled, rather than left alone. The same applies to Mugabe in Zimbabwe. I think we should try and get him out of power. I'm not saying go to war, but apply some sort of pressure on the guy! You seem to think we should leave him to it :( I should have made my point on 'extremism' more clear, sorry :)

I actually agree with you Eki with what you say - lead by example! War definately is the last option.

However, it's easy to say that now. What I'm interested in hearing from you guys, is what should be done now rather than why it was wrong to go to war.

However no one seems to have a solution on the course of action that should take place now, they seem to prefer to say the obvious and say the war shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

I think terrorism does need to be tackled, rather than just leave them to it.

---

Of course, but it should be tackled in more subtle way behind the scenes and get only the "bad guys" and not the innocents around them. The extremists are few in the beginning, so it's important that you win the hearts and minds of the more moderate before the extremists do. If you go all guns blazing to the Middle East and kill let's say 100 moderates as "collateral damage", those 100 could have 2 moderate friends or family members each that now become extremists and want to revenge their loss at all costs. That means 200 new "terrorists" have just born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarlMetro

The death of Saddam Hussein is one thing that has been achieved, but according to a report I was reading recently, this could have happened in the original 1991 attack when a small group of SAS soldiers was despatched to 'take him out' and could have achieved their objective easily but were told not to proceed.

---

I would love to see the proof of this. First off, the UK and your civilzed nations do NOT believe in using assassin's, and what is more, most military units will not participate in any action that targets a civilian leader. That said, Hussein wasn't really a civilian in any stretch, more like a mad dog that the SAS would have loved to put down. That said, if Mossad couldn't knock him off, I don't see how the SAS ever were close enough to do the job, and I have the utmost respect for the SAS, but I don't believe they could have done it. Where is your proof?

As for this thread, it is just another plantive whine about how terrible Americans are and how self assured and smug all libreals are about how this has turned out. In the first 3 months, most of these self righteous libreals were awful quiet as it looked like Iraq was going to be conquered and looked after with little loss of life. As it turns out, life is never that simple, but it is easy to be a genius when you are pointing out what is wrong after the fact.

I thought the war was fought for the right reasons (ridding of the world of this lunatic rogue regime ) but with the wrong execution or plan for what would happen after. Lets just say Bush has found out that the path to hell is paved with bad intentions, or empty rounds from a war fought with too few troops or not enough ferocity....

As for those who just oppose it because the Americans are the worlds bad guys, well, nothing logical or noble will change your mind, for you have all the answers......just ask you.

Now they are building a wall. What next:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267281,00.html

U.S. Builds Wall to Separate Factions in Baghdad

Friday, April 20, 2007

BAGHDAD — U.S. soldiers are building a three-mile wall to protect a Sunni Arab enclave surrounded by Shiite neighborhoods in a Baghdad area "trapped in a spiral of sectarian violence and retaliation," the military said.

When the wall is finished, the minority Sunni community of Azamiyah, located on the eastern side of the Tigris River, will be completely gated, and traffic control points manned by Iraqi soldiers will provide the only means to enter it, the military said.

"Shiites are coming in and hitting Sunnis, and Sunnis are retaliating across the street," said Capt. Scott McLearn, of the U.S. 407th Brigade Support Battalion, which began the project April 10 and is working "almost nightly until the wall is complete," the statement said.

It said the concrete wall, including barriers as tall as 12 feet, "is one of the centerpieces of a new strategy by coalition and Iraqi forces to break the cycle of sectarian violence" in Baghdad.

Hey ...it sort of worked in Belfast didn't it?? When you have two sides bound and determined to kill each other, a wall is the best way to calm things down. Cyprus has one too. When people wont discuss their grieveances without violence, you may have to separate em. Heck Eki, you should like this, it beats the Americans killing them....

they'll just fire mortars over now.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/h...e#contentSwap2

Again some interesting points in the following article by Alan Ramsey in this weekends Sydney Morning Herald. It is a longish article with references to 'the war on terror' by former Labour Minister in the Blair Government and now the British Government's representative in Australia (High Commisioner), Helen Liddell and at the end on the article some points about he use of 'contaractors' in Iraq used by companies like Blackwater Inc. and Tripple Canopy. It seems that some of these contractors are there for the 'fun' and not to help rebuild Iraq:

Helen Liddell arrived in Canberra last July as the Blair Labor Government's appointee as British High Commissioner to Australia. She used to be a minister. This week, in a speech to our National Press Club, Liddell had the temerity to tell the inconvenient (if obvious) truth about the invasion of Iraq.
"We have never seen Iraq as part of the war on terrorism," she told her audience on Wednesday, in answer to a question. "Certainly, at the moment, we are engaged in a war on the streets in Afghanistan, in Iraq, against terrorism, but our raison d'etre for our involvement in Iraq has not been about terrorism. We have always said, all along, that you cannot defeat what is going on in some parts of the world today by military might alone …"
Good heavens, woman, go wash your mouth.

Next day, when John Howard emerged in his walled Parliament House courtyard to let loose his latest fear campaign, this time about the dying Murray-Darling rivers system, another inconvenient truth which has been inconvenient for far longer than our Prime Minister wants you to think about, he was asked, in the last question of his press conference before he scuttled back into his office: "Mr Howard, was Helen Liddell wrong when she said that Iraq is not part of the war against terrorism?"

Howard replied: "Well, the British High Commission is telling my office - and I don't know whether it's telling anybody else - that she was quoted out of context. But that is a matter for her and the British High Commission. I do know this, that the British Government believes that Iraq is very much a part of the war against terrorism, because the head of the British Government, namely the British Prime Minister, had this to say in February this year …" And on and on he went, blah blah blah, slithering around what Liddell had actually been asked at the press club and what she had actually replied.

The question had been: "High Commissioner, one of your Government's ministers, Hilary Benn, this week told a New York audience that the term 'war on terror' was sending out the wrong message and was, in fact, encouraging terrorists. Does this not suggest the military strategy encompassed by this term, particularly in Iraq, has been a bit of a failure?"

Benn is Tony Blair's Secretary of State for International Development. He ranks 14th in Blair's inner cabinet of 22 ministers. After her initial response, what Liddell, in her answer, had gone on to tell her Canberra audience about her Labor colleague's New York remark was: "Indeed, Hilary Benn makes this point, that you cannot defeat what is going on in some parts of the world today by military might alone. You have to use the techniques of soft power. You have to use this debate about values and this narrative about values, whilst at the same time recognising that our societies are under threat from certain kinds of terrorism and taking the legislative and security responses necessary.
"Words, phrases, like 'war on terror', these are tabloid slogans, and I can understand why they're used, but the real fight against terror will not be just through the legislative process. It will also be about winning hearts and minds and convincing people that our modern liberal societies have something to offer them, whilst at the same time recognising and respecting their true religious beliefs. Islam is a peaceful religion."

Three questions later, Iraq was raised again.

Q: "If I can just go back to Iraq. Prime Minister Howard famously accused the Democrats in the US of giving encouragement to terrorists by suggesting a troop withdrawal from Iraq. It's a charge levied at Labor here as well. What do you make of the argument?"

Liddell: "Well, the great thing about democratic societies is the people will decide, based on the rhetoric that comes forward during election campaigns. The involvement of Australia in Iraq is very important to the UK. We've watched what Mr Rudd has said and we will await developments and see what happens. But basically, at the end of the day, we have to take our decisions based on what is right for the UK and what the policy options are that we think are best. The great thing about democracies is it's not for me as an outsider, as a foreigner, to say what I think about other democracies. Up to you guys."

So no, Helen Liddell was not "quoted out of context". And the British High Commission, without comment, re-released her speech which already had been circulated by the press club. Plain English is plain English. Read it and fulminate, if you will, Prime Minister. But some honesty on Iraq, please, without debauching another Anzac Day.

Here's something else to chew on... continued in next post..

part two:

Here's something else to chew on.

Early this week, The Washington Post published a 4000-word article on an investigation into some shootings in Baghdad nine months ago. Our Prime Minister might read it in the context of the "war on terror" he and his ministers parrot, however tabloid the phrase, and the inconvenient truth of just who it is that helps feed this war in the travesty that has become Iraq in the four years since Howard committed to its invasion for base political motives.

The Post article began: "On the afternoon of July 8, 2006, four private security guards rolled out of Baghdad's green zone in an armoured security vehicle. The team leader, Jacob C. Washbourne, rode in the front passenger seat. He seemed in a good mood. His vacation was to start the next day.
"I want to kill somebody today," Washbourne said, according to the three other men in the vehicle. Before the day was over, the guards had been involved in three shooting incidents. In one, Washbourne allegedly fired into the windshield of a taxi for amusement.

"The full story may never be known. But an investigation by the Post provides a rare look into the world of private security contractors, who fight a largely hidden war in Iraq. Many come for big money and operate outside most of the laws that govern US forces. The US military has brought charges against dozens of soldiers and marines in Iraq, including 64 servicemen linked to murders. Not a single case has been brought against a security contractor."
The four guards were employed by Triple Canopy, a company founded by retired US special forces officers. It fired three of the guards, including Washbourne, who earned $US600 ($720) a day as a "team leader". Nobody was charged with anything.

Triple Canopy's contract was to provide security for "executives of KBR Inc, a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation", which has multibillion-dollar US Government contracts in Iraq. Australians might remember KBR as the former Dick Cheney company that built the Darwin to Alice Springs railway for the Howard Government and the former Olsen Liberal government in South Australia.

Then there is Blackwater USA.

The weekly magazine The Nation was founded in 1865 and describes itself as "America's oldest and most widely read weekly journal of progressive political and cultural views, opinion and analysis". Ten of its 14 editorial executives are women, including the editor and publisher.
The magazine's April 2 issue ran a 5000-word extract, headlined "Bush's Shadow Army", from a new book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. The article makes the Post investigation of last July's shooting incidents in Baghdad look like child's play.
The author of the book is Jeremy Scahill "who reports on the Bush Administration's growing dependence on private security forces, such as Blackwater USA, and efforts in Congress to reign them in."

According to Scahill, when the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned last December, there were an estimated 100,000 private contractors in Iraq.

Scahill writes: "Contractors have provided the Bush Administration with political cover, allowing the Government to deploy private forces in a war zone free of public scrutiny, with the deaths, injuries and crimes of those forces shrouded in secrecy. The Administration in turn have shielded contractors from accountability, oversight and legal constraints. 'We have over 200,000 troops in Iraq, and half of them aren't being counted,' says the Democrats' Dennis Kucinich, a leading congressional critic of war contracting."

Of the "shadowy mercenary company, Blackwater USA", Scahill writes: "Blackwater has secured a position of remarkable power and protection within the US military apparatus. This company's success represents the realisation of the life's work of the conservative officials, including Rumsfeld, who formed the core of the Bush Administration's war team. While initial inquiries have focused on the complex labyrinth of secretive subcontracts under which it operates in Iraq, a thorough investigation into the company reveals a frightening picture of a politically connected private army that has become the Bush Administration's praetorian guard.

"Blackwater was founded in 1996 by conservative Christian multimillionaire and ex-Navy SEAL Erik Prince, the scion of a wealthy Michigan family whose generous political donations helped fuel the rise of the religious right and the Republican revolution of 1994. At its founding, its vision was 'to fulfil the anticipated demand for government outsourcing in firearms and related security training.' In the following years, Prince, his family and his political allies poured money into the Republican campaign coffers, supporting the party's takeover of Congress and the ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency.
"Almost overnight, following September 11, the company would become a central player in a global war. In just a decade Prince has expanded his headquarters in Moyock, North Carolina, to 7000 acres [2800 hectares], making it the world's largest private military base, with 2300 personnel in nine countries and 20,000 other contractors at the ready …"

Gets Australia's political pygmies with their "war on terror" into perspective.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................

At least Helen Liddell as a representative of the British Government isn't telling Australia what to do, unlike her counterpart the US ambassador Tom Schieffer did a few years ago:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939717516.html

and here,

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/12/1044927663494.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Hey ...it sort of worked in Belfast didn't it?? When you have two sides bound and determined to kill each other, a wall is the best way to calm things down. Cyprus has one too. When people wont discuss their grieveances without violence, you may have to separate em. Heck Eki, you should like this, it beats the Americans killing them....

---

Not the sort of thing the US was saying in the early 1960's when the Berlin Wall was erected as the "antifaschistischer Schutzwall", Anti fascism protection barrier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cossie16

According to Scahill, when the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned last December, there were an estimated 100,000 private contractors in Iraq.

Scahill writes: "Contractors have provided the Bush Administration with political cover, allowing the Government to deploy private forces in a war zone free of public scrutiny, with the deaths, injuries and crimes of those forces shrouded in secrecy. The Administration in turn have shielded contractors from accountability, oversight and legal constraints. 'We have over 200,000 troops in Iraq, and half of them aren't being counted,' says the Democrats' Dennis Kucinich, a leading congressional critic of war contracting."

Of the "shadowy mercenary company, Blackwater USA", Scahill writes: "Blackwater has secured a position of remarkable power and protection within the US military apparatus. This company's success represents the realisation of the life's work of the conservative officials, including Rumsfeld, who formed the core of the Bush Administration's war team. While initial inquiries have focused on the complex labyrinth of secretive subcontracts under which it operates in Iraq, a thorough investigation into the company reveals a frightening picture of a politically connected private army that has become the Bush Administration's praetorian guard.

"Blackwater was founded in 1996 by conservative Christian multimillionaire and ex-Navy SEAL Erik Prince, the scion of a wealthy Michigan family whose generous political donations helped fuel the rise of the religious right and the Republican revolution of 1994. At its founding, its vision was 'to fulfil the anticipated demand for government outsourcing in firearms and related security training.' In the following years, Prince, his family and his political allies poured money into the Republican campaign coffers, supporting the party's takeover of Congress and the ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency.
"Almost overnight, following September 11, the company would become a central player in a global war. In just a decade Prince has expanded his headquarters in Moyock, North Carolina, to 7000 acres [2800 hectares], making it the world's largest private military base, with 2300 personnel in nine countries and 20,000 other contractors at the ready …"

---

Reminds me of Hitler's Sturmabteilung in the 1930s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

The Sturmabteilung or SA (German for "Storm division", usually translated as "stormtroop(er)s" ), functioned as a paramilitary organization of the NSDAP — the German Nazi party. It played a key role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s.

Also the SA maxims sound familiar:

* "Terror must be broken by terror" [1]
* "All opposition must be stamped into the ground" [1]