Playing politics with Iraq

Howard

OBAMA = BETRAYAL
Obama supporters are foolish to think that he will never betray them.
Obama was a close friend of Pastor Wright for TWENTY YEARS.
Obama threw Wright under the bus for personal ambition.
McCain would not betray his country even after 5 years of torture.
You can put lipstick on a traitor, but he's still a traitor.

John Birch

Melanie: Is the Amir Taheri that you base your latest Obama attack piece on, the same Amir Taheri who in May 2006 claimed, wrongly as it turned out, that Iran had passed a measure requiring religious minorities to wear clothing identifying them as such? The National Post ran an apology for his piece here:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=6df3e493-f350-4b53-bc16-53262b49a4f7

Perhaps you should try writing a piece that addresses the current economic crisis in the U.S., something that is going to have an impact in determining who wins the election? But that might require avoiding the conspiracy theories you so relish.

wally

It seems to be reminiscent of the way Nixon is supposed to have influenced the South Vietnamese to boycott the peace talks that Johnson initiated in an effort to settle the conflict that was ruining the Democrats' election chances, before he left office.

Howard

What about Bush fighting an illegal war? Does that not count? As John says you should avoid conspiracy theories that are not proven.

Your problem with Obama, as with many other issues, is that you reach dogmatic conclusions on subjects and then chose arguments to justify them.

In any case it is the economy that will decide who wins the election and McCain has been very exposed on this over the past week. You have overlooked this because again you cannot find any arguments to justify your position.

Marty

Sorry, John Birch, the story was also on NBC, and in the pan-Arab daily Asharq Alawast. You can't dismiss it by attacking the reporter.

Howard, whether it is an "illegal war" or not, young Americans are risking their lives there.

If Obama was able to postpone withdrawal, he would be personally responsible for every American life lost during the period of postponement.

You sometimes here that someone would 'kill to be president,' but rarely is it so literal.

jose garcia

HOWARD said
"What about Bush fighting an illegal war?"

this line is wearing thinner and thinner by the day.

where were you complaining when Saddam was gassing the kurds by the 100's of thousands?
or when he was torturing his own people at an INDUSTRIAL SCALE?
the iraq war finished in 2004 , what we had since then is all the terrorist states trying to collapse iraqs democracy because of islamnic fundamentalism or because they are afraid of democracy.

and if you get with the "is the oil..., the oil.....!!!!!!!!" i will tell you yes of course is the oil too
and is right to go to war for oil

HOW DO YOU THINK 1.5 MILLION BRITONS GET THEIR EXTASI AND COCAINE DELIVEREDED EVERY WEEKEND?

BY FLYING PIGEONS?
SOLAR AIRPLANES?

at each turn Obama is showing himself to be a "true politician"
in the most pure "labour party"
sense of it

JohnW

Howard - still spouting this old chestnut about an "illegal war"?

Please confirm to me:

1. What constitutes a "legal" war, according to your definition?

and,

2. When in history has there ever been a "legal" war according to that definition?

As I understand it, Saddam repeatedly breached numerous UN resolutions, the punishment for which were "serious consequences" - as stated in the resolutions themselves. The US and allies delivered on that score.

Ronnie

If this is true then it is very poor indeed.

However, for a journalist who so energetically supports the Republican party to use the headline, 'Playing Politics with Iraq', is, to use the popular phrase, beyond parody.

ndm

Zackary Roth, of TPMMuckraker, gets to the heart of the matter when he writes:

In terms of a Status of Forces agreement, Obama has consistently made clear that he believes any such agreement should be delayed until after the election -- so that a President Obama or McCain would not be bound by an agreement negotiated by a weakened Bush administration.

This seems to be an eminently sensible viewpoint whatever rightist conspiracy theorists may proclaim. Melanie Phillips appears to be so desperate to criticize Barack Obama that she did not bother to understand the concept of a "status of forces agreement." Indeed, even though the US is not occupying the UK there exists a Status of Forces Agreement between the US and the UK which Melanie Phillips can read at her leisure.

Roth goes on to point out though:

But Taheri doesn't exactly have a reputation for care and precision in his work. In May 2006, he published an explosive story in the Post (since removed from the paper's site), as well as Canada's National Post, about an Iranian law that forced Jews to wear a yellow stripe, stoking fears of a second Nazi Germany. Only problem: it turned out to be a complete fabrication.

That turned out to be typical of Taheri's work. A 1989 review of Taheri's book, Nest of Spies: America's Journey to Disaster in Iran, written for The New Republic by noted Iranian scholar Shaul Bakhash and unearthed by TPMmuckraker in 2006, noted that Taheri "repeatedly refers us to books where the information cited does not exist," and is "capable of generalizations of breathtaking sweep and inaccuracy." According to Bakhash, "[Taheri's] interpretations of the documents are often egregiously inaccurate," and he "has trouble transcribing even the simplest information."

Taheri doesn't exactly seem to be a credible source of anything good or bad about Barack Obama - or John McCain for that matter.

Howard

Jose Garcia, Oh so it is all right if you commit a crime so long as it was some time ago.

What your argument about drugs is all about is beyond me.

I was actually complaining about Saddam years ago but just not to you. I also complain about rendition and water boarding. Do you?

Ann

"What about Bush fighting an illegal war?"

However many times you put lipstick on this complete hallucination, it is still a hallucination - and repeating this nonsense at this point makes you look even sillier.

Shane Leslie

Obama was the overestimated candidate - McCain was the underestimated candidate.
Obama is not as competent as he appears; McCain is more competent than he appears.
Obama promised compassion but was glib; no one expected compassion from the Republicans
and found it in Mac.
Obama floated like a butterfly; McCain stings like a bee.
Obama talks about empathy; McCain's eyes well up with tears over a KIA.
Obama imitates Kennedy and sounds like a preacher; McCain is just himself, like Ike was Ike.
If it comes to a fight, Obama looks like he'll try and talk the guy out of it and he'll have
already lost. McCain will punch him in the nose and make sure he doesn't.
Obama is Precious Pup; McCain is Charlie Brown.
Obama is Road Runner; McCain is Wily Coyote.
Obama is Hollywood; McCain is Yankee Stadium.
Obama is chewing gum and joking on the poop deck; McCain is aiming the Cannons at Iwo Jima.
Obama is an easy Lay; McCain is the wife that sticks by you for no good reason.
Obama is Roger Rabbit; McCain is Jackie Gleason.
Obama is going to flatter you; McCain will give you the news.
Obama is like Infatuation; McCain is the one you'll marry."

Bob Latchford

Quite ironic Ms Phillips talks about the "patent unsuitability for high office" of Obama when the candidate she fawns over thinks Iraq has a border with Pakistan

JohnW

Bob Latchford - unsuitability for office?

Quote from Obama:

"It is just wonderful to be back in Oregon. And over the last 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states; I think one left to go."

How many States are there in the US? Don't know? Ask Obama!

Roy

I would sooner have one McCain and one Palin than twenty two dozen or more Obamas . . . with a suspicious smell of Islam.

JohnW

Bob Latchford - oh, I nearly forgot. We also have this peach of a statement from dear old Joe Biden

‘Chuck, stand up, let the people see you,’

This was when Biden shouted to State Senator Chuck Graham before realising, to his horror, that the local politician uses a wheelchair!

Don't forget also that Biden can't even write his own speeches and has to steal them from failed Labour leaders.

What a ringing endorsement for high office that is.

Verity

John W, as I like to point out, in the cause of advancing my theory that Obama is the Manchurian Candidate, he also, on another occasion, said he had "visited all 48 states and Hawaii and Alaska."

Hawaii and Alaska were both admitted to the Union, as states, one year before Obama was born. He has only ever known them as states. Whoever was coaching him in Indonesia or wherever - in around the 1960s - was probably using old textbooks. My theory is, this is why he never corrects these mistakes. He should have said, "Oops!, too much Heinz 57 catsup on my eggs this morning" or something - but he didn't. Because he thought he had said the correct thing. When his mistakes are pointed out to him, he looks confused.

patricia

Ann

It is hard to make any site on which you have posted a riposte look sillier.

Kathy

If, in fact, Obama did this and it is illegal, shouldn't Bush denounce him? President Bush can't be any more hated than he is, and if he publicly chastised Obama for this action, the mainstream media wouldn't be able to sweep it under the persian carpet.

Ronnie

In summary, if we stop saying the war was illegal then it will become legal. Presumably that is the basis on which Ann would redesign the international legal system.

Obama is the 'Manchurian Candidate' because he can't remember how many states there are in the Union. Verity would be the circus candidate on the basis of the wonderous nonsense that she parades around this blog.

Jose Garcia is the candidate of the confused.

And JohnW, a legal war is where the people who lead you into it tell you the truth about why and your allies fully support you because they believe you. It's not hard to understand, I hope.

E.G. Japan's gutless attack on the USA was barely legal through the very late timing of their declaration of war as the attack on Pearl Harbour was being launched. The US declaration of war on Japan was entirely legal and justified. Can you see the difference?

Ann

Patricia babbles and exposes her ignorance yet again. What a saddo.

Alex Bensky

The Congress authorized Bush to take military action on twenty-some grounds, only a few of which had to do with weapons of mass destruction. You can argue that the war was ill-advised, but at least under American law it's not illegal.

As to the Democratic Party placing its electoral well-being over matters of national interest, well, the latest brouhaha over withdrawing an invitation to Sarah Palin and saying nothing about Hillary reneging on her prior commitment is certainly relevant evidence.

jose garcia

To Howard.

if you are so concerned about human rights or illegal crimes i see lots and lots of worse injustices in the world than "an illegal war".

you might want to look at the people being tortured in china, Zimbabwe, sudan , and many other places , and not just by the hundreds , but by the hundreds of thousands, only for being the wrong colour/religion/ideas

yesterday another bestial bomb 1700 pounds of weight leveled off another place in the world
killing nearly a hundred and hundreds of injured, so....

i am not concerned about rendition flights or water boarding.

i am concerned about terrorists paying for their crimes, not about reading their rights.

The USA is not going to put people on a plane for FREE if they dont think they are terrorists or they have information.

jose garcia

i just sniffed out a great anti Sara Palin sketch by sandra berthand.

real liberal classy stuff, watch for yourself......

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/19/miserable-provocateur-rails-against-conservative-women-again/

jose garcia

here is another interesting article, about a youtube video aganist sara palin and the people who made it and why.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/22/bloggers-sniff-out-anti-palin-astroturf-campaign-and-the-cover-up-begins/

Verity

Obama's only just come to the attention of the British (and the world), but I've been watching him for a while and I termed him the Manchurian candidate about six months ago. Others agree. He has made a lot mistakes that he can't explain. There are many gaps. Many weird contradictions.

Nick Kaplan

Ronnie; In what way has the Republican Party played politics with Iraq? As far as I am aware the Republican President with the approval of many Democratic congressmen and Senators risked (and later lost) their political popularity by removing a murdering tyrant from power. What part of this is playing politics?

Ronnie, when you talk about the “international legal system” do you mean that body of rules established, voted on and enforced by the various tyrants that have membership of that laughable organisation; the UN? Whose security council makes permanent space for the murderers in Russia and China? Which would rather allow continuing genocide than military intervention? Whose idea of severe consequences consists of a strongly worded letter? That would rather side with murderous terrorists in Palestine than the democratic state of Israel which it mandated? Whose entire executive have never been through the process of an election? Whose panel on climate change believes it is appropriate to fabricate evidence? Could you explain to me by whose authority this collection of fools, tyrants and appeasers gained the authority to declare the actions of America (which removed one of those tyrants from power) illegal?

ndm; Obama’s desire not to be bound by Bush’s decisions may be “eminently sensible” but it does not make his actions any less illegal.

Patricia said; “It is hard to make any site on which you have posted a riposte look sillier.” And yet you still managed to achieve it. Congratulations.

Conservative Cabbie

Bob Latchford - The candidate she "fawns" over as you put it, was the first to promote the surge which has resulted in the virtual destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq, a pretty prescient leader if you ask me.

On the other hand, Joe Biden thought the way to deal with Iraq was to split it up into three enclaves, something that is universally agreed would have been a disaster.

At the top of the ticket, Obama of course was not only against the surge, he also believes, and this one is hilarious for it's complete incompetence and lack of foreign policy awareness, that the way to deal with Russias invasion of Georgia was to take it to the UN security council where of course Russia has a veto.

Conservative Cabbie

This story is a non-starter, even the Bush administration is backing Obama, and apart from an initial statement by the McCain camp, they haven't bought it up.

there are Obama scandals to come:
Bill Ayers
Who paid a P.A agency to smear Sarah Palin
Whay were the organisers of the anti-Iran protest at the U.N. threatened with an I.R.S. investigation if they didn't ditch Sarah Palin.
Obama's links to the corrupt Chicago machine.
Obama's 4 votes to kill living babies.

I'm afraid Verity, as much as I respect your opinion, I don't think being an Islamic sleeper is true. But those above should with a fair media be enough to derail his candidacy.

Ronnie

Nick Kaplan, in your not unreasonable post you write, with reference to climate change, 'Whose panel on climate change believes it is appropriate to fabricate evidence?'

The Bush and Blair governments conspired to fabricate evidence in support of their joint decision to go to war. That has been utterly clear and is not disputed.

It seems that you don't mind the fabrication of evidence in some cases but object to it strongly in others.

If you remember, the initial reasons put forward for going to war did not include regime change. Indeed Blair said on British television, in front of Trevor MacDonald and an audience of women, that Saddam Hussein could stay in power of he got rid of his Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was only after they were forced to admit that there were no WMDs, that Bush and Blair tried to sell us the 'ridding the world of a tyrant' line. Why? Because they had even less support among their allies for that option, from their shifting menu of objectives.

In addition, I still have a problem with the idea that you need to kill hundreds of thousands of people in order to remove one tyrant.

Now, playing politics. Did the Republicans not try to put at least some of the blame for 9/11 on Saddam Hussein in order to justify their war? Some but not enough people knew that Saddam hated and was suspicious of Bin Laden and played no part in that crime. Yet the linkage persists to this day.

Is it not the case that the Republicans tried to discredit a man who disproved their claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear weapons grade material in Africa. Aren't they alleged to have broken the cover of a CIA agent, the man's wife, in the process? (very patriotic) If that isn't playing politics Nick, I'm not sure what is.

You seem to have quite a selective memory Nick.

Straydingo

Howard,

Let me present you with a scenario which I would like to get a straight and honest answer from you on (this is also open to those who share similar utopian views).

You are the head of the security service and have in custody a man that is a know terrorist and has knowledge of the current key players involved in the planned terror attack targeting a City in which your loved ones (assuming you have any) are working/living and who are directly under threat.

The devise to be used is either a chemical or dirty bomb and will ensure that maximum casualties achieved if the terror unit is not stopped.
You have the following options:

 Place him under arrest, hope you have enough evidence to convict him and wait two years for a trial to take place, whilst all the while hoping that the terrorist is filled with remorse and coughs up the necessary information...which inconveniently is after the fact and the devise has been successful denoted

 Apply interrogation techniques such as Water boarding

I ask you what you would honestly do.

It is easy to be an armchair critic – not so easy when you have to face these types of decisions in real life and you have your arms tied behind your back.

Do you think that WW2 was won by the Allied forces playing fair – remember the firebombing of Dresden and
Hiroshima/Nagasaki these all resulted in our enemies suffering huge civilian losses – what are your views on these events?

steve

Straydingo:

How about a counter scenario of innocent individuals who are water boarded or face other similar measures and end up becoming radicalized and involved in terrorism as a result of their treatment? Would you still favour such methods then? The WW2 analogy is also specious. Here's a story about Americans who actually had to interrogate enemy prisoners during the war and their opposition to the methods used by the Bush administration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html

BJ

I agree with ndm that this is really about not binding the hands of a new administration.

I vaguely remember something similar during the Iran Hostage crisis which occurred during an election when the release of the hostages was delayed until Carter left office.

Some poeple have also suggested that the handover of some provinces to Iragi security forces was timed to benefit McCain (and support the myth that the current reduction in hostilities is somehow linked to the "surge".

Tahiri seems about as reliable as Iraqi exiles who supplied information about the alleged WMD!

Conservative Cabbie

Ronnie

Respectfully, I think you're being a little naive. Of course WMD's and 9/11 were smokescreens, and of course Blair and Bush's goal was regime change. we all knew that really.

Thankfully they did, the world is a better place without Hussein. You say this could have been done without a war. Please explain how. Talking perhaps? The U.N.? Sanctions? The only way to remove Saddam, his sons and the Ba'athists was to defeat them militarily.

Ronnie

Conservative Cabbie

The central element of our endlessly championed western values is that we elect governments and then keep them firmly under legislative and legal scrutiny while they are in office. One of the most crucial powers that an executive has is that of declaring war or initiating lesser forms of military action.

As a citizen of a western democracy, someone whose family or friends, like mine, may be directly involved in that military action, are you telling me that you do not mind being lied to about why we might be at war? Its just a smokescreen?

'We believe those nice guys Bush and Blair have good intensions so we will suspend all of our democratic checks and balances and let them do what they want. Just like dictators'.

I don't think I'm that naive.

While we have been fighting this war on terror, we have taken a great many of our western values and stuffed them down the toilet to cut corners, to get results. In the process we handed the terrorists small piece of something that they can call victory.

Lets not forget that Saddam 'served us well' for years. He kept Iran and Syria tied down and helped prevent the creation of a destabalising Kurdish state on the borders of Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey. We armed his regime and quietly supported him during the Iran, Iraq war.

I'm very glad he has gone but I still think we could have got rid of him if we'd wanted to without destroying the country.

However, we have to recognise that Iran is now much stronger in the region than it was and is freer to sponsor its surrogates in other countries.

A Kurdish state is much closer to reality, with oil wealth, leading to a great deal of trouble for Turkey, an important NATO ally.

An internal political settlement in Iraq is as far away as ever with some of their groupings just waiting for US troops to leave before becoming more active again.

Thousands of front-line US and UK troops have been tied down in Iraq when they should have been conslidating the defeat of Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I'm glad Saddam Hussein is no longer there killing his people but it is simply not true to say that the world is a safer place without him. We wish...

Davod

Te Obamites also threatened the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations with an IRS investigation if the persisted in inviting Governor palin to the anti-Iran.

Big Vinny

Conservative Cabbie,

You say McCain is “a pretty prescient leader if you ask me.”

AT THE START OF THE WAR:

18 March 2003 Fox “O’Reilly Factor”

Bill O'Reilly: “All right, Senator, if you were president, what would you have done differently in the run-up to this war?”
McCain: “Nothing.”
O'Reilly: “Nothing?”
McCain: “The president has handled this, in my view, skillfully.”

24 March 2003 MSNBC “Hardball”

McCain: “There’s no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators”

11 June 2003 Fox News

Neil Cavuto: “Senator -- after a conflict means after the conflict, and many argue the conflict isn't over.”
McCain: “Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier? Look, the -- I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate.

BEFORE THE SURGE:

McCain hedged his bets in regard to the surge: “I am very nervous about this new strategy. I am very doubtful that we have enough troops. I don't know if the Maliki government will be strong enough. But if General Casey is appointed to this position, my confidence will be lowered because it is not appropriate to put someone who does not support wholeheartedly the new strategy in a position where he will be responsible for a great deal of it.” (Feb 8 2007 – Note: General Casey was confirmed as Army Chief of Staff, and still holds the position)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTcdeZNvJTc

To get an idea of his flip-flopping at the time, see this article from 20 Feb 2007:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/20/mccain/

If, in a three horse race, a man tells me, first, to back the horse which falls first, and, second, to back the eventual winner, with the concession that he has doubts about its winning, I would not call him prescient.

Conservative Cabbie

Big Vinny

Interesting post and for a while there I thought I was buggered until I saw the site you sourced, Salon.com. I think it would be fair to say that it's in the tank for Obama so I'd want to be checking the context on those abbreviated quotes you gave.
Admittedly food for thought though. I'll be checking further.

Conservative Cabbie

Big Vinny - Some quotes of my own.

“The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own: impose its rule throughout the country,” McCain said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Jan. 12.[40]

From the beginning, McCain strongly supported the Iraq troop surge of 2007.[174] The strategy's opponents labeled it "McCain's plan" Both from Wikipedia.

“There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops: to be of value, it must substantial and it must be sustained,” John McCain reported by MSNBC Jan 2007.

Also try this article by the man himself in Jan 2007 in The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501810.html

Bearing in mind that Obama was against the surge and still won't admit he was wrong, I'm going to stick with McCain=prescience (at least comparitively).

Straydingo

Steve,
You did not answer my question....it was not a particularly hard one and I am interested in knowing why you have avoided doing so...is it because this would mean you would actually have to make a choice?

However, I will provide you with a response to your scenario by referring back to the last part of my posting in which I referenced the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

How many Japanese and Germans terror cells formed following the intentional targeting of their civilian populations – they surely had motive to be bitter and yet they did not.
On the flip side 6 million Jews were butchered and yet they too did not form terror cells and look to exact revenge on the Germans today.

Again I ask you what would you do if the fate of 1, 2, 300, 1000, 10,000, 1m people were at the mercy of an individual who has the knowledge that could unravel their wicked plans and save the lives of your parents, brother, sister or children.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Verity

Conservative Cabby - I don't think he's an Islamic sleeper, either ... although I think he has some less than salubrious connections in the Islamic world.

I think he is what the original Manchurian Candidate was - a communist/marxist/trot or Alinsky disciple. A one-worlder for one-world government and the destruction of nationhood and patriotism.

Big Vinny

Conservative Cabbie,

McCain was clearly wrong at the start of the war, and hedged in regard to the surge, so he can hardly be described as prescient. Now you weaken your claim somewhat – a perfectly fair thing to do – and say that McCain is comparatively prescient. But while Obama was wrong concerning the surge, in a speech delivered before the war on 2 October 2002 he said:

“I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.”

I don’t know about you, CC, but to me this speech seems remarkably prescient. In fact, with a change of tense, it could almost be employed as a history of the campaign.

Dave M

Yes, it's pretty incredible to think the American Repubs accuse Russia of "invasion of Georgia" and excesive use of force, when Bush actively invaded and occupied an entire, sovereign nation State. All well and good if Iraq really did have a nuclear potential with intent to use such a device, but that argument was soon proven to be false. So, now the only other argument offered in defence of the Iraq War was it was intended to "spread democracy and freedom". That, to me sounds somewhat similar to the arguments of the ancient Athenians who also used the pretext of "democracy and freedom" to establish a naval Empire and invade sovereign lands. If the Iraq War accomplished anything at all, I think it mainly destroyed the U.S.'s reputatation worldwide as a freedom-loving nation.

Conservative Cabbie

Big Vinny

The comparatively comment was an attempt at humour.
I'm afraid I disagree with your premise that the war was wrong and therefore think Obama could not have been more wrong. Saddam Hussein - no threat? Please! He was the only leader to deploy WMD since the second world war, he sponsored terrorism in Israel and the West Bank, he engaged in genocide on both the Kurds and Marsh Arabs and invaded two of his neighbours. This is the man you and Obama think wasn't a threat and should have been allowed to stay as ruler of Iraq.
You make strong arguements but as my name suggests (not the cabbie part) I'd take McCain over someone who thinks the UN is a worthy institution and that preaching to 200,000 berliners is more important than visiting wounded American soldiers.

Adam B.

Ronnie, you write: "I'm glad Saddam Hussein is no longer there killing his people but it is simply not true to say that the world is a safer place without him." This was a man who not only murdered his own people in the hundreds of thousands, he started a war with Iran by invading it, resulting in the deaths of a million people (no marches in the west). He was the first to use chemical weapons in any theatre of war since Mussolini in Abyssinia in the late 1930's (and against unarmed civilians - no protest marches in the west). He invaded and tried to annexe Kuwait in an unprovoked attack. He indiscriminately launched missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. He pursued a nuclear weapons programme (with the aid of France - the "principled" country who opposed the war - guess why). In short, in the space of eleven years, he launched unprovoked attacks against four of his neighbours, and supported international terrorism. I don't know how you define "safer."

Adam B.

Ronnie, you say we have flushed our values down the toilet. Do you honestly think we won WWII by being all cuddly and nice? Your argument is sheer moral relativism, "look how awful we are, no wonder we have terrorism." Never mind the terrorism predated our response to it. If you think the terrorists care about whether waterboarding is taking place against prime suspects or not, and that this is their chief motivation, you are simply naive about Islamist thinking.

Adam B.

Ronnie, you also write: "I'm very glad he has gone but I still think we could have got rid of him if we'd wanted to without destroying the country."
Firstly, we haven't "destroyed" the country. Secondly, how? Sanctions, which we had in place for over a decade, which did nothing except punish ordinary Iraqis and make some people at the UN very rich?

steve

Straydingo: I'm happy to respond directly. Such simplistic scenarios that you present, which sound like something out of Hollywood, don't happen in real life. And if they did how could you be sure that the person you are water boarding or torturing in some way was telling you the truth or telling you anything you wanted to hear in order to stop the pain. Force is not the best form of interrogation. This is why John McCain, who knows what it means to be tortured, opposes the methods yo advocated.

Verity

What absolutely baffles and amazes me about all this is how Democrats can swallow this individual hook, line and sinker despite all the uncertainties and suspicions surrounding him.

He has absolutely no record of having accomplished anything in the legislature, yet he wants to be the most powerful person in the US.

His voting record is that he voted the bizarre vote of "Present" 300 times for change other senators believed in.

Obama clearly doesn't believe in change other people believe in. He cast a real vote four times (as against 300 "Present" votes). Four times he voted that babies who had survived an abortion and were clinging to life outside the womb, be killed.

That's it. That's his voting record and legislative record. In all those years of kicking around Chicago. Empty.

He lied about being on the prestigous House Banking Committee (but I believe he did it in Germany, so perhaps it was king's X). He said the actual words, "That's my committee, and here is what we've done" - to the astonishment of senators who actually sit on that august committee.

He was ordered to take his fake presidential seal of his lectern. He was full of sympathy for wounded American soldiers in that US military hospital in Germany and he was going to go and bless them with his presence. But then they told him he couldn't troop through the hospital wards with an entourage of TV crews and still photographers so he did the only sensible thing, for Obama. He deep-sixed it.

Obama doesn't have a single respectable associate. Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn - the FBI's Most Wanted list in the 80s. Tony Retzo and other assorted aquatic life swilling round the gutters of Chicago. Rev. Wright.

Don't forget, all he has ever done is work to get himself elected. His life has been one election campaign. He has not got one accomplishment to show for his years in the Illinois or Washington Senates.

His childhood is dodgy to put it mildly. A Marxist African father and a single white mother from Kansas, also a Marxist. (How did you get to meet up with other Marxists in Kansas in the Fifties?)

Very early childhood in Hawaii, then was taken by his mother to Indonesia where, although deserted by his father, she met a nice stepfather, another Muslim, for little Barack. I personally believe that it was in Indonesia that the indoctrination started.

He has a gaggle of half-siblings in Indonesia and some troubling half-siblings in Kenya, too. One is the Communist politician - can't be bothered to google his name. Another is George Hussein, who lives on a dollar a day in a shack outside Nairobi. They share a father.

Obama does not seem to have stayed in touch with the other Kenyan half-brother, Obongo,either, although he does seem to have connections with the Kenyan politician who is also a half brother.

Now, what's mind-boggling is first, that he got so far on such a dodgy cv that is so vacant there are tumbleweeds blowing across it. Second, that no voters question him about any of this empty cv. Yet he's asking - nay, demanding votes on the strength of it.

Yet there are Americans who are passionately attached to this louche person as a saviour. Of what? From what?

Next, we have the mystery - the hole in the middle of the doughnut - of his teens in Hawaii. He said during the campaign that he had campaigned in "48 states and Hawaii and Alaska" - clearly believing that Hawaii and Alaska were still territories. Yet they had both been accorded statehood one year before his birth. He never knew them any other way than as part of the United States. He spent his teen years there and didn't realise he was living in the United States?

Yet there are Americans who are his evangelistic fans despite the void where the achievements should be for an ambitious politician. How can they accept everything I have written above and not have thought, "Oh, wait a minute ..."?

What about all those dodgy relatives, all of whom seem to be Marxists? What about travelling on an Indonesian passport although he was an American citizen? What about all the other candidates releasing their full medical records - not a legal requirement, but they do it by common accord - except Obama, who released a doctor's note?

Yet there are millions of Americans who, despite all this and despite there not being one single achievement in his 47-year history, are determined to elect him President of the United States.

Why? It's a genuine question.

Where is his life in Hawaii as a teen? If he went to high school there, there will be high school albums with comments by other students. This seems to be blank area. No comments from teenage girls reading, "That Obama - what a crazy joker!" or "Obama, always with the faraway look in his eye. He sure doesn't connect with the girls! Ha ha ha ha ha!" Nada.

With his tall lanky physique and high-cheekboned handsome face, and his big smile, I would have thought he would have been a natural for cheerleader in high school. Was he one? It's an important resumé item for the first couple of jobs out of college.

Instead, we learned a couple of weeks ago, that Obama had "thought about going into the army" then, just to clear up any possible misunderstandings, he added, "the military".

I am absolutely baffled that on such a wafer thin cv, Obama has sufficient millions of fans to fight his corner or him. What corner? He doesnt have a corner. He's a void.

Conservative Cabbie

Verity

I'll tell you why the Democrats support him:
1. He's black
2. He's not George Bush
3. He's black.

Try this thought experiment. Imagine Obama being white. Is he likely to gain votes or lose votes?

This is a way for Democrats to make up for all those years of racism. Slavery - Democrats, Lynching - Democrats, KKK - Democrats. Harry Reid, senate majority leader - Democrat - KKK.

ndm

Verity writes:

He lied about being on the prestigous House Banking Committee (but I believe he did it in Germany, so perhaps it was king's X). He said the actual words, "That's my committee, and here is what we've done" - to the astonishment of senators who actually sit on that august committee.

For all her pratting on about how much she understands America, Verity seems blissfully unaware that NO senator sits on the House Banking Committee - or, as it is actually named, the House Committe on Financial Services. Indeed, for all her pratting on Verity seems unaware that membership of the Senate is itself far more prestigous than membership of ANY House committee no matter how august.

Ronnie

Adam B.

1 My point is that the world is no safer with Saddam gone than it was when he was around. Other nutters have taken his place in the demonic pantheon and there is no point in you pretending that we got rid of him to make the world safer. You don't think that far ahaed.

2 Western values are not cuddly and nice because this isn't a cuddly and nice world. Western values include the rule of law and if you can't believe in that then you are only interested in expediency. Flushing you values down the toilet mean that you ignore them when it suits you - protecting our values by breaking them, achieving peace through war - again you are not thinking very far ahead.

3 If we didn't destroy Iraq, by the application of sanctions and the wars, then why does everone talk about rebuilding it? Why are so many American utilities companies making fortunes in this protected and exclusive market? Corrupt individuals at the UN made money out of sanctions busting and now US shareholders (some very well connected) are making money from the devastation that other US companies helped to create. A vertically integrated monopoly without fear of international competition.

On this point, Adam, you are not thinking at all.

Big Vinny

Verity,

You are quite obviously intellectually dishonest, so to give a detailed list of Obama’s achievements would be pointless as well as tedious. Nonetheless, I will provide a few facts regarding his activities during the sixteen years from 1988 to 2004 just to show how fatuous some of your comments are.

In 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School, possibly the US’s best law school, where he was chosen to be an editor, and then the president, of the Harvard Law Review, overseeing eighty editors. Professor David B. Wilkins, Kirkland and Ellis professor of Law, described Obama as “brilliant, charismatic, and focused”. In his summers, he worked with law firms, and at the end of his stint at Harvard he directed Project Vote in Illinois, an effort to encourage African–Americans to register as voters.

In 1992, he began teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, the 4th best law school in the US according to lawschool 100, where he was a lecturer from 1992-1996, and a senior lecturer from 1996-2004. It was during his tenure here in 1996 that he was elected to the Illinois senate.

Barack was born in 1961, so the above takes us only from age 27 to age 43. But you say “Don't forget, all he has ever done is work to get himself elected. His life has been one election campaign”, and “despite there not being one single achievement in his 47-year history”.

I think it is quite clear that you are talking nonsense. If Obama had retired in 2004, his life would still have been a remarkable one, especially given that, like so many successful Americans, his start in life was far from ideal. It just goes to show what can be achieved in a culture where everyone is imbued with the idea that anything is attainable, rather than with the notion that anyone impudent enough to make something of themselves should be ruthlessly dragged down.

Perhaps you have higher standards? You are, I believe, originally from England. Were you ever editor of the Cambridge Law Journal at Cambridge University? Did you teach law at Oxford University for twelve years, finally becoming a senior lecturer? Were you ever elected to parliament? Did you ever try to inculcate a sense of social responsibility among the underprivileged?

By the way, in regard to character, you describe Obama as “louche”, but just think how easy it would be to do a smear job on the moral aspects of McCain’s personality, particularly as it is revealed in his treatment of his first wife, Carol Shepp. A former swimwear model, she suffered horrific injuries in a car accident which left her disfigured, overweight, and four inches shorter. But instead of remaining loyal to her, McCain embarked on a series of affairs, often appearing at social events with the third party. He eventually married a beautiful heiress, one month after he had divorced disfigured, non-heiress Carol.

I can’t begin to imagine the mileage someone like you could get out of something like this had it occurred in Obama’s life.

Hayward Maberley

Verity,
You are keen to list that which you believe to be the shortcomings of Obama. Now a brief snapshot of the The Faux Texan & current encumbrance in the White House Who in fact is a Down Easter having been born in New Haven, Conn. Who puts on the "good ol' boy act', with the Big Hat an'all. In the Land Down Under, out in the West, over the Great Divide there is a saying "The bigger the hat, the smaller the property, and the brain underneath as well"
To continue, a man who had only been outside of the US twice, once to Mexico, had scant knowledge of the geography let alone the leaders of many countries in the world, said the French did not have a word for entrepreneur, could still call the Viet Nam Farrago a "noble cause" yet did not volunteer. As he managed cunningly to outlast the draft as an AWOL Air National Guard Pilot. As did "Five Deferment Dick" his VP who said that he had better things to do while the Viet Nam Farrago was on. Obviously for DIck as for Dubya it was better the poor, black, hispanic and others were representing them over there in that "noble cause" Then there is the failed oil man finally saved by the financial shenanigans of the baseball team, the stadium financing and the motza made from the whole dodgy deal.
I will not go into his spell as Governor of Texas, as did not follow it that closely.
When he makes it to the White House he becomes a mouth piece for the PNAC/Neocon/Theocon/Neozionist Cabal. The Cabal, together with the Ahmed Chalabi of the INC manage with smoke and mirrors to persuade the Faux Texan into the invasion & occupation of Iraq using WMD’s, Niger uranium, Iraq’s 11 September & al Q'aida's links as successive lies. But not before he has, apparently along with Tony Bliar, consulted the Lord about visiting shock and awe on the Land of Iraq. Then the “Cakewalk”, leading to the bloody & costly Iraq Fiasco, $3 trillion & counting.is Hurricane Katrina, for who can forget the stunned mullet look, as we say here, exhibited by The Faux Texan when when being given that televised briefing on the potential disaster the Katrina could cause.
Then the Faux Texan, in Beijing for the Olympics, lectures China on Human Rights. This following his abuse of the Constitution of the United States, of habeas corpus, giving the OK for torture + all those executions that he signed off on in his time as Governor!
And now with the Wall Street Shit Hitting The Fan (WSSHTF), he does a 2 minute doorstep at the White House looking and sounding even more like Alfred E. Neuman "What me worry?"

Hayward Maberley

Adam B.,
You forget whose bastard, son of a bitch , Saddam Hussein was!
Iraq 1959, there was a failed assassination of Qasim, a secular ruler, because he was about to take control of oil production for the Iraqi people. One of the failed assassins was young Saddam Hussein. He went into exile in Egypt, supported and trained by the CIA. In 1963, a CIA-organised coup assassinated Qasim, the Ba'ath Party assumed power, Saddam returned from exile and eventually became head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA provided the Ba’athist regime with lists of communists, other opponents and union organisers. Thousands of supporters of Qasim were soon dead, courtesy of the CIA's close friend in Iraq. Saddam went on his not so merry way to the the top.
1979 Saddam allegedly met with CIA to discuss war against Iran.
I980 start of war as Iraq invades Iran. Following Iranian success against Iraq, in 1983 President Reagan, not quite senile yet? issues a directive that the US should ensure that Iraq does not lose the war. This leads to that infamous hand shake of Donny Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. So the USA supplies “dual use materiel”. chemical precursors, satellite imagery etc. Much of the materiel from out of third countries including Germany. The Iraq-Iran war ended in 1988. Strange days, for at the beginning of this conflict the US was also helping the Iranian war effort.
1990; Iraq invades Kuwait. Saddam Hussein, believing rightfully or mistakenly that April Glaspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq, had given the nod to the invasion. Hussein believed it was his due as the US had used Iraq as its stalking horse in the war against Iran. However the main reason being that Kuwait was slant-drilling across the border into Iraq's Rumaila oil field.
Supporting International Terrorism. Who is this?
Does Nicaragua vs. The United States of America mean anything Adam B.? For in 1986 the US was found guilty of supporting terrorism by the ICJ. The finding was based on clear evidence showing support given to the “Contras” . Just some more of Ronald Reagan's freedom fighters, like all those mujahadeen.
The US supported them financially, materially, militarily and morally. Actions carried out by the Contras, in fact a bunch of narcocrims, included the destruction of infrastructure as well as indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, ably assisted by the US mining of harbours.

Ronnie

Gosh Hayward! Are you sure about all of this? Surely our right wing correspondents, defenders of our western values, could not have forgotten these events?

You forgot to mention the murder of Archbishop Romero in El Salvadore, killed by US surrogates presumably in defence our western Judeo-Christian values.

Its a good thing that these people are waitching our backs. Preserving our legal structures through the promotion of violent anarchy, upholding our Christian values by killing priests and maintaining peace through war.

James Caan

That Obama interfered with the Irq-US negotiations has been confirmed by Obama himself. Only he does not seem to realize that he was doing anything wrong or possibly even illegal. The tactic used by Obamists is to attack Taheri, something that the mullahs of Iran and their agents abroad have been doing for years along with supporters of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Like Khomeinists and Saddamites, the Obamaists, when unable to deny the facts, resort to personal attacks.
Instead of trying to smear Taheri, Obama could easily say that he never raised the issue of the negotiations with the Iraqis. He doesnot and cannot because he did do so.
I say thanks are due to Amir Taheri for fighting the enemies of demcoracy. James Caan

Raymond

Big Vinny -

Judging by the amount of time she spends posting on this blog, and the tone of her comments, I doubt whether Verity has done very much with her life other than sitting round the house feeling angry and bitter.

Frank Pulley

Howard Maberley

Obviously you spent all that money you won buying books written by leftist propagandists:

http://150.theage.com.au/view_bestofphoto.asp?intid=1455

Even if all your 'data' is correct in the above two litanies (and even I believe some of it is true) is any of it good reason to chose as the POTUS a parvevue such as Obama with his pedigree and connections. Perhaps you want the US to continue with its (implied) political ineptitude, this time by letting the reds creep under the (White House) bed and, once their Trojan Horse is installed, implement the culmination of the Long March. Nobody has to love capitalism in order to hate communism. Both ideologies are dangerous when good men do nothing. We need the first suitably restrained. We don't need the second pernicious ideology at all (and I won't cite the reasons why, as it would take more books than you have quoted to list the evils of totalitarianism that sprung from the Hegel/Marx, Gramsci, et al. miasmic and (apparently mesmerising for some) mumbo-jumbo. What is needed is government that both stems greed by ethical regulation and avoids totalitarianism by ensuring sufficient freedom, within reasoned rule of law, for ethical enterprise and progress to prevail. At the moment there doesn't seem to a government in the Western world that has a lucid agenda that isn't sullied by its murky sub-agendas arising from greed, lust for power and hedonism on the one hand and demented utopian ideology on the other. A plague on all their houses (which appears imminent). God help us all, because we seem to be incapable of helping ourselves.

In the meantime, perhaps McCain on that side of the pond and Cameron on this side will afford some breathing space and stop The Drum Beat of Gramsci's timpanic ghost, so that we an all reassess our futures. As I said elsewhere, Pandora retained hope in her jar after all.

Conservative Cabbie

Hayward

Ancient History is your arguement. Move on, the world changes.

Big Vinny

That was a very interesting biography but how exactly does any of that qualify him to be president. What we don't hear from Obama fans is why exactly they support him for President.

I'm assuming you're an Obama fan, why do you support him? This isn't meant to be a loaded question, I'm genuinly interested, what about him and his CV do you think will make him a good President?

Maven

In terms of a Status of Forces agreement, Obama has consistently made clear that he believes any such agreement should be delayed until after the election -- so that a President Obama or McCain would not be bound by an agreement negotiated by a weakened Bush administration. Irrelevant since Obama has still gone against current USA policy. He isn't president and isn't going to be president. For those of you who diss the original reporter for getting something wrong then how come you still support Obama for telling so many lies? "Jerusalem will be undivided" - next day "He didn't mean that!"

Conservative Cabbie

Non-Partisan point here.

Whether you come from the right or the left, you have to agree that this is a damn interesting election. The only way it stands a chance of being beaten is if Palin takes on Hillary in 4 or 8 years time.

JohnW

Hayward,

The USA hardly supplied any military hardware to Iraq in the 1980-88 Gulf War. It was supplied by France, Russia and China. I was living in Baghdad in 1980-83 and worked for a major French company, and the intensive connections of France with the Iraqi military was well known.

The culprit for the rise of Iraq is not the USA as you have tried to portray.

Nick Kaplan

Ronnie; Whilst I agree that Blair did lie to enhance the apparent authority on which his decision to go to Iraq was based, the evidence/ intelligence was not in fact fabricated, it was just wrong. In any case I have little but contempt for Blair, this being just one incidence of lies he told in a desperate plea to create a legacy to gratify his own enormous ego. The Bush administration however never went into Iraq purely on the basis of WMDs. Neither did Bush lie about the evidence for WMDs he was as misled about the intelligence as the rest of us and acted accordingly.

I do however agree with you that one does not need to “kill hundreds of thousands of people in order to remove one tyrant.” In fact, if you remember correctly, this is exactly what happened. Saddam was initially removed very quickly with very few deaths on either side. In fact the blame for the deaths that have resulted from this conflict should be laid at the hands of the terrorists and the states that have funded them such as Iran who caused the outbreak of violence after Saddam had been removed. Of course some blame must be placed on the disastrous strategy that was adopted after Saddam was removed (e.g. disbanding the police and army was madness) and therefore on the Bush administration. However it is very important to remember that McCain has consistently criticised this strategy and has himself offered more sensible policies such as the troop surge which is currently proving so valuable. This for me confirms McCain’s fitness for office.

Nick Kaplan

David M; you of course forget to mention the key difference between Iraq and Georgia; that Georgia is not lead by a murdering Tyrant who has invaded its neighbours, tortured its citizens and committed numerous other atrocities that warrant the forced removal of its leadership from power by the only nation with the bottle to do so. This invasion only “destroyed the U.S.'s reputation worldwide as a freedom-loving nation” among nasty freedom and America hating leftists, not much of a loss.

Hereford

And JohnW, a legal war is where the people who lead you into it tell you the truth about why and your allies fully support you because they believe you. It's not hard to understand, I hope.

So Hitler's war and the holocaust was legal then? He was truthful about the final solution. His Allies fully supported him. Fully legal then.

Hayward Maberley

Mr Pulley,
If you have gone to the trouble to hunt me up on the web you could at least spell my name correctly. Hayward, Anglo-Saxon in origin, though by descent I am mostly Celt.
As for spending all that money, as you say, on books by leftist propagandist, no I did not. We built a house for our family of six, invested some and I went back to work and study.
As for the litanies as you call them, they were triggered by the hogwash, if I may mention hogs, that the not so Verity and others seem to slosh into the blog. The facts are accurate as far as I am aware. I work in an academic library, I read very widely, have access to many peer reviewed journals and have worked as a fact checker and book indexer.
I just do not see Obama as a Trojan Horse and certainly doubt that there would be Reds creeping under the White House bed. You have a point concerning the danger of both unbridled capitalism and communism. You will not get an argument from me there. I do not believe I quoted any books in either of my pieces.
But do not knock Marx as what he has to say has some merit in the current WSSHTF, Hegel is very hard to fathom. in translation as I do not read German but I like one of his aphorisms. “The only thing that we learn from history is that we do not learn from history” Somewhat similar to the USA’s George Santayana’s” Those that do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat their mistakes”
Gramsci is an interesting writer in his ideas on hegemony, the state and the part played by religion. Of course in Italy that was the Catholic Church which is still a very powerful institution. Having been raised a Catholic I am well aware of the power that religion can exert over people.
Really I cannot disagree with what you say about governments using “ethical regulation and avoiding totalitarianism by ensuring sufficient freedom, within reasoned rule of law, for ethical enterprise and progress to prevail”
You think I am on the left. I like to think I am close to the middle, but I suppose that depends on where you stand.
And I agree a plague on both their houses,
As for, God, if there is one, he/she/it is obviously occupied in some other corner of the Universe and has no time at present for our little planet.
Now on McCain here I disagree with you.
McCain the maverick ? He is a creature of the Beltway, here I mention S&L and the Keating Five .
McCain officer and gentleman? There is some interesting reading at US Veteran Despatch site on McNasty, his nickname at Annapolis, because of his foul temper, @ http://usvetdsp.com/feb08/mccain_trust.htm
McCain’s “support of the troops”?
September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.
May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.
April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.
March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
McCain’s Foreign Policy Experience?
a quote from an article in the LA Times
”...In Jordan this past March, he pronounced it "common knowledge ... that Al Qaeda" -- a Sunni-dominated group -- "is going back into Iran" -- a country led by hard-line Shiites -- "and receiving training ... from Iran." Oops ... no! Joe Lieberman, McCain's new Mini-Me, whispered a correction in his ear, presumably explaining that the Iranian Shiites hate Sunni-dominated Al Qaeda and wouldn't help the group if their lives depended on it. A slip of the tongue on McCain's part? That would be easier to buy if McCain hadn't repeated variants of the claim on multiple occasions, insisting to a Texas audience in February that Iran was aiding Al Qaeda and wondering during Senate hearings if Al Qaeda in Iraq was "an obscure sect of the Shiites overall? ... Or Sunnis or anybody else....."
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks22-2008may22,1,3280391.column
And as for a parvenue, well that would be Sarah Palin would it not.
But as you say there is still hope in the jar, let us hope it gives us all breathing space.
But what is with The Drum Beat of Gramsci's Timpanic Ghost, sounds like a good name for a rock band!

Hayward Maberley

Mr Cabbie,
As I say in another post quoting G.F. Hegel
“The only thing that we learn from history is that we do not learn from history” &
George Santayana ” Those that do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat their mistakes”
To that I might add Benjamin Franklin's "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Hayward Maberley

JohnW,
A quote from http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf
T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq

This is an extract from an affidavit by Howard Teicher Howard Teicher director of Political-Military Affairs National Security Council

The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified.

Nick Kaplan

The Obama supporting Big Vinny says, apparently without any sense of irony, that Obama’s story “ just goes to show what can be achieved in a culture where everyone is imbued with the idea that anything is attainable, rather than with the notion that anyone impudent enough to make something of themselves should be ruthlessly dragged down.”

Is this the same Obama that for the last 20 years has been a member of a black power church that promotes racial grievance and victimhood? The same Obama that has listened, for 20 years, to sermons about the idea that black people cannot rise on merit without being torn down by whites? The same Obama who calls for higher taxes on the rich which will not actually raise any revenue but are instead based purely on envy? The same Obama who so loves these American ideals that he cannot bear to bring himself to wear a badge of the American flag or to salute the flag during the national anthem?

Verity

Big Vinny - or may I address you by your more familiar name, Big Moron? - Do you really think that anyone you address thusly: "You are quite obviously intellectually dishonest," is going to read your turgid, naive, dated, Marxist, over-written, plodding stream of justification for the insult?

Ronnie

Nick Kaplan, I'm afraid I just don't accept that Bush was misled by the intelligence reports on Iraq WMDs. I think its pretty clear that he and members of his cabinet manipulated the intelligence and shaped the reports that were made public for the specific purpose of misleading everyone else.

With regard to Georgia, I think if you stay calm you will remember that the Georgian President did open hostilities by ordering his troops to shell the citizens of South Ossetia.

I'm not sure how you feel about these things but I class his actions as an atrocity.

The Shadow Chocolate Orange Inspector

Howard Mabyerly or whatever, thanks for your long stream of misinformed provincial drivel about George Bush. Most entertaining, I'm sure. Have you ever been out of Britain, btw?

The Land of Down Under you refer to is Australia. That is because it's, errrrr, down under at what we see as the bottom of the world.

Of course George W Bush was born in the Northeast! Did you only just find this out? George W has had a ranch in W Texas since long before he became a national/international name.

They are an old, established NE family. His grandfather Prescott Bush was a Senator from Connecticut. His father graduated from Harvard and George W has degrees from Harvard AND Yale. His father was the head of the CIA for years, for God's sake, before he became President.

He is the only governor of Texas to have been elected for two consecutive terms - quite an endorsement from the rather demandng Texas voter.

George W speaks with a genuine Texas accent. President George Bush and his wife Barbara have lived in Houston for yonks.

Don't try to research things you're not familiar with. You make one error in judgement after another. Although your mistakes aren't important because no one reads your droning all the way through.

Ronnie

Hereford, thank you for agreeing with me that it is indeed possible to define an illegal war. That was my original point.

I don't remember saying that Hitler's wars and other genocidal activities were legal.

I think you should sit down now, have a glass of water, relax.

Verity

ndm - I don't know the intricasies of how the Senate and committees work, any more than I know how committees in Parliament work, being put off by that dread word "committee". But I am absolutely confident that any number of literate bloggers in the United States - where they are much more familiar with how their government works than we are, because it is hammered into them in school from an early age (and rightly so). This incident with Obama's lying claim to sit on the committee referred to was widely discussed and jeered at in the United States. Perhaps you should inform yourself by reading blogs outside Britain.

Nick Kaplan, would add to your post that Obama didn't grow up in the United States and he certainly didn't become imbued with American values from his communist mother living in Indonesia after being deserted by his communist father.

Ronnie

Why are Verity and the SCOI saying that no-one will read the posts with which they take issue when they so obviously have?

Its like sticking your tongue out and saying, 'same to you, with nobs on!' or '...well actually I've been thrown out of better places than this in my time!' For heaven's sake.

What a nice word 'thusly' is.

Ronnie

SCOI, what a terribly interesting history of the Bush family; very, very interesting. Fascinating and absorbing, engaging in every way.

Forgot the bit about their close relationship with the Saudi royal family, didn't you?

Ronnie

Frank, what a voyeuristic little Shelock Holmes you are. And you are watching my back...?

Nick Kaplan

Ronnie; Bush was not really misled (as nobody deliberately attempted to mislead him) but believed evidence that turned out to be wrong. However this is largely irrelevant as, unlike Blair, Bush did not use WMDs as the core pretext for invasion. In fact it was Saddam’s repeated ignoring of UN measures that was the main justification Bush used.

I do agree with you about the tactics that have been used during the war. I think that Guantanamo is deplorable as are many of the “integration techniques” that are used by the US. I also agree that the world is now probably more dangerous, Iran now being more powerful, and the Islamists given a further recruiting sergeant. However I think the key reasons for the war (regime change) were admirable, if naive. Given the opportunity to go back and reverse this decision I probably would. But we did invade and now we are there we have to stay the course, we cannot cut and run as Obama would like we have an obligation to restore stability and I believe that only McCain has the integrity and courage to do so.

As far as the actions of Georgia are concerned I have not seen a shred of evidence for the mistreatment of South Ossetians. I would imagine you have been paying too much attention to Russian propaganda.

Frank Pulley

Mr Maberley

Please accept my apologies for getting your Christian name wrong and muddling it with 'Howard' who is also posting on this thread. I plead
(a) a senior moment (I am very old), and (b) this damned awful positioning of the comments box, which leads to so much irritation on this blog (and which nobody is willing to rectify, despite many complaints and entreaties). By the time I've scrolled up and down a few times through scores of posts, I've forgotten even my own name.

Thank you for your interesting reply; I don't know whether you have followed Melanie's posting on Obamania for the past months, or the writings of another antipodean, Trevor Loudon who also is keen on research, but if a fraction of what they have uncovered; not to mention what we have been discussing on this blog and others for many years now about The Long March, is true, I would have thought you would have been a little more concerned about developments in America now, rather than regurgitating the historical mistakes of Western geopolitics.

As for Hegel, he was inclined in his later years, to the conservative rather than the radical implications of his philosophy because he tired of revolution. He too, it is reported, in old age, got rather muddled, not necessarily with names, but once lost his shoe, unnoticed in the mud, as he entered a lecture room and waffled on without it.

I enjoyed Schopenhauer's bon mots a little more, but perhaps none of these thinkers augured what Marx and Engel would engender as a consequence of German idealism and the blood that would flow from that source.

I too do not consider myself to be placed either left or right; but common sense tells me that there is more to Obamarx than meets the eye and Americans should be on their guard.

While everybody is celebrating the glorious (but failed uprising) of the anniversary of 1968, the quieter counter-culture war that started in the 1930s (along with me) is now a partially formed hegemony that is much more dangerous than the youthful violent nonsense of Cohn-Bendit et al. In fact I suspect that was all a red herring.

Btw; that Google reference was a stab in the dark; I was joking! But I suppose with a distinctive name like Hayward Maberley (hope I got it right this time as I don't intend to scroll down again) I should have perhaps realised that it was indeed you. ongratulations -I'm glad you invested so wisely and that it brought you so much happiness. Throw us some more research nuggets to play with and don't be knocking our Verity, she's the real deal.

ndm

[via Mathew Yglesias, one of the "any number of literate bloggers in the United States" Verity has such a high regard for]

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has provided some background information on the recent choice of withdrawal date for US forces in Iraq.

Actually, the final date was really the end of 2010 and the period between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but [the Bush Administration] asked for a change [in date] due to political circumstances related to the [U.S] domestic situation so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawal but the end of 2011 as a final date.

President Bush asked for the wthdrawal date be pushed back into 2011 to aid the political fortunes of the John McCain. In doing so, President Bush, John McCain and the Republican Party have shown themselves willing to sacrifice American lives to win an election. They have betrayed their Nation - but that should come as no surprise. It is John McCain, and not Barack Obama, who is playing politics with Iraq.

Adam B.

Ronnie, in time of war for one's survival, there is nothing but expediency. And rightly so. I don't want someone weeping crocodile tears for my demise, saying "at least he followed the letter of the law." Your "thinking" would lead to a very bad place indeed. And despite the US' and Britain's backing of Saddam in the 1980-88 war, (because Iran was considered the bigger threat at that particular moment - yes, expediency, not love for Saddam) you will find the dictator was overwhelmingly supported by the Soviets (80% of military hardware), and France (around 15%). The US and Britain combined supplied less than 5%. Why do you not direct your ire at these countries? I guess it's not as fashionable as self-loathing.

Ronnie

Oh God Nick, what next? 'If you like Russia so much why don't you go live there?'

I disagree with you, its not the end of the world and it certainly isn't treason.

JohnW

Ronnie,

So, by your definition, as long as the proponents of a war believe the reasons for war are truthful, then it's legal. Yes, I think we can all get our heads around that.

As Hereford says, Hitler's war was indeed legal, according to that wide definition. Likewise the invasion of Iraq - which Bush initiated on the self-evident truth that Saddam had repeatedly violated numerous UN resolutions for more than 11 years. Material breaches of cease-fire conditions provide for the use of force.

As for WW2 and the Japanese, of course, the leadership in Tokyo also fervently believed in the "truth" and righteousness of their actions when they bombed Pearl Harbour, so that also meets your criteria.

Ronnie

AdamB, I'm quite loathing-free thanks.

You want to get out there with your hardware and do what must be done, don't let me stop you.

I hadn't heard that Saddam's regime was a Franco-Soviet front. Interesting. I'll go talk severely to my ire.

Conservative Cabbie

You've got to love Joe Biden.

First he calls Obama's ageist ad horrible but after getting a bollocking from the campaign has to back down. Then Obama has to publicly criticise him over saying AIG shouldn't have been bailed out and now he's said he supports clean coal for China and not the US. Obama does in fact support clean coal for the US.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith
/0908/Biden_No_coal_plants_here_in_America.html?showall

I actually quite like him as a person but he really is a walking gaffe machine, seems to be a new one daily.

Verity

Because one responds to a comment, posters should not infer that one has read through the entire tedious and closely argued length of it. If I pick up a clue in the paragraph that tells me "obessive", I don't read any further.

Obama is a destructive, I think not mentally sound, individual who is being presented as the acceptable face of the left. Except, from meeting to meeting, interview to interview, he forgets which face he is presenting and he forgets what his position was two or three weeks previously.

What happend to this citizen's militia that was going to be as powerful as the US Military? (I'll find the link.) What happened to it and why? And what was it for? To control the citizenry? What else could have been its purpose?

Anyway, Obama seems to have "moved on" because he hasn't mentioned this citizens' army in about a month, as with so many of the things he argues for passionately for for 10 minutes.

Obama's a nut case, but a perfect poster boy for the left. He's not done all this himself. He's been groomed for a long time.

JohnW

Adam B,

Good point. Ever man and his dog was arming Iraq to the teeth in the 80s as the enemy then was considered to be Iran.

Military equipment was sent by more than 80 German
companies, 24 American, and 17 British, as well as by a number of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. More than 30 countries supplied equipment for its nuclear programme alone. Yugoslavs built underground nuclear bunkers all over Iraq.

However, the only countries that the anti-Bush crowd continually mentions in this context are the US and (to a lesser extent) the UK.

Big Vinny

Nick Kaplan says: “the evidence/ intelligence was not in fact fabricated, it was just wrong”, but this is incorrect. Senate inquiries have found otherwise.

On June 5 2008 the Senate Intelligence Committee released its final reports on prewar Iraq intelligence. The chairman of the committee, Senator John Rockefeller IV, criticised the Bush administration actions in regard to Iraq, and said “Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses. There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate”.

Senator Carl Levin, CIA officers, and numerous other highly placed officials have also stated that much of the supposed “evidence” of WMD and of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda was produce by officials who deliberately avoided normal intelligence procedures and exaggerated unconfirmed data. To present unsubstantiated information as confirmed evidence is fabrication.

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298774

Nick Kaplan also says “However it is very important to remember that McCain has consistently criticised this strategy and has himself offered more sensible policies such as the troop surge which is currently proving so valuable. This for me confirms McCain’s fitness for office”.

Look at my earlier post containing three McCain quotes running from 18 March 2003 to 11 June 2003. McCain knew before the war started what the-post invasion strategy was, yet there is no criticism in what he said. And he did not “offer” the surge. The idea of the surge was devised by Frederick Kagan and John Keane. Even when McCain was advocating the surge he was also hedging his bets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTcdeZNvJTc

And also look at Obama's speech on the war I quoted in the above post. True, he was wrong on the surge, but concerning the general development and the effects of the war he showed astonishing foresight. Does this not confirm his fitness for office?

Ronnie

JohnW, try this.

If Hitler and the Japanese had won then we would not be discussing the legality of their wars. There is another criteria for you to think about.

Ronnie

Verity, an excellent tip.

I found the clues 'obsessive', 'destructive'and 'nut case' in your last post to be most useful.

Nick Kaplan

So Big Vinny’s sole evidence of Bush misleading the public comes from 2 bias, electioneering Democrats, one of whom admits “There is no question we all (presumably Bush is included in all) relied on flawed intelligence.”.... How thoroughly convincing...

I have already read your earlier post and not a single quote has anything to do with McCain’s views on whether the post Saddam strategy was appropriate, so you have provided no evidence to show that McCain supported that strategy (which he has in fact been highly critical of). Also I do not understand where you get the idea that McCain was hedging his bets from. Did you read your own quote? McCain is clearly saying that there may be a need to go further when he says “I am very doubtful that we have enough troops,” this is a legitimate concern seeing as McCain had always argued for a troop surge bigger than the one that was granted.

Perhaps Obama did predict the consequences of war correctly, but he had no strategy to deal with Saddam and his numerous violations of UN sanctions and his abuse of his own population. Further Obama has no foreign policy experience, nor any executive experience. He wants to increase corporation tax and taxes on the wealthy as the US enters a down turn demonstrating that he has no understanding of economics and only wants to promote grievance/ envy politics. He has achieved nothing of significance in his political career prior to being nominated. He has numerous dodgy associations. He has a hidden and questionable past (I am not referring to allegations over his Muslim background which I do not believe but his unwillingness to supply a birth certificate and medical information). None of his actions match up to his rhetoric. For example he claims he wants to heal division yet he has been a member of a Black Power church for the last 20 years. He claims to be a centrist candidate yet he has the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, he has never voted against his party line nor co-sponsored a single cross party bill and he has numerous communist associates. He has admitted that he wants to appoint justices that will make policy instead of doing their job which is enforcing the law as stated in the constitution. He claims he wants to clean up and change politics yet he spent years obediently working for what is widely regarded to be the most corrupt political establishment in Chicago. These are the issues that confirm Obama’s unfitness for office.

Ann

"For in 1986 the US was found guilty of supporting terrorism by the ICJ."

The ICJ? ROFL.

And the idea that the USA is mostly to blame for Saddam's hardware is nonsense. It was largely French and Chinese.

The waffle about 'illegal' war is as absurd now as it's always been. All the criteria advanced here are completely subjective. Everyone believes that their war is justified. To call it an 'illegal' war is lefty airhead demagoguery, nothing else.

Ronnie

JohnW, did Switzerland, Japan, Italy, France, Sweden, Brazil or any of the countries that used to comprise Yugoslavia campaign for and then prosecute an invasion of Iraq in support of George W Bush? Did any of these countries then help George W Bush to screw-up the aftermath of the invasion?

No on both counts and that is why we are talking about the US (and the UK) in the context of Melanie's Blog on playing politics with Iraq.

I do not think that is unreasonable.

Adam B.

Ronnie, when you resort to sarcasm, without addressing the issue put to you, I know you've lost the argument. What DO you have to say about the support for Saddam from your friends in the USSR and France? I also think the point about "legality" to which you cling has been comprehensively rebutted.

Adam B.

JohnW, couldn't agree more. The hypocrisy of the anti-US (and self-loathing Brits) brigade is astonishing.

Adam B.

Ronnie, consider this. In the bleak days of 1940, the Luftwaffe was systematically destroying Britain's airfields. They were fast becoming inoperable, leaving the RAF grounded. Churchill, realising the desperate situation, ordered the bombing of Berlin (the city, not a specific military target). The Germans reacted just as he had planned - emotionally - and turned their attention to bombing London in retaliation, giving breathing space for the airfields to repair and become operational again. Now no doubt you would say that Churchill's move was "illegal" and immoral, flushing our values down the toilet etc. Well, if he hadn't made that decision, we would in all probability have lost control of the skies, the Nazis would have launched their invasion, and most likely succeeded. Europe, as Churchill put it, would have been "plunged into a new dark age." It would be nice if we didn't have to face tough decisions like this, but unfortunately the real world isn't so simple.

Verity

Howard Mayberly - Texas isn't in the West. Please either get your geography right or don't make reference to it. The vast region of Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico is the Southwest. The West is California and Nevada and Idaho. That about wraps it up.

No one I've ever heard of says "The bigger the hat, the smaller the property." It doesn't scan right for Texan and it isn't pithy enough. Plus, they don't call their ranches "property". What you are reaching for so ineptly is, "He's all hat and no cattle."

Jeez.

Ronnie

AdamB, I wasn't being sarcastic. I'll issue a warning in future so that you can be prepared.

I retreat on trying to define the illegality of war and accept Ann's point about waffle, she is quite right. As we've seen, if people really want a war then they will damn well have it no matter what. Only the losers are prosecuted, unless individual perpetrators are caught on TV.

I will continue to object to 'leaders', of all nationalities, lying to their people and the rest of the world about the reasons for unleashing their armed forces on other countries.

Georgia is a case in point where it seems to me that the Russians set a trap and everyone else fell into it.

I believe that those who persist with the line that the ends justify the means in this case are contributing to the collapse of our culture. Not only are they happy to suspend the application of our Law (not laws) whenever it suits, they are happy to see mass killing used regularly as an implement of policy. As a member of the Judeo-Christian tradition, I'd like someone to point out to me where Christ actually hinted that that is what we should do.

We can argue all day about who bought weapons from whom and whether the act of selling weapons to a customer actually constitutes support in today's world. Lets remember that our troops often find themselves facing western weapons being used against them. The sale of guns has gone beyond principle or embargo.

I refer to Hayward's post above. The US actively supplied Iraq with satellite battlefield intelligence and I regard that as a more proactive approach than the selling of weapons in the market place. Augusto Pinochet did the same for us in the Falklands war and Margaret Thatcher was justly grateful to him for doing so.

Pointing this out does not make me a 'friend' of Russia or France and I hope that you can grow out of that kind of thinking and try to adopt a broader perspective on what is going on in the world. I am making a point, Adam, in the context of this general discussion, I am not denouncing the United States.

It is the case that Saddam received a great deal of external support in the war against Iran, in spite of most countries' professed neutrality. The original point was that he was not always seen as the bad guy. In strategic terms he was regarded as a counterweight to the dangerous theocracy in Iran, amongst other things.

My next point was therefore that having removed Saddam and seen Iraq coming close to disintegration, we have directly contributed to the rise of Iran's influence in the region. The world is therefore not a safer place without Saddam, as some would have us believe.

I am not saying that Saddam was a good man and should have had our support. I am saying that to claim the world is now a safer place as a result of our invasion of Iraq is horseshit and it insults our intelligence.

ndm

Jake Tapper, ABC News Senior National Correspondent, and Kirit Radia have >a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/undermining-mcc.html">debunked this Amir Taheri story so comprehensively that The Spectator needs to withdraw Melanie Phillips' article and she needs to apologize for writing it.

Tapper and Radia write that the "Obama campaign said that the Post report consisted of 'outright distortions.'" They then report:

Lending significant credence to Obama's response is the fact that -- though it's absent from the Post story and other retellings -- in addition to Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, this July meeting was also attended by Bush administration officials, such as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the Baghdad embassy's legislative affairs advisor Rich Haughton, as well as a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Attendees of the meeting back Obama's account, including not just Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., but Hagel, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers from both parties. Officials of the Bush administration who were briefed on the meeting by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad also support Obama's account and dispute the Post story and McCain attack.

In other words, regardless of political affiliation, the Americans who participated in the official congressional delegation to Iraq along with Barack Obama all support Obama's version of events. A spokesman for Republican Senator Chuck Hagel told ABC News that Taheri's story is "absolutely not true, " and said that Senator Hagel agrees with "Obama's account of the meeting."

The ABC News story goes on to report that:

Two officials of the Bush administration say that if Obama had done what the Post story asserted - which they believe to be untrue - Crocker and embassy officials attending the meeting would have ensured that the Bush administration heard about it immediately. If such an incident occurred in front of officials of the Bush administration, it would have constituted a foreign policy breach and would have been front-page huge news; it would not have leaked out two months later in an op-ed column.

Melanie Phillips makes much of the word treachery in her blog entry. The only act of treachery here is to the journalism profession. The Spectator needs to withdraw this blog by Melanie Phillips and she needs to apologize for publishing an unverified assertion by a notoriously unreliable "reporter."

JohnW

Ronnie,
Glad to see you’re now finished with arcane theorizing over the terms of a “legal war” (our military doesn’t have that luxury). And never argue with a woman named Ann (my wife’s name also!)
Anyway, moving swiftly on………… I’d like to know your ideas on how to address the growing nuclear threat of Iran? Are you happy to see Iran with operational nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them? Are you also happy to see them continuing to fund, train and supply terrorist organisations? Or are you among those who decry all this as another Bush invention and don’t even see Iran as a problem? Is there not a compelling case for preemptive action here?
Of course, there’s yet another conundrum next door –Pakistan. Obama is already on record as saying he’ll hunt down Bin laden to his cave, which means invading Pakistan! (how neocon is that!) Anyway, he hasn’t yet told us whether he’ll be doing this before or after he’s cozied up to the terrorists for talks “without preconditions”. Of course, him being an expert military tactician, he’ll keep that one up his sleeve, eh? What do you think he should do? Should he seek a UN mandate to invade Pakistan or should he wait to be invited? More to the point - will Hell freeze over first before the UN ever does anything that leads to positive and decisive action?

Ronnie

JohnW and AdamB, if Obama happens to win the US presidenial election will you feel free to contribute posts to this blog criticising his policies and actions while in office? If you do will that make you anti US or will you be exercising your right to free speech? If you do criticise Obama do you think his supporters will be justified in accusing you of self-loathing and treason?

Do you think that the many people who criticise the policies and actions of the government of Gordon Brown are anti British?

In short, are you mature enough to live in a society that defends free speech?

Dave

Looking into ndm's link makes for interesting reading.
Do we believe Mel? Or Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska who was actually at the meeting in question. A spokesperson for the Senator said this story is "absolutely not true"
Seems clear enough
So would Mel and The Spectator like to remove this post? Or at the very least update it to include the Senator's point of view?

John Birch

Excellent post ndm that thoroughly refutes yet another conspiracy theory that Melanie is peddling. Remember though, as Stephen Colbert once pointed out at the White House correspondents' annual dinner, reality has a liberal bias.

Ronnie

JohnW, experience tells me its best not argue with women period. But we just can't help ourselves...

Anyway, I'm glad you brought up Pakistan. A more tractable issue.

Do you think the US government would accept Mexico sending troops over the border to chase narcos without first asking permission? I don't.

I agree with you that sitting around on our hands while Iran may or may not be building a nuclear weapon is not the best strategy. I also agree that fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan is a waste of time if they can just run over the border to Pakistan and regroup.

However, if the only solution that you can see is war with Iran and an invasion of the border areas of Pakistan I have to ask you:

1 How many such operations do you think the US military can sustain at any one time - Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. I don't think that is possible, practical or desireable

2 Can you, or do you wish to, imagine the consequencies of these actions throughout the whole region? We may, and it is an unbelievably big may, solve some of the immediate problems but we would certainly create many, many more.

3 Do you think that the current world economic situation would improve or deteriorate as a result of such action?

We have no idea what Iran is doing or thinking. It is a closed society and we have helped create that by not talking to them since their revolution. Information is power and we don't have any. Instead we are left with reports sent to us by people with axes to grind, as happened with Iraq - and we know where that got us. I think you should always keep lines of communication open not least because you then have a better idea of what is going on and can act accordingly and at an early stage. Iran is a case in point. So, if we don't stop shouting and start listening and talking soon, we will be looking only at military action because we will have given ourselves no room to maneuvre.

Pakistan has a new president, we want him to help us fight the Taliban in his border regions. He is pro-western like his wife was but he has a huge internal problem in the military and the more extreme religious people in the country. They will always distrust western intentions so we have to support him and give him space to help us. Do you think, in these circumstances and at this time, that unauthorised cross-border incursions are the best way to get the president of Pakistan to take tougher action against the Taliban on his border? I don't.

I don't think that undermining the new president is a very intelligent way to proceed and it will worsen the situation in the medium term.

Military action can only take you so far in most situations where there is not total war. As I said, I do not think that the US can be at total war in 4 countries at the same time.

Forget the UN, this is about the US having different kinds of relationships with different countries in different situations. Pakistan is not Iran, don't lump them together with the same solution.

In the case of the Bush administration, I always think of the saying, 'when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.'

Now, JohnW. What would you do?

Hayward Maberley

Mr/Ms/Mrs Inspector,
Hayward Maberley is the correct spelling, but I will overlook that as I also make errors in spelling and grammar when trying to get off a snappy reply. Rarely with facts and I certainly do not drivel. Just the facts sir or ma’am
Not born in W1 but SW20 and raised in SW19, even so I do not think I can be classed as provincial. Though I did live in Kent and Somerset at times
Have I ever lived out of Britain btw?
Yes, off and on for some 30+ years. My father was in the BAOR and then posted to Singapore during Konfrontasi. While there met Australians for the first time and also began an interest in Asian cultures which later led to me studying Mandarin, Japanese and Linguistics. I was stuck back in school in the UK for 6 years. On trips to Germany stopped off and various times in The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Austria. Even made it it to Berlin for a visit. Also Belgium, France and Switzerland later on in my school years. Out and back from Singapore visited Sri Lanka, Colombo and around the the south east, as my father was there with his parents after a posting from the NWFP (see later), India; Delhi, Mumbai and the hill country, But unable to go across into Pakistan to visit my father’s birthplace Murree, due to border conflict. Hill country as my grandfather was in the British Army in India. Up in the NWFP doing what they are trying to do now, chase Pathans as they were called then, back and forth across the Durand Line. Arrived in Australia after a trip through North America in the late 1960s. Saw parts of east and west coast of Canada, New York,and Minneapolis/St Paul where I have/had relatives, SF where there were some family friends. A lot of places in between as I hitched and caught buses. Down to Mexico, into Baja California and across and down to Acapulco. Across the Pacific to Hawai’i, Fiji, what is now Vanuatu and to the Solomon Islands where worked for a year or so then here to Australia. Have been back to the UK 3 times, visited parts of Asia since but I now call Australia home.
Yes Australia is in the Southern Hemisphere but latitudinally speaking only Tasmania is further than 40S and we run up to 10S. My reference was to the great Men at Work song. in which Australians take the piss, as we say, out of themselves while still being happy with who we are.
As for Dubya the problem is that many people think of him as a native Texan which he is not. No I did not “just find this out” that he was a Down Easter, I knew from the start. I am also well aware of the “pedigree” of the Bushes and also the Walkers. Something that leads to the UBC connection.
George W has had a ranch in W Texas. Now there you might have something of which I am obviously unaware. Whereabouts in W Texas.? As far as I was aware and I am always open to correction he purchased the Crawford property in 1999.
Here am I believing that the idea of research is to make yourself familiar with “things”.
Can you point out an error of fact? Judgement is in the eye of the beholder
But thank you anyway, ma’am/sir, you must have read a fair bit to become so hot under the collar.

Hayward Maberley

Verity,
The name is Hayward Maberley
It is obvious that your geographical knowledge is as a weak as your knowledge of the US Congress.
I will explain it carefully;
In the Land Down Under, refers to Australia where I live;
out in the West, refers to the western portions of both Queensland and NSW;
over the Great Divide, The Great Dividing Range is the high country that separates the East Coast from where the western portions of those states lie
“The bigger the hat... is very much along the lines of “All hat....

I need no geography lesson on the USA. I do know the differences between the SWest, the West and the NWest Verity. I have travelled though parts of all three regions.
Perchance you yourself need to pull out an atlas or go to Google Maps .

Dave

Still no correction? One wonders who is really "playing politics with Iraq" ?

Verity

Hayward Mayberly - I stand corrected in your being a pointy-headed provincial who has never been abroad. But your grasp of American geography is weak.

The great state of Texas, remains NOT Down Under. It is NOT in the West. George Bush is NOT a faux Texan, having been partly brought up there and partly brought up in the drawing rooms of DC. His family has its old family home in Houston, where the former President Bush and his wife now live. George Bush was elected Governor of Texas twice in two consecutive terms, making history.

He has a working ranch in West Texas, out near Amarillo. He goes there to relax, but it is a regular working ranch run by his foreman, who is also one of his closest friends and who he spends long hours with discussing the woes of the world. The foreman is black, btw and they have been good friends forever.

Singapore is one of my favourite countries and LKY is my world's favourite politician. (After Sarah Palin.)

As a reminder, everyone, first Presidential debate on Friday. My prediction: Obama will win the first one.

Vice Presidential debate on 2 October. My prediction, Governor Palin will wipe the floor with poor Joe Biden.

JohnW

Verity,

Yes - let's hear it for LKY. Absolutely agree - a superb leader and inspiration - how I wish we had someone of his calibre in the UK.

Verity

John W, For vision and the strength of will to carry it through, I don't know if he has an equal in history. (Perhaps some Romans I don't know about ...) He's around at 83 now, and still giving talks and responding to university audiences with quick witted comebacks.

His son, B-G Lee - Lee Hsieng Loon - is equally brilliant.

The Singapore Government pays its chief executive and its cabinet in line with top salaried officers of multinationals, on the theory that they are competing with the private sector for the top brains. I think LSL makes around US$2.5 pa. And worth every penny.

Hayward Maberley

Verity,
Thanks for acknowledging my non-pointy head, non-provincial status. I will desist from any more references to The Land Down Under, but Verity in Texas terms Amarillo is in the Panhandle, not really West Texas.
By the way what is the name of this ranch, I am interested to know?
An interesting quote “Singapore is one of my favourite countries and LKY is my world's favourite politician. (After Sarah Palin.)”
So you must like states that are run as almost one party states with nepotism as an added bonus.
The Economist Intelligence Unit lists Singapore as a country with a “hybrid” system with democratic and authoritarian elements.
Freedom House ranks the country as “partly free”.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2008&country=7486