Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » God bothering » No Sunshine and Lollypops in Iraq

No Sunshine and Lollypops in Iraq

I’ve been following the recent events in Iraq with some dark bemusement because it seems to me to be the obvious demonstration of the brutality of Islam and the absolutely pernicious outcome when you mix a religion that preaches the primacy of the next world and the requirement for mechanistic totalitarian obedience  with in this life to secure a place in the next. Add to that the centuries old schism between the  Sunni and Shia  incarnations of Allah’s faithful and you have the recipe for greater death and destruction than either of the last two wars in that blighted land.

The US government is, quite rightly, not rushing to get involved and I certainly do not expect to see any US boots on the ground anytime soon. The news that Shia Iran is lending support to the Current government  may well provide a bulwark to the Iraqi government and its rather wonky military who have not shown much intestinal fortitude at all in the face of the ISIS insurgents. The only bright spot for the west is that with the involvement of Iran in the conflict we may well see a replay of the Iran Iraq wars that predated Gulf war one. I can almost hear the usual suspects screaming with horror  at my suggestion that such a war could be a bright spot but my reasoning  is quite simple; If the Sunnis and Shias are concentrating on killing each other in Iraq they will expend a great deal of resources (in terms of men, materials and money) on the fight and ultimately neither will win, further  the utter brutality of Islam will be  on show for the world to see finally every Jihadist killed in this coming war is one less that we have to worry about. Oh yeah lets not forget that we can leave Allah to choose just who is fighting for the just cause and who is on the side of Satan

The usual suspects will of course be arguing that we and the entirity of the west are in some sense culpable for this conflict (cue Richard Ryan) and that we will have to accept more “refugees”. I say bollocks to that fro a couple of reasons. Firstly this conflict shows us that the followers of both sides of the schism in Islam are incapable of letting go of the animosities of their history and they are much more than willing to perpetuate them for the rest of time. This alone should be sounding very loud alarm bells warning us to chose anyone else but Muslims  for our humanitarian programs.  The Bleeding hearts will , sadly keep insisting that we should continue to pretend that Islam is warm cuddly and benign when it is very evidently anything but benign.  That said lets see how things play out on the ground there but  I don’t expect any “Sunshine and Lollypops” .

Cheers Comrades

tumblr_lv1gq0UPik1r5qrimo1_500

Advertisements

59 Comments

  1. Jeff G. says:

    I’ve been following the recent events in Iraq with some dark bemusement

    I’ve been following them and saying “I told you so” because it is what I and others predicted when Bush, Blair, Howard and their cronies invaded Iraq 11 years ago. Saddam was a murderous bastard but he kept a lid on the religious divisions and tribalisms in Iraq. Stability in Iraq lasted only as long as the US was prepared to stay on the ground. Now you are going to see blood shed that might make life under Saddam look like a rough game of footy. Anyone with half a brain could see this coming.

  2. Richard Ryan says:

    But? Andrew Bolt dressed in his flak-jacket, in the safety of the “Green Zone” told us the war was won and over in Iraq. And all his beloved bloggers squealed with joy, with comments such as piss on me Andy, you are our “War God”.

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    The problem in Iraq has been caused by the US … and with Australia’s assistance (under Howard). Saddam might have been a crappy little dictator but at least he kept the place reasonably peaceful. This is a f*cking farce – caused by the invasion. The unnecesary and unwarranted invasion.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Gentlemen, thank you for proving that my predictions were spot on
    Jeff

    I’ve been following them and saying “I told you so” because it is what I and others predicted when Bush, Blair, Howard and their cronies invaded Iraq 11 years ago. Saddam was a murderous bastard but he kept a lid on the religious divisions and tribalisms in Iraq. Stability in Iraq lasted only as long as the US was prepared to stay on the ground. Now you are going to see blood shed that might make life under Saddam look like a rough game of footy. Anyone with half a brain could see this coming.

    Given that this mob have arisen in Syria rather than Iraq I think hat your analysis is far too shallow and made with ignorance aforethought. My expectation is that had Saddam not been removed then he would have caused far more bloodshed than we have seen in the last ten years Or have you forgotten how he gassed the Kurds or the millions who died in his war with Iran?

    Richard

    But? Andrew Bolt dressed in his flak-jacket, in the safety of the “Green Zone” told us the war was won and over in Iraq. And all his beloved bloggers squealed with joy, with comments such as piss on me Andy, you are our “War God”.

    You must stainming your trousers with blissful joy right now at the thought of more people being ground under the heel of Islam


    Ray

    The problem in Iraq has been caused by the US … and with Australia’s assistance (under Howard). Saddam might have been a crappy little dictator but at least he kept the place reasonably peaceful. This is a f*cking farce – caused by the invasion. The unnecesary and unwarranted invasion.

    Given that this mob have arisen in Syria rather than Iraq I think hat your analysis is ALSO far too shallow and made with ignorance aforethought. My expectation is that had Saddam not been removed then he would have caused far more bloodshed than we have seen in the last ten years Or have you forgotten how he gassed the Kurds or the millions who died in his war with Iran?

  5. Jeff G. says:

    Given that this mob have arisen in Syria rather than Iraq I think hat your analysis is far too shallow and made with ignorance aforethought.

    After I commented I did some googling and found that you were a cheerleader for the dishonest and deceitful 2003 invasion, Iain. So be careful throwing around accusations of ignorance. You lot swallowed the WMD myth hook line and sinker. Now you’re all looking rather silly.

    The issue with ISIS is not where they started but how and why they have managed to take over almost half of Iraq in the space of just a few weeks.

    My expectation is that had Saddam not been removed then he would have caused far more bloodshed than we have seen in the last ten years

    Not only is your “analysis” of the situation in Iraq wrong, you are now engaging in psychic predictions.

    Just about every foreign policy analyst with any brains has pointed out that the “stability” of Iraq was only ever going to last about six months after the last US ground troops left. You lot who beat the drums of war should be embarrassed about what you have done. You have killed 3,000 US soldiers and spent billions of our money, swapping one murderous tyrant for many murderous religious tyrants.

  6. Jeff G. says:

    Or have you forgotten how he gassed the Kurds or the millions who died in his war with Iran?

    Both carried out with weapons supplied by the US, who wanted him to kill millions in his war with Iran.

  7. Iain Hall says:


    Jeff

    Given that this mob have arisen in Syria rather than Iraq I think hat your analysis is far too shallow and made with ignorance aforethought.

    After I commented I did some googling and found that you were a cheerleader for the dishonest and deceitful 2003 invasion, Iain. So be careful throwing around accusations of ignorance. You lot swallowed the WMD myth hook line and sinker. Now you’re all looking rather silly.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    As I have said repeatedly at the time everyone believed that Saddam was far more capable of large scale killing than turned out to be the case and it was a belief that his regime was more than happy to perpetuate. That said I make no apology for endorsing the removal of a tyrant. It never ceases to amaze me that you minions of the left are so keen to demand that “somebody” do “something” about this dictator or that “el Presedente” in one third world shit hole or another and when that “somebody” is the USA you so quickly start barracking for the dictator or lamenting his demise.

    The issue with ISIS is not where they started but how and why they have managed to take over almost half of Iraq in the space of just a few weeks.

    History is littered with unforeseen consequences and bad calls on how to react to villainy. We could argue “what ifs” and back track to what the “causes” of current events but that is really only of value from an academic perspective. That said Your finger pointing and utter delight at this situation is not that becoming

    My expectation is that had Saddam not been removed then he would have caused far more bloodshed than we have seen in the last ten years

    Not only is your “analysis” of the situation in Iraq wrong, you are now engaging in psychic predictions.

    I’m not that bad at predicting the way that plots and scenarios will play out, I suppose taht you think that Life in Iraq under Saddam would have been Sunshine and Lollypops?

    Just about every foreign policy analyst with any brains has pointed out that the “stability” of Iraq was only ever going to last about six months after the last US ground troops left. You lot who beat the drums of war should be embarrassed about what you have done. You have killed 3,000 US soldiers and spent billions of our money, swapping one murderous tyrant for many murderous religious tyrants.

    Well its managed to last three years so far and they are beginning to regain ground now so maybe you had better keep in mind that taking territory is always the easy part and that holding it and creating a viable society (even a totalitarian religious state)takes an entirely different skill set.

    Finally I make no apology at all for making the argument that once involved in a war you fight to win, you try your darnedest to kill as many of the enemy combatants as you can and that when that enemy seeks glory in the next life that you give them every opportunity to meet their god face to face. Further why did you need to use Google rather than just checking my archive here?

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Jeff

    Both carried out with weapons supplied by the US, who wanted him to kill millions in his war with Iran.

    Now you are being obtuse. Dictators like Saddam was seeking and getting ordinary weapons from everywhere and manufacturing chemical weapons himself. To be frank I tend to agree that one of the first world’s biggest mistakes has been the export of military technology to the third world, even though that was a response to the expansion of communist influence during the post war period. Just ask yourself just why the weapon of choice for most of these Jihadists is the AK47 when you blame the USA for every thing?

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, I think you’ve got the wrong take on this entirely. This is not a religious war like you suggest. It has nothing to do with Islam per se and it’s more tribal if you want to put a label on it. What you’ve got is muslims killing muslims in order to take territory, power and possibly wealth (being the oil, the pipelines and the huge reserves). The fact they’re muslims is not so much a reflection on that religion, it’s a reflection on their thousands of years of history of being a divided and war like people.

    And rewriting history about Saddam, the non-existent WMD, the unwarranted invasion by the US, etc is just a cover up and a denial of reality. The truth is that the FIRST war against Iraq in 1991 was justified (because Saddam had invaded Kuwait and posed a threat to world oil supplies) but the second one commencing in 2003 wasn’t. The embargos against Iraq (imposed after Gulf War I) were working and had brought Iraq to its knees economically. But going in all guns blazing – with no grounds whatsoever – was overkill and created the very instability that has encouraged insurgents to move in. They were doing that while the US was there and quite relentlessly and succesfully, and that alone should tell you that the US invasion was in hindsight not a really good idea (I knew it in foresight as most thinking people did).

    There is no escaping the fact that the US wiping out Iraq’s military, toppling its regime, killing millions of people and bombing the crap out of the country and then attempting to instill a piss weak home-grown but artificial democracy in a country that doesn’t want one, and then pulling out after 10 years and saying “you’ll be okay now”, was the very cause of today’s chaos.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    Iain, I think you’ve got the wrong take on this entirely. This is not a religious war like you suggest. It has nothing to do with Islam per se and it’s more tribal if you want to put a label on it. What you’ve got is muslims killing muslims in order to take territory, power and possibly wealth (being the oil, the pipelines and the huge reserves). The fact they’re muslims is not so much a reflection on that religion, it’s a reflection on their thousands of years of history of being a divided and war like people.

    Just a little history lesson for you my friend:

    The division between the two factions is older and deeper even than the tensions between Protestants and Catholics which bedevilled Europe for centuries. The two Christian denominations had a shared history for 1500 years. By contrast the rift between the two biggest Muslim factions goes right back to the beginning – and a row over who should succeed the Prophet Mohamed as leader of the emerging Islamic community when he died in the early 7th century.

    In the last 10 years of his life Mohamed inflicted total defeat on the pagan tribes of Mecca and by doing so united the entire Arabian peninsula. Around 100,000 people had submitted to the rule of Mohamed and of Allah. Tribal alliances in Arabia in those days usually disintegrated on the death of the leader, or after the short-term military objectives had been met and the spoils divided. Often succession would pass to the leader’ s son. But Mohamed had no son, only a daughter. And his inheritance was spiritual as well as political.

    The majority of his followers thought his closest associate, Abu Bakr, should take over. They became the Sunnis. But a minority thought the Prophet’s closest relative, his son-in-law and nephew Ali, should succeed.

    Shia is an abbreviation of Shiat Ali “the party of Ali”. Intrigues and violence followed, with Mohamed’s widow Aisha (who was also the daughter of Abu Bakr) leading troops against Ali. Eventually Ali was killed, as was his son Hussein, and persecution and martyrdom became ingrained in the Shia psyche. As the years passed rift hardened into schism. The seeds of civil war had been sown.

    The two sides agreed on the Quran but had different views on hadith, the traditions recorded by Mohamed’s followers about what he had said and done in his life. Diverging traditions of ritual, law and practice soon emerged. A clerical hierarchy, topped by imams and ayatollahs, became crucial in Shi’ism. By contrast, Sunni Muslims felt no need of intermediaries in their relationship with God – an approach which has abetted the rise of extremist zealots like al-Qa’ida. The Sunnis became happy to depend upon the state, which their adherents mostly controlled.

    The chief Shia religious festival became Ashura when devotees would beat themselves to commemorate the death of the Prophet’s grandson Hussein at the Battle of Karbala in 680. Various Shia sub-sects formed, including the fanatical Assassins, the Alawites in Syria and the Ismailis, whose leader is the Aga Khan. Some mystical sufi movements created a bridge between Sunni and Shia but hardline Sunnis regard the Shia practice of venerating saints and visiting shrines as heretical – which is why Sunni extremists bomb Shias on pilgrimage in places like Karbala in Iraq today.
    Source

    And rewriting history about Saddam, the non-existent WMD, the unwarranted invasion by the US, etc is just a cover up and a denial of reality. The truth is that the FIRST war against Iraq in 1991 was justified (because Saddam had invaded Kuwait and posed a threat to world oil supplies) but the second one commencing in 2003 wasn’t. The embargos against Iraq (imposed after Gulf War I) were working and had brought Iraq to its knees economically. But going in all guns blazing – with no grounds whatsoever – was overkill and created the very instability that has encouraged insurgents to move in. They were doing that while the US was there and quite relentlessly and succesfully, and that alone should tell you that the US invasion was in hindsight not a really good idea (I knew it in foresight as most thinking people did).

    Sigh, If taking Saddam out during Gulf war one was justified, and after that mistake he continued on his murderous ways, even rising the scale of his brutality by massacring his own people You have to be kidding if you think the interregnum between GW1 and GW2 should have given him a free pass.

    There is no escaping the fact that the US wiping out Iraq’s military, toppling its regime, killing millions of people and bombing the crap out of the country and then attempting to instill a piss weak home-grown but artificial democracy in a country that doesn’t want one, and then pulling out after 10 years and saying “you’ll be okay now”, was the very cause of today’s chaos.

    Yes mistakes were very clearly made but you only have to look at what has happened in Syria to see that collapse into anarchy is only ever a few heartbeats away in all of the nations blighted by Islam and in the shadow of the Sunni Shia schism.

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, that “history lesson” you quoted just supports what I said – they are a divided people and it is NOT Islam that causes that but their nature. It’s like rivalry between AFL supporters/clubs. Nothing more than that – they like to fight each other. Period.

    And I didn’t say Saddam should have had a “free pass”. I said the embargo was bringing him down and there was no need to invade. Eventually he would have been replaced by his own people who would understand that he had to go if Iraq was to have any kind of future. He had isolated them from the world and was slowly destroying their country. A natural (and less volatile) overthrow would most likely have ensued. Think parallels of Sth Africa – that’s how you deal with rogue countries or, more correctly, rogue leaders. You cut them off, send them to Coventry so to speak. Ignore them, ban them, treat them like the naughty children they are. Eventually they either come to their senses and behave or they wither away. Either way they’re no longer a problem.

    And the collapse into anarchy (or more correctly, chaos) was precipitated and brought on (read: made a lot easier and pre-empted) by the US invasion destroying the fabric and what semblance of order existed in Iraq. Obviously. Think of it this way: If my next door neighbour is a tyrant and is abusing his kids and so I decide to go in there and kill him and, in so doing, I also kill some of his kids who don’t like what I’m doing (even though he abused them), tell me who is in the wrong?

  12. Jeff G. says:

    As I have said repeatedly at the time everyone believed that Saddam was far more capable of large scale killing than turned out to be the case

    Wrong. A good number of people, some of them experts on the Middle East, warned that Saddam had no functioning WMDs, and his military strength was waning.

    It never ceases to amaze me that you minions of the left are so keen to demand that “somebody” do “something” about this dictator or that “el Presedente” in one third world shit hole or another and when that “somebody” is the USA you so quickly start barracking for the dictator or lamenting his demise.

    I am not a “minion of the left” any more than you are a “dickhead of the right”. And can you be so good as to tell me when/where I have argued for the over throw of any government? As the saying goes, you are “just making shit up”.

    History is littered with unforeseen consequences and bad calls on how to react to villainy. We could argue “what ifs” and back track to what the “causes” of current events but that is really only of value from an academic perspective.

    Wrong. The consequences of what would happen if Saddam was knocked off were by no means “unforeseen”, in fact they were predicted by many people smarter than you and I.

    That said Your finger pointing and utter delight at this situation is not that becoming

    I’m not the one “LOLOLOLOL!”-ing.

    Now you are being obtuse. Dictators like Saddam was seeking and getting ordinary weapons from everywhere and manufacturing chemical weapons himself.

    Wrong. I’ll wager that Saddam did more killing with US supplied weapons, munitions and gas than with Russian materiel. The Americans supplied him hand over fist in the 70s and 80s.

    You are wrong on this Iain. It’s not a question of political opinion, “left” vs “right” or a simple division of Islam. Iraq is a sectarian mess and it will soon become apparently that the US intervention has only made it worse.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    Iain, that “history lesson” you quoted just supports what I said – they are a divided people and it is NOT Islam that causes that but their nature. It’s like rivalry between AFL supporters/clubs. Nothing more than that – they like to fight each other. Period.

    You are kidding yourself if you think that religion, in particular the schism between Sunni and Shia, are not at he very centre of this conflict.

    And I didn’t say Saddam should have had a “free pass”. I said the embargo was bringing him down and there was no need to invade. Eventually he would have been replaced by his own people who would understand that he had to go if Iraq was to have any kind of future. He had isolated them from the world and was slowly destroying their country. A natural (and less volatile) overthrow would most likely have ensued. Think parallels of Sth Africa – that’s how you deal with rogue countries or, more correctly, rogue leaders. You cut them off, send them to Coventry so to speak. Ignore them, ban them, treat them like the naughty children they are. Eventually they either come to their senses and behave or they wither away. Either way they’re no longer a problem.

    Oh how easily you forget the way that so many minions of the left forget the litany of propaganda about the “cruelty” of the sanctions have you forgotten the images of skeletal starving children?

    And the collapse into anarchy (or more correctly, chaos) was precipitated and brought on (read: made a lot easier and pre-empted) by the US invasion destroying the fabric and what semblance of order existed in Iraq. Obviously. Think of it this way: If my next door neighbour is a tyrant and is abusing his kids and so I decide to go in there and kill him and, in so doing, I also kill some of his kids who don’t like what I’m doing (even though he abused them), tell me who is in the wrong?

    There is no difference between “chaos” and anarchy As to your scenario would you feel happier letting the abuse continue? Your fellow Lefties would be utterly rabid about inaction of the west.

    Jeff

    As I have said repeatedly at the time everyone believed that Saddam was far more capable of large scale killing than turned out to be the case

    Wrong. A good number of people, some of them experts on the Middle East, warned that Saddam had no functioning WMDs, and his military strength was waning.

    Frankly I don’t recall that being the case at all but then I have never taken the “Green Left Weekly” et al as my primary news source

    It never ceases to amaze me that you minions of the left are so keen to demand that “somebody” do “something” about this dictator or that “el Presedente” in one third world shit hole or another and when that “somebody” is the USA you so quickly start barracking for the dictator or lamenting his demise.

    I am not a “minion of the left” any more than you are a “dickhead of the right”. And can you be so good as to tell me when/where I have argued for the over throw of any government? As the saying goes, you are “just making shit up”.

    Can’t you tell the difference between the general and particular in a comment? If I wanted to cite you, as an individual then I would have been calling you by name.

    History is littered with unforeseen consequences and bad calls on how to react to villainy. We could argue “what ifs” and back track to what the “causes” of current events but that is really only of value from an academic perspective.

    Wrong. The consequences of what would happen if Saddam was knocked off were by no means “unforeseen”, in fact they were predicted by many people smarter than you and I.

    Citations required for that claim or it did not happen that way at all.

    That said Your finger pointing and utter delight at this situation is not that becoming

    I’m not the one “LOLOLOLOL!”-ing.

    I’m laughing at you , not the situation.

    Now you are being obtuse. Dictators like Saddam was seeking and getting ordinary weapons from everywhere and manufacturing chemical weapons himself.

    Wrong. I’ll wager that Saddam did more killing with US supplied weapons, munitions and gas than with Russian materiel. The Americans supplied him hand over fist in the 70s and 80s.

    Wager all you like but the form of your claims suggests that you are basing this claim on nothing more than your own confirmation bias.

    You are wrong on this Iain. It’s not a question of political opinion, “left” vs “right” or a simple division of Islam. Iraq is a sectarian mess and it will soon become apparently that the US intervention has only made it worse.

    Why are you so keen to dismiss or ignore the religious dimensions of this conflict?

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, their religion is NOT at the centre of this conflict. They both have the same basic religion, just somewhat different versions of it. They wear those distinctions like football hooligans wear the colors of their teams to decide who to side with and who to take their anger out on. They’re not attacking each other over religion any more than the soccer hooligans attack each other over football. They attack each other because they are a violent people who like to fight and their religion is just the football-type banner that they fly under. I repeat: It is NOT their religion that makes them crazy – it’s just that they are crazy (and primitive). To give you another example, do you really think the fighting in Ireland over all those years was over religion too? Or was that just an excuse for the Irish to fight each other? Careful how you answer because if you say “yes” you’re saying Christianity invokes violence too.

    And the “cruelty of the sanctions” was a lot less cruel than the US blowing them to pieces and ruining what they had left of their nation.

    As for your response to my next-door-neighbour-bully example, are you suggesting that killing him (and his kids) would be the best way to deal with it? It reads that way.

  15. Ray Dixon says:

    I’ll just add this: If these people were suddenly convinced (like today) that Islam, Allah & the Koran was all a lie and a piece of shit (which it is) and they all swore off being Muslim forever (on both sides of the conflict), do you think there’d be peace & harmony in Iraq? Well, there wouldn’t be and they’d just find some other reason for carrying out their primitive, stone-age war like tendencies. The killings would go on. The problem is not the religion – the problem is the people.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    Ray with the greatest respect I really don’t think that you really understand the depth of the schism within Islam or the determined passion between the sides of the argument. Are you familiar with the conflict between protestant and Catholics within Christianity? Then try to imagine that level of animosity taken to several orders of magnitude higher, and add to that the blood thirsty traditions of Islam before the schism and you have the current situation.

    Seeing that you are so keen to see this in sporting terms just imagine that the various AFL tribes have been inculcated with a visceral hatred for all of the other tribes from the cradle and that they have also been taught that the god of the four stick faith has promised them eternal premierships if they die killing unbelievers (which means any outside their tribe)could you really argue that its not the Four stick faith that is at fault for the nature of its core teachings? I think not because you just can not separate the faith from the actions of the faithful they are both aspects of the same thing.

  17. Jeff G. says:

    Frankly I don’t recall that being the case at all but then I have never taken the “Green Left Weekly” et al as my primary news source

    Do you mean, you get your news from the always reliable Andrew Bolt or FOX news?

    Can’t you tell the difference between the general and particular in a comment? If I wanted to cite you, as an individual then I would have been calling you by name.

    When you say “you minions of the left… demand ‘x'”, you are suggesting that I do as well. Which is a lie. For that matter, I don’t see the “minions of the left” demanding the invasion and overthrow of too many countries. It’s more the “war loving arms trading dickheads of the right” who do that.

    Citations required for that claim or it did not happen that way at all.

    Not sure why I should bother citing links when you almost never do, but here are two.

    Saddam was weakening:
    “Western military experts generally estimated that in early 2003, Iraq’s armed forces were down to about 40% of their 1991 Gulf War levels, when they fielded some 1 million troops. International sanctions had kept Iraq from maintaining or modernizing outdated weapons and equipment, and Iraqi soldiers lacked training in modern techniques of war.”
    http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-iraqs-prewar-military-capabilities/p7695

    Post-war Iraq:
    “The aim of regime change in Iraq was presumably to create a state that would be stable and legitimate, yet also friendly to the United States. The outcome, however, appears to be a failed state plagued by prolonged insurgency, verging on civil war, and in which the main beneficiary appears to be pro-Iranian Shia groups. This outcome was predictable and predicted by Iraq specialists. Iraq was a fragile artificial state from its creation by Britain, with communal cleavages and instability built-in. Only over several decades of struggle was a formula for stability found: a brutal strongman ruling through a semi-totalitarian party and relying on one of Iraq’s communities against the others. The US in effect deconstructed this state without having – or even planning for – a viable replacement for it.”
    http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Raymond-Hinnebusch.pdf

    Short answer…. Saddam was weakening, he had enough strength to hold Iraq together but was no threat to the outside world, and knocking off Saddam would cause Iraq to collapse into a mess.

    Wager all you like but the form of your claims suggests that you are basing this claim on nothing more than your own confirmation bias.

    As opposed to you war lovers who operate only on the facts. Give me a break!

    Why are you so keen to dismiss or ignore the religious dimensions of this conflict?

    I’m not, religion is one factor among others.

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Jeff
    from your own citation:

    How much functioning military equipment did Iraq’s army have?

    Iraq was thought to have between 1,800 and 2,000 tanks in working order, compared with at least 5,500 before the 1991 Gulf War. About 700 tanks were thought to be relatively capable Soviet T-72’s, but they were outmatched by U.S. equipment. The T-72’s, for example, lack adequate night-vision equipment and have half the range of an American M1A1 Abrams tank, which in 1991 hit Iraqi tanks from as far as 1.9 miles away.

    Iraq was thought to have about 3,700 additional armored vehicles, though the fleet was aging and outdated. U.S. planners believed Iraq also had approximately 2,300 artillery pieces, including some relatively sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles, and tens of thousands of machine guns and other small arms.
    What was the state of Iraq’s Air Force and air defenses?

    The country was believed to have about 300 combat aircraft, although many planes were thought to have little, if any, effective combat capability. In fact, no Iraqi combat aircraft flew in the conflict. Its major combat aircraft included the French Mirage F-1 and the Russian-built MIG-23, 21, and 29. It also had some 350 helicopters, about 80 of which were armed.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but your citation is clearly suggesting that the majority of Saddam’s equipment came from countries other than the USA, who I m sure would not have been supplying him with any of the chemical warfare agents that he had used against Iran and the Kurds.

  19. Jeff G. says:

    That was in 2003. The US obviously stopped supplying him with weapons by 1991. As for chemical weapons….

    “US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night. As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran. The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

    “In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses.”
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

    Face facts Iain, Saddam was supported and armed by the US for many years. They only went sour on him when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991 (to seize Kuwait’s oil) and then used the post-9/11 environment to knock him off (to seize Iraq’s oil).

  20. Iain Hall says:

    Jeff

    Do you mean, you get your news from the always reliable Andrew Bolt or FOX news?

    Read back through my archive and you will see that I “get my news” mainly from the ABC, secondly through Fairfax and the Guardian, only occasionally do I read the Murdoch press and when I do its seldom Bolt’s columns. As fro “fox news” well I don’t EVER watch or read that.

    Can’t you tell the difference between the general and particular in a comment? If I wanted to cite you, as an individual then I would have been calling you by name.

    When you say “you minions of the left… demand ‘x’”, you are suggesting that I do as well. Which is a lie. For that matter, I don’t see the “minions of the left” demanding the invasion and overthrow of too many countries. It’s more the “war loving arms trading dickheads of the right” who do that.

    Jeff your comments are riddled with the rhetoric, memes and thinking of the left none the less I am happy to acknowledge that no minions are precisely the same as their fellows which means that when I make a general point about leftist thinking I do have plenty of room and understanding of the variations in the level of endorsement for the various notions and ideological position under that umbrella.

    Citations required for that claim or it did not happen that way at all.
    Not sure why I should bother citing links when you almost never do, but here are two.

    My blog is not an academic treatise its an ongoing opinion piece where I write what I think about things, as a rule I stick to providing citations within my posts rather than in the comments.

    Short answer…. Saddam was weakening, he had enough strength to hold Iraq together but was no threat to the outside world, and knocking off Saddam would cause Iraq to collapse into a mess.

    Saddam was weakening sure he was diminished after the first Gulf war but he was far from emasculated either and the fact that he ended up putting up much less resistance than expected surprised everyone which brings me to a thought that occurred to me while I was reading your citation. Namely that the US government clearly believed that Saddam was more capable and that he both had and would deploy WMD in the face of US boots on the ground, if they did not believe that then those US troops would not have been taking the prophylactics against nerve agents and wearing Chem warfare suits until the campaign was quite well advanced.

    Wager all you like but the form of your claims suggests that you are basing this claim on nothing more than your own confirmation bias.

    As opposed to you war lovers who operate only on the facts. Give me a break!

    Why are you so keen to dismiss or ignore the religious dimensions of this conflict?

    I’m not, religion is one factor among others.

  21. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, you are failing to see that religion does not in itself make people violent. You see, it’s the violence in people in the first place that (a) makes them create a religion as fanatical as Islam (b) makes (some of) them carry out the more extreme ‘commands’ so to speak. When you can separate religion from being brought up in an ancient and wrongheaded environment, get back to me.

  22. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    Iain, you are failing to see that religion does not in itself make people violent. You see, it’s the violence in people in the first place that (a) makes them create a religion as fanatical as Islam (b) makes (some of) them carry out the more extreme ‘commands’ so to speak. When you can separate religion from being brought up in an ancient and wrongheaded environment, get back to me.

    As a cardinal once said “give me a child until they are six and I will make them a catholic for the rest for their lives” The very same principle applies to Islam Bring a child up in the faith and they will follow its teaching and with Islam its teachings are not all soft and cuddly like those of Christianity, they teach two things Obey the faith and to hate those who do not do likewise. You can’t suggest, as you do, that there is something biologically intrinsic to the people in question that “makes then Violent” Islam IS the environmental factor that causes the problem

  23. Jeff G. says:

    Jeff your comments are riddled with the rhetoric, memes and thinking of the left

    And yours are riddled with the war loving denial of facts and wooly thinking of the Right.

    I am happy to acknowledge that no minions are precisely the same as their fellows which means that when I make a general point about leftist thinking I do have plenty of room and understanding of the variations in the level of endorsement for the various notions and ideological position under that umbrella.

    Your claim is still rubbish. I don’t know of many, if any at all, credible left wing writers or leaders who argue in favour of invasion and “regime change” anywhere. You also have the annoying habit of telling people what they think. What I think is reflected in what I write. You do not know my mind, other than from what I have written. Unless you reckon you are telepathic, you should probably stop telling people they are “minions of the left” and think X, Y or Z.

    My blog is not an academic treatise its an ongoing opinion piece where I write what I think about things, as a rule I stick to providing citations within my posts rather than in the comments.

    So you demand evidence/links/citations from me but you don’t bother with them yourself. Who is suffering from “confirmation bias” now?

    if they did not believe that then those US troops would not have been taking the prophylactics against nerve agents and wearing Chem warfare suits until the campaign was quite well advanced.

    Yes and what does that prove, absolutely nothing. I had a vasectomy years ago. The doctor told me to use contraception for 3 months afterward, in case there were any stragglers inhabiting the plumbing. The same principle applies for Saddam’s WMD. He had no material or structure to make them but there was always the chance he had a few left over from the 1990s. How many US troops were attacked with chemical or bio weapons? Zero. Another neo con lie “fact” bites the dust!

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    You can’t suggest, as you do, that there is something biologically intrinsic to the people in question that “makes then Violent”

    No I did not suggest that. I suggested there is something intrinsically violent about their upbringing and environment that makes them that way. The Koran and the faith is built around that, not the other way around, Iain. Can’t you get it? In Australia those conditions do not apply, so muslims who move out here will eventually lose those beliefs in violence but perhaps not their faith. Ergo the religion is the construct not the root of the ‘problems’, which are caused by the environment.

  25. richard ryan says:

    Will we ever win a war under a Liberal Government?

  26. Jeff G. says:

    To me, radical Islam is a lot like Nazism and other types of extremism. It does not appeal to sensible people when conditions are good. But when your country is a shit hole, governments are corrupt and people are starving, they will look to religious nutters for answers. If Islam itself was the problem then Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Brunei, etc. would all be in a similar state to Iraq. The problem with Iraq is that it is a bunch of tribes and groups pretending to be a nation. Once Saddam was gone it could no longer be a nation.

    Will we ever win a war under a Liberal Government?

    Yes, “we” will win the war against the poor, the elderly and against fair education.

  27. Iain Hall says:

    Jeff

    Jeff your comments are riddled with the rhetoric, memes and thinking of the left

    And yours are riddled with the war loving denial of facts and wooly thinking of the Right.

    As it happens I don’t “love” war at all however I am entirely unencumbered by the silly leftist notions about how to fight a war if you are involved in one. Silly notions like thinking that calling in UN peace keepers solves conflicts, Or that you should try not to kill the enemy.

    Your claim is still rubbish. I don’t know of many, if any at all, credible left wing writers or leaders who argue in favour of invasion and “regime change” anywhere. You also have the annoying habit of telling people what they think. What I think is reflected in what I write. You do not know my mind, other than from what I have written. Unless you reckon you are telepathic, you should probably stop telling people they are “minions of the left” and think X, Y or Z.

    The thing is I take a wide angle overview of the writing (and opinion) from the left, and while I agree that very few of them talk about “regime change” but many of them do suggest “UN interventions” . As you have been playing in my Sandpit for a while now I have come to know you better than you think I do. If you can’t stop suggesting that I (or GD) am “racist” then don’t expect me cease suggesting that those of the leftist persuasion are “minions”

    My blog is not an academic treatise its an ongoing opinion piece where I write what I think about things, as a rule I stick to providing citations within my posts rather than in the comments.

    So you demand evidence/links/citations from me but you don’t bother with them yourself. Who is suffering from “confirmation bias” now?

    Wrong I find citations when I need them for the purposes argument but when you make certain claims that I have never heard off or doubt so its not unreasonable for me to request that you back them up.

    Yes and what does that prove, absolutely nothing. I had a vasectomy years ago. The doctor told me to use contraception for 3 months afterward, in case there were any stragglers inhabiting the plumbing.

    The future of humanity thanks you for that small mercy…

    The same principle applies for Saddam’s WMD. He had no material or structure to make them but there was always the chance he had a few left over from the 1990s. How many US troops were attacked with chemical or bio weapons? Zero. Another neo con lie “fact” bites the dust!

    Of course you are seeing these events with 20/20 hindsight and typically you can’t tell the difference between being mistaken and telling a lie.

  28. Iain Hall says:

    Jeff

    To me, radical Islam is a lot like Nazism and other types of extremism. It does not appeal to sensible people when conditions are good. But when your country is a shit hole, governments are corrupt and people are starving, they will look to religious nutters for answers. If Islam itself was the problem then Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Brunei, etc. would all be in a similar state to Iraq. The problem with Iraq is that it is a bunch of tribes and groups pretending to be a nation. Once Saddam was gone it could no longer be a nation.

    Like a lot of the secular left you just have no understanding AT ALL of the way that the devout followers of religion think

  29. Jeff G. says:

    As it happens I don’t “love” war at all however I am entirely unencumbered by the silly leftist notions about how to fight a war if you are involved in one. Silly notions like thinking that calling in UN peace keepers solves conflicts, Or that you should try not to kill the enemy.

    Yet again you are making shit up. Who on earth thinks you can have war without killing? Get real Iain, nobody, not even your mythical “minions of the left”, says that.

    As you have been playing in my Sandpit for a while now I have come to know you better than you think I do.

    Likewise matey.

    The future of humanity thanks you for that small mercy…

    Well I have made my contributions to society and the gene pool and they have turned out very well. Plus unlike some I have never been out of paid employment and do not draw any benefits from the state.

    Of course you are seeing these events with 20/20 hindsight and typically you can’t tell the difference between being mistaken and telling a lie.

    It is good to see you admitting that invading Iraq was a “mistake”.

    Like a lot of the secular left you just have no understanding AT ALL of the way that the devout followers of religion think

    And like a lot of ignoramuses, you constantly under estimate and lecture those who you argue with. No wonder you can’t get any more commenters than the current 3-4, the way you constantly tell people who much you know and how little they don’t.

  30. Iain Hall says:

    Jeff

    As it happens I don’t “love” war at all however I am entirely unencumbered by the silly leftist notions about how to fight a war if you are involved in one. Silly notions like thinking that calling in UN peace keepers solves conflicts, Or that you should try not to kill the enemy.

    Yet again you are making shit up. Who on earth thinks you can have war without killing? Get real Iain, nobody, not even your mythical “minions of the left”, says that.

    Don’t you remember the whining about not killing Osama? By those insisting that he should have been taken alive to stand trial? Or the endless bleating about the fact that during the gulf war one so many Iraqi solders were killed in air-strikes?

    As you have been playing in my Sandpit for a while now I have come to know you better than you think I do.

    Likewise matey.

    Getting a little hot under the collar there Jeff?

    The future of humanity thanks you for that small mercy…

    Well I have made my contributions to society and the gene pool and they have turned out very well. Plus unlike some I have never been out of paid employment and do not draw any benefits from the state.

    Yawn and you have a PHD as well I suppose.

    Of course you are seeing these events with 20/20 hindsight and typically you can’t tell the difference between being mistaken and telling a lie.

    It is good to see you admitting that invading Iraq was a “mistake”.

    How do you reach that conclusion?

    Like a lot of the secular left you just have no understanding AT ALL of the way that the devout followers of religion think

    And like a lot of ignoramuses, you constantly under estimate and lecture those who you argue with. No wonder you can’t get any more commenters(sic) than the current 3-4, the way you constantly tell people who(sic) much you know and how little they don’t.

    Like so many minions of the left you are not big on good manners are you? That said I am dismissive of your opinions of the religious mind set from the evidence of your rhetoric , please show that you truly understand the religious and I will happily change my opinion of your position.

  31. GD says:

    Ray said:

    I suggested there is something intrinsically violent about their upbringing and environment that makes them that way. The Koran and the faith is built around that, not the other way around, Iain. Can’t you get it? In Australia those conditions do not apply, so muslims who move out here will eventually lose those beliefs in violence but perhaps not their faith

    That’s wonderful in theory, Ray, but in reality when muslims with ‘intrinsically violent upbringings and environments’ have emigrated to Britain, France, Sweden, Norway, and Holland, they haven’t ‘eventually lost those beliefs in violence’. In those countries large numbers of muslims are refusing to assimilate into the countries they have chosen and instead are pushing for a return to sharia law.

    Saying that the situation in Australia will be any different is both naive and wishful thinking on your part.

  32. Ray Dixon says:

    The situation in Australia IS different and we do not have the problems with muslims that Europe (an ancient, war-like bunch of countries themselves) has. Besides, your claims about Europe are grossly exaggerated but go on, keep your deluded fear-based hatred going, GD. I’ve pointed out how shallow your arguments are before (many times) and re-engaging you on it is a waste of time. You just make stuff up and never acknowledge that that’s what you do.

  33. Ray Dixon says:

    Btw GD, have you sent that letter to Messrs Abbott & Morrison yet? Oh I forgot, I suggested you write to Fiona – she’s your local genius Coalition MP, isn’t she? Anyhow, did you get a response? Is the coalition going to go with your ideas and (1) ban all future muslim immigration, (2) round up those already here, strip them off their citizenships and send them ‘home’ or (3) have a muslim culling here in Australia just in case any of them are even thinking about a local Jihad … or even thinking about serving up halal sausages?

    I guess not. Looks like you’ve got no support with your anti-muslim/dark people views even from your heroes on the right. Maybe it IS time for you to think about leaving this country that you obviously no longer like, if you ever did. You’re out of step here but Nu Zuland is beckoning you.

  34. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    the problem with your argument,which boils down to“it won’t happen here” is that the very same line was common in other countries who though the same in the past certainly do have a problem now and the precipitating factor is always demographic change. In other words as the proportion of Muslims in a society increases they become less tolerant of unbelievers in the host society and more demanding that things in their host society be changed to suit their prejudices. Its happened in the UK and in Europe and I see no reason to believe that this country will be any different. Just look at the stories about Trojan horse schools in the UK and then think about the “slamic schools that we are seeing spring up here.

    Sheikh Shady Al-Suleiman – an al-Qaeda sympathiser – had spoken at Park View secondary academy, and the theory of evolution was dismissed by teachers as “not what we believe.” There was evidence boys and girls were segregated in class.

    Mr Blair said the alleged plot was part of a movement that included extremists in Pakistan and Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorist group.

    The group is responsible for the kidnapping of hundreds of schools girls in Nigeria two months ago and dozens of deadly attacks on churches and predominantly Christian villages.

    Speaking from Abu Dhabi in the Middle East, the former Prime Minister said: “There is a very fundamental problem that we face, that may have originated in this region but has now spread across the world.

    “That problem is extremism based on a warped and abusive view of the religion. It is a problem here in the region. It is a problem in countries like Pakistan, it’s a problem in the Far East. We can see from Nigeria and Boko Haram it’s a problem in African countries and it’s a problem in our own society as we can see from Birmingham schools.”

    He added: “We have to assert the strong values of religious respect and tolerance for difference.

    “Any politics that is based on a view that ‘This is my religion and if you don’t agree you are my enemy’, that is the ideology we have to attack and root out.”

    The Trojan Horse ‘plot’ to bring hardline practices into Birmingham classrooms is part of a global extremist movement stretching from Britain to Africa to the Far East, the former Prime Minister claimed.

    Six Birmingham schools are in special measures after the education watchdog found they had fallen into the hands of bullying governors who had sought to narrow the curriculum and exclude non-Muslim pupils.

    Inspectors told how raffles and tombolas at one primary school been banned from a recent school fête because they were considered “un-Islamic” as they promoted gambling.
    It was also revealed that the academy’s Christmas special assembly was cancelled and a termly assembly staged by a Christian charity had been scrapped. The terms “white prostitute” had been used in assemblies.

    Look too at just who are making gun crime ever more common in western Sydney. Mate you are right to believe in our ideals of social harmony but putting your head in the sand and thinking that the problem is “bogan intolerance/racism” is silly. There has to be a middle path mate where we are realistic about the silliness of ignoring the pernicious aspects of Islam while not hating those who are blighted with that silly religion.
    A final thought for you to consider and its this when did you last hear of a problem with those from the middle east who are not followers of Mohamand? The Lebanese Christians, or the Egyptian Copts?, heck or even the Buddhists from Vietnam?

  35. Ray Dixon says:

    First of all, Iain, I did not say that I think the problem is “bogan intolerance/racism”, but by putting that in quotation marks you are wrongly attributing and/or interpreting my views. The ‘problem’ that you, GD and a small minority of others have with muslims in this country is one based on fear. You are too frightened by terrorist events elsewhere committed in the name of Allah and basically you are scared shitless that muslims over here will do likewise. This fear fogs your thinking and you start giving all kinds of irrelevant and exaggerated examples of how “if it happens there it will happen here”. Well calm down and be brave, Iain. Have no fear – it will NOT happen here.

    As for the problems in some English schools that you point to, well that is bloody England’s problem. Just because they have allowed something to manifest itself and allowed some bad eggs in doesn’t mean this ‘Trojan Horse’ thing will be duplicated here. You seem to forget that England is a country that has a long history of being invaded by various marauders and not-so-savoury types. It also has a long history of invading other countries and colonising them. It’s no surprise at all that England is a target for outsiders – it’s always been that way. Apart from the Japs in WW II though, when has Australia ever been in any way remotely threatened the way England has? I don’t have my “head in the sand”, Iain – I am just being logical, clear-headed and most of all …. realistic.

  36. richard ryan says:

    W WANTED FOR WAR CRIMES: The three amigos, Bush-Blair-Howard.

  37. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    You are mistaken when you say:

    You seem to forget that England is a country that has a long history of being invaded by various marauders and not-so-savoury types.

    England has not been truly invaded for nearly a thousand years (1066 being the last time)
    Will address your other points shortly as its nearly time to get my boy off to school

  38. Iain Hall says:

    Richard you would not know the definition of an atrocity even if the heads were dropped in your lap:

    That sort of thing is an atrocity

  39. Ray Dixon says:

    What about the IRA in quite recent times, Iain? Okay that’s not an overt “invasion”, but it’s much the same thing, only it was carried out covertly. And I seem to recall the Germans made a pretty big attempt in the 1940s and only backed away from a full scale invasion because Hitler decided he had a problem himself with the Russians coming up Germany’s arse from the other side. The point is that England is a target of terrorists, Iain, and always has been.

  40. Ray Dixon says:

    And here’s a list of invasions and attempted or planned invasions of England post the 1066 date you cited, Iain:

    The 1066 Norman conquest of England under William the Conqueror.
    The 1216 invasion of England by Louis VIII of France and Alexander II of Scotland, during the First Barons’ War.
    Various invasions by the Scots from 1314-1513 during the Wars of Scottish Independence, the Hundred Years’ War, and further Anglo-Scottish Wars.
    The 1326 invasion of England by Isabella of France and Roger Mortimer, leading to Isabella’s regency until the ascendance of her son, Edward III.
    The 1386 invasion by France was organised but never executed during the Hundred Years’ War.
    The 1495 landing with troops at Deal by Perkin Warbeck, who claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury, the rightful King.
    The 1513 invasion of England by the Scots under James IV, which culminated in the Battle of Flodden
    The 1545 French invasion of the Isle of Wight during the Italian Wars.
    The 1588 Spanish Armada was a failed invasion of England after it was heavily defeated by storms and the English fleet.
    The 1667 Raid on the Medway and Felixstowe Landguard during the Second Anglo-Dutch War.[1]
    The 1685 landing in England by the Duke of Monmouth and his supporters during the Monmouth Rebellion
    The 1688 invasion of England by the Dutch Republic, also known as the Glorious Revolution. (last successful invasion of England)
    The 1690 attack by the French on Teignmouth, Devon.
    The 1704 invasion of Guernsey by Louis XIV’s Third Army, known as Les Seinges Rose.
    The (1708) planned French Invasion to put James Edward Stuart on the British throne as part of the War of the Spanish Succession.
    The 1719 Spanish Invasion of Scotland during the War of the Quadruple Alliance defeated at the Battle of Glen Shiel, which was the last foreign invasion of Britain.
    The (1744) planned French invasion of Britain as part of the Austrian War of Succession.
    The 1745 French-backed Jacobite invasion of Britain led by Bonnie Prince Charlie.
    The (1759) planned French invasion halted by their naval defeat by Britain at the Battle of Quiberon Bay.[2]
    The (1779) never executed Franco-Spanish plans to invade Great Britain during the American Revolutionary War.
    The (1803–1805) planned but never executed Napoleonic invasion of Britain.
    The (1940) partially planned but never executed German Invasion of England, better known as Operation Sea Lion.

    Looks like it’s been a constant target to me.

  41. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    I don’t think that WIKI is a good source, especially since in conflates civil wars and insurections with “invasion”

  42. Iain Hall says:

    The IRA were not trying to invade England AT ALL, they had a much more parochial agenda

  43. Jeff G. says:

    Don’t you remember the whining about not killing Osama? By those insisting that he should have been taken alive to stand trial? Or the endless bleating about the fact that during the gulf war one so many Iraqi solders were killed in air-strikes?

    Osama should have been captured and brought to trial if at all possible. If he was armed and wanted to fight, a bullet between the eyes was the next best thing. I don’t remember anyone moaning about soldiers dying in air strikes. People were/are concerned about civilians being killed by bombing and drones and rightly so. Anyway, you have shifted the goalposts if you reckon that is wanting to “fight a war with no killing”.

    Getting a little hot under the collar there Jeff?

    No point getting mad when you can get even, Iain.

    Yawn and you have a PHD as well I suppose.

    No I don’t, and what has that got to do with being a productive member of society?

    Like so many minions of the left you are not big on good manners are you?

    I’m not ill mannered enough to make that “humanity will thank you” comment made by you above.

    That said I am dismissive of your opinions of the religious mind set from the evidence of your rhetoric , please show that you truly understand the religious and I will happily change my opinion of your position.

    You’re not dismissive, Iain, you are arrogant. You get into these debates thinking you know more than the other person. I am well aware of the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, I just don’t think it is the be all and end all of the problems in Iraq. If you were a gracious blog host then maybe you could do something radical like ASKING someone if they were aware of something, instead of telling them that they don’t understand or they are ignorant. That’s just basic manners, of which you seem to be lacking.

    Also, you can leave off the (sic) after my typos. If I was to do that to your spelling mistakes, it would only embarrass you.

  44. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, most of those on the list are not “civil wars” but invasions (or attempted ones) by other European countries. France in particular. You see, over in Europe, they are are a war-like people. They like fighting, Iain, and England’s problem is its proximity to the crazy Europeans. England used to like fighting too but I think that got beaten out of them by all the damage they suffered as a result. Now all England can do is defend itself … oh, and join the US in invading weak nations like Iraq.

    As for the IRA, that is an excellent example to throw up … because it was an infiltration just like what you believe the muslims are up to. England managed to beat the IRA without banning Irish immigrants, Iain, so I guess that’s why they don’t think it necessary to apply blanket bans on all muslims just because a few of them are plotting bad things.

  45. Jeff G. says:

    England was a great country until the 1800s. Used to rule most of the world, was an unstoppable naval power, led the way with industry and technology and trade. World War One killed off all that. Now England is a shit hole inhabited by flabby white layabouts who do not want to work, but would rather sit around all day watching pay TV and over paid soccer players. Nobody wants to invade England now because there is nothing to invade it for. It beats me why Australians get so romantic/nostalgic over England, if you spend any time there it’s not hard to see that it’s a country going down the toilet.

    Re: the IRA, another example of colonialism and historical thuggery coming back to bite the English on the arse. The IRA killed a lot more English civilians than any Muslim terrorist group, yet Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness still walk around as free men and political leaders. Another example of not seeing the timber for the trees?

  46. Iain Hall says:

    Jeff

    Don’t you remember the whining about not killing Osama? By those insisting that he should have been taken alive to stand trial? Or the endless bleating about the fact that during the gulf war one so many Iraqi solders were killed in air-strikes?

    Osama should have been captured and brought to trial if at all possible. If he was armed and wanted to fight, a bullet between the eyes was the next best thing. I don’t remember anyone moaning about soldiers dying in air strikes. People were/are concerned about civilians being killed by bombing and drones and rightly so. Anyway, you have shifted the goalposts if you reckon that is wanting to “fight a war with no killing”.

    Well I remember it very well as for the goal posts they are still in the same place because I never suggested that the left want war with no killing but that its the complaints of “unfairness” when the yanks kill many hundreds of enemy combatants while losing none of their own personnel, this is especially the case when it comes to the use of UAVs

    Getting a little hot under the collar there Jeff?

    No point getting mad when you can get even, Iain.

    Threats now? sigh like I care.

    Yawn and you have a PHD as well I suppose.

    No I don’t, and what has that got to do with being a productive member of society?

    You are an anonymous commentator here Jeff and that means that we have to take anything you say about yourself with a very large grain of salt because, in my experience, anonymous people make up stuff about themselves all of the time.

    Like so many minions of the left you are not big on good manners are you?

    I’m not ill mannered enough to make that “humanity will thank you” comment made by you above.

    Well its a bit more subtle than you throwing racism accusation about with gay abandon.

    That said I am dismissive of your opinions of the religious mind set from the evidence of your rhetoric , please show that you truly understand the religious and I will happily change my opinion of your position.

    You’re not dismissive, Iain, you are arrogant. You get into these debates thinking you know more than the other person. I am well aware of the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, I just don’t think it is the be all and end all of the problems in Iraq. If you were a gracious blog host then maybe you could do something radical like ASKING someone if they were aware of something, instead of telling them that they don’t understand or they are ignorant. That’s just basic manners, of which you seem to be lacking.

    Please don’t complain about me lacking good grace or even good humour on these pages I have repeatedly demonstrated both virtues here but I have also had to put up with what Latham may have described as a “conga line of …..” well you must know the rest, so I am rather suspicious of any that front up to shout the odds at me. You want niceness from me then show you deserve it by treating me with some good graces of your own.

    Also, you can leave off the (sic) after my typos. If I was to do that to your spelling mistakes, it would only embarrass you.

    The truth is that I just can not be embarrassed about my admittedly crap spelling and more importantly I have the ability to correct my mistakes when they are pointed out by those who think it wins them debating points.

    So how about a quid pro quo and we both try to be nicer even when we are debating contentious issues?

  47. Jeff G. says:

    Well I remember it very well as for the goal posts they are still in the same place because I never suggested that the left want war with no killing

    What you said was: “I am entirely unencumbered by the silly leftist notions about how to fight a war if you are involved in one. Silly notions like thinking that calling in UN peace keepers solves conflicts, Or that you should try not to kill the enemy.” Maybe you should try to remember what you actually said. But what is more important is that you should avoid telling others what they think, until they actually give you evidence to that effect.

    Threats now? sigh like I care.

    Who is threatening? You are getting your backside kicked in this post Iain.

    You are an anonymous commentator here Jeff and that means that we have to take anything you say about yourself with a very large grain of salt because, in my experience, anonymous people make up stuff about themselves all of the time.

    You see, this is typical of your lack of good manners and grace. No wonder you are so unpopular around the place, and that people write nasty hate blogs about you, when you essentially call people a liar. Why not take what people say on face value, unless you can prove otherwise? Then you might find that others, are more willing to do the same for you.

    Well its a bit more subtle than you throwing racism accusation about with gay abandon.

    I have never called anyone here a racist, although I have often hinted that you and GD have a chip on your shoulder about people from certain parts of the world. So has Ray for that matter, yet I don’t see you having nasty digs at him, like the one above at me.

    Please don’t complain about me lacking good grace or even good humour on these pages I have repeatedly demonstrated both virtues here but I have also had to put up with what Latham may have described as a “conga line of …..” well you must know the rest, so I am rather suspicious of any that front up to shout the odds at me. You want niceness from me then show you deserve it by treating me with some good graces of your own.

    Give over Iain. Niceness is a two way street. Its encumbent on everyone to be nice, you are not exempt because this is your blog. And niceness is not just refraining from name calling, it is also refraining from pretending to know everything and assuming that people are stupid/ignorant/uninformed and you are a font of wisdom, which I have often seen you do.

    The truth is that I just can not be embarrassed about my admittedly crap spelling and more importantly I have the ability to correct my mistakes when they are pointed out by those who think it wins them debating points.

    Well if you want to make spelling an issue by dropping in a (sic) on my typos, two can play that game, and you will end up with a lot more (sics) than me. According to the above page on your site you don’t like grammar Nazis, well in that case don’t behave like one.

    So how about a quid pro quo and we both try to be nicer even when we are debating contentious issues?

    See above comments. I am almost always nice to people when they are nice to me. Not when they behave like patronising sanctimonious arse holes though. Then I will tell them so.

  48. Iain Hall says:


    Well I remember it very well as for the goal posts they are still in the same place because I never suggested that the left want war with no killing

    What you said was: “I am entirely unencumbered by the silly leftist notions about how to fight a war if you are involved in one. Silly notions like thinking that calling in UN peace keepers solves conflicts, Or that you should try not to kill the enemy.” Maybe you should try to remember what you actually said. But what is more important is that you should avoid telling others what they think, until they actually give you evidence to that effect.

    Of course I remember what I said to you Jeff and I think that you read part of it thus: (you will undoubtedly tell me if I am wrong): “I am entirely unencumbered by the silly leftist notions about how to fight a war if you are involved in one. Silly notions like thinking that calling in UN peace keepers solves conflicts, Or that you should try not to kill the (any of the) enemy.”
    That is probably not such an unreasonable reading to be frank, but my intention was to cite the constant gnashing of teeth about there being a “disproportionate” death toll on both sides of the conflict which often suggests that war is some sort of sporting event.

    Threats now? sigh like I care.

    Who is threatening? You are getting your backside kicked in this post Iain.

    🙄 I’m doing fine here Jeff its you who is having conniptions not I

    You are an anonymous commentator here Jeff and that means that we have to take anything you say about yourself with a very large grain of salt because, in my experience, anonymous people make up stuff about themselves all of the time.

    You see, this is typical of your lack of good manners and grace. No wonder you are so unpopular around the place, and that people write nasty hate blogs about you, when you essentially call people a liar. Why not take what people say on face value, unless you can prove otherwise? Then you might find that others, are more willing to do the same for you.

    You have repeatedly alluded to being au fait with my online history so you should be more understanding of my general distrust of anonymous commentators and my unabashed cynicism about their claims about themselves. You blotted your copy book here from your very first combative comment here.

    Well its a bit more subtle than you throwing racism accusation about with gay abandon.

    I have never called anyone here a racist, although I have often hinted that you and GD have a chip on your shoulder about people from certain parts of the world. So has Ray for that matter, yet I don’t see you having nasty digs at him, like the one above at me.

    Which is just a craven way of calling people racist Jeff, at least have the courage to own your insults

    Please don’t complain about me lacking good grace or even good humour on these pages I have repeatedly demonstrated both virtues here but I have also had to put up with what Latham may have described as a “conga line of …..” well you must know the rest, so I am rather suspicious of any that front up to shout the odds at me. You want niceness from me then show you deserve it by treating me with some good graces of your own.

    Give over Iain. Niceness is a two way street. Its encumbent on everyone to be nice, you are not exempt because this is your blog. And niceness is not just refraining from name calling, it is also refraining from pretending to know everything and assuming that people are stupid/ignorant/uninformed and you are a font of wisdom, which I have often seen you do.

    I’m a bit arrogant and I don’t deny it but you have to be if you are going to survive in confrontational online environments

    The truth is that I just can not be embarrassed about my admittedly crap spelling and more importantly I have the ability to correct my mistakes when they are pointed out by those who think it wins them debating points.

    Well if you want to make spelling an issue by dropping in a (sic) on my typos, two can play that game, and you will end up with a lot more (sics) than me. According to the above page on your site you don’t like grammar Nazis, well in that case don’t behave like one.

    Wind back the animosity towards me then.

    So how about a quid pro quo and we both try to be nicer even when we are debating contentious issues?

    See above comments. I am almost always nice to people when they are nice to me. Not when they behave like patronising sanctimonious arse holes though. Then I will tell them so.

    Don’t you understand what “Quid Pro Quo”means?

  49. Jeff G. says:

    That is probably not such an unreasonable reading to be frank, but my intention was to cite the constant gnashing of teeth about there being a “disproportionate” death toll on both sides of the conflict which often suggests that war is some sort of sporting event.

    There is nothing stranger than a neo con who wants to go to war to save the people of Iraq from Saddam, only to kill large numbers of the people of Iraq from carpet bombing, and then shrug his shoulders and say “oh well, that’s war for you”. Not much hypocrisy there!

    I’m doing fine here Jeff its you who is having conniptions not I

    Only when discussing your conduct/debating methods. You are clearly losing the Iraq debate on points.

    You have repeatedly alluded to being au fait with my online history so you should be more understanding of my general distrust of anonymous commentators and my unabashed cynicism about their claims about themselves.

    I have not claimed much about my self at all, other than the fact I am employed and I’ve had the snip. So I’m not sure where you are going with that. As for your “online history”, I take the balanced view, as I do with most things, that in any war, online or otherwise, neither party is innocent.

    Which is just a craven way of calling people racist Jeff, at least have the courage to own your insults

    I call it as I see it. If you don’t like it, perhaps you need to hire a bridge builder and some transportation. Or maybe demonstrate that I am wrong (always happy to be proved wrong.)

    I’m a bit arrogant and I don’t deny it but you have to be if you are going to survive in confrontational online environments

    Oh well an admission of sorts, but to say you need to be arrogant online is a crock. Many nice and humble people online, that I have encountered. Sure we do not agree on everything but that doesn’t mean the other knows less than you, and that you have to tell them so.

    Don’t you understand what “Quid Pro Quo”means?

    Yes, its a Vietnamese hooker named Quo who charges one dollar.

  50. Iain Hall says:

    Jeff

    There is nothing stranger than a neo con who wants to go to war to save the people of Iraq from Saddam, only to kill large numbers of the people of Iraq from carpet bombing, and then shrug his shoulders and say “oh well, that’s war for you”. Not much hypocrisy there!

    To be pedantic there was no “carpet bombing” of Iraq there was instead the wholesale use of precision munitions to destroy the regime’s ability to resist. In fact extraordinary efforts were made to minimize civilian casualties. In fact even the number of Saddam’s troops who were killed by US forces were far less than expected during the initial phase of the invasion. The real killers in that blighted land were the Iraqis themselves

    Only when discussing your conduct/debating methods. You are clearly losing the Iraq debate on points.

    Says who? You? LOL

    I have not claimed much about my self at all, other than the fact I am employed and I’ve had the snip. So I’m not sure where you are going with that. As for your “online history”, I take the balanced view, as I do with most things, that in any war, online or otherwise, neither party is innocent.

    Pardon me if I take your clams of “balance” with a tablespoon of salt, that said how can you be employed and available to argue with me during normal work hours?

    I call it as I see it. If you don’t like it, perhaps you need to hire a bridge builder and some transportation. Or maybe demonstrate that I am wrong (always happy to be proved wrong.)

    You are the one making the racist imputations so you carry the onus of proof

    Oh well an admission of sorts, but to say you need to be arrogant online is a crock. Many nice and humble people online, that I have encountered. Sure we do not agree on everything but that doesn’t mean the other knows less than you, and that you have to tell them so.

    This November will be my tenth blogging anniversary Jeff so please don’t try to tell me how to make a blog work or how to behave on line

    Don’t you understand what “Quid Pro Quo”means?

    Yes, its a Vietnamese hooker named Quo who charges one dollar.

    Sigh why is so hard for you to generous in debate?

  51. Jeff G. says:

    To be pedantic there was no “carpet bombing” of Iraq there was instead the wholesale use of precision munitions to destroy the regime’s ability to resist. In fact extraordinary efforts were made to minimize civilian casualties. In fact even the number of Saddam’s troops who were killed by US forces were far less than expected during the initial phase of the invasion. The real killers in that blighted land were the Iraqis themselves

    Yes that is right, by knocking off Saddam it released thousands of new killers, which is the point being made earlier in the thread.

    Says who? You? LOL

    Well if you are in the right, where are all your supporters, riding in to back you up?

    Pardon me if I take your clams of “balance” with a tablespoon of salt, that said how can you be employed and available to argue with me during normal work hours?

    I have the day off work today, which is why I am posting more than usual. Not that it is any of your business. Why aren’t you at work?

    You are the one making the racist imputations so you carry the onus of proof

    It’s my opinion. I thought this was a blog and you didn’t have to cite evidence here?

    This November will be my tenth blogging anniversary Jeff so please don’t try to tell me how to make a blog work or how to behave on line

    There’s a god awful busker who has been playing outside my local Woolies for upwards of ten years too. That doesn’t mean he has turned into Bob Dylan, only that he is persistent. As for me telling you how to behave on line, would there be any point? You seem to write your own rules on that subject.

    Sigh why is so hard for you to generous in debate?

    You started this shit with your snide quip about my vas, now you are complaining because I’m not playing nice? Then again, from what I have read, that seems to be a common thing with you, i.e. you pick fights then throw your hands up and cry “why are people being mean to me”. I treat people as they treat me, and you reap what you sow Iain.

  52. Iain Hall says:

    Anyway lets look at your points in turn:

    To be pedantic there was no “carpet bombing” of Iraq there was instead the wholesale use of precision munitions to destroy the regime’s ability to resist. In fact extraordinary efforts were made to minimize civilian casualties. In fact even the number of Saddam’s troops who were killed by US forces were far less than expected during the initial phase of the invasion. The real killers in that blighted land were the Iraqis themselves

    Yes that is right, by knocking off Saddam it released thousands of new killers, which is the point being made earlier in the thread.

    So you are admitting that you don’t even know the difference between smart bombs and unguided munitions, about time you came clean about how little you know about the ways of war.

    Well if you are in the right, where are all your supporters, riding in to back you up?

    I don’t need to be mob handed to argue with you Jeff

    I have the day off work today, which is why I am posting more than usual. Not that it is any of your business. Why aren’t you at work?

    I am “at work” for the family as I always am every day

    It’s my opinion. I thought this was a blog and you didn’t have to cite evidence here?

    Sigh, you were just demanding that I prove that I am not a racist, so I was throwing it back to your side of the net sso that is a point you loose.

    There’s a god awful busker who has been playing outside my local Woolies for upwards of ten years too. That doesn’t mean he has turned into Bob Dylan, only that he is persistent. As for me telling you how to behave on line, would there be any point? You seem to write your own rules on that subject.

    Why do you complain so much about my style then if you are that indifferent?

    Sigh why is so hard for you to generous in debate?

    You started this shit with your snide quip about my vas, now you are complaining because I’m not playing nice? Then again, from what I have read, that seems to be a common thing with you, i.e. you pick fights then throw your hands up and cry “why are people being mean to me”. I treat people as they treat me, and you reap what you sow Iain.

    Actually you started it with your first comments here
    Out of curiosity I checked back two your first two comments on the post Situation normal at Fairfax

    Jeff G.

    Submitted on 2014/03/09 at 3:29 PM

    This GD bloke sounds like a boring old far right wing tosser. He probably votes One Nation and hangs out down his local RSL.

    Yes there’s some crap on the ABC. If you don’t like it then don’t watch it. There’s even more crap on the commercial networks. And don’t bother with the bullshit argument that those networks aren’t publicly funded. Australian commercial networks benefit from tax breaks and government funds for public service announcements. The Nine network got $60 million last year alone from government advertising.

    Also, the ABC only looks full of left wing bias when your own politics are just to the left of Attila the Hun. Noone other than Bolt and the wankers who think he is God consider the ABC to be full of left wing bias.

    Short answer GD, you’re a clown. Grow up and stop sooking.

    This is how you started here so don’t tell me that you don’t deserve both my suspicion and disdain when this was your opening gambit.

    Other current affairs shows are without exception left leaning, look at any episode of Q&A and you will find lefty panellists outnumber conservatives by about 5 to one, likewise look at the tweets that they put on screen nine out of ten will be sprouting the leftist song sheet. In conclusion their bias is patchy but it is impossible to credibly deny that its there.

    Wrong Iain, every time I have watched Q&A they have two conservatives, one or two left wingers, someone from the ALP (hardly “left wing”) and usually someone without any political affiliation. Also the Q&A audience splits usually seem to be fairly even. I have also seen the host throw up some curly questions to / criticisms of the ALP. If you reckon Q&A is “left wing” then you must be from the far right wing, like Adolf, Benito and GD above.

    That said, I have stopped watching because it bores the sh&t out of me. The panelists don’t interest me and most of the time its just politicians of both sides getting on their soap boxes.

  53. Jeff G. says:

    Yeah, and so what? We are discussing you and I, Iain, not GD. He’s a big lad and can take care of himself. Don’t think he needs you as his keeper.

  54. Jeff G. says:

    Sorry, didn’t realise you had posted two comments. Do you really think that second comment was offensive or insulting? You must be really thin skinned if you do.

    Tell you what, you apologize for your “future of humanity” insult and we will start again.

  55. Iain Hall says:

    Just try again Jeff and remember that the sandpit is like a family and if you attack one of us you are attacking all .

  56. Jeff G. says:

    Yeah, one big happy “family”, sure Iain. That’s why Ray is always having digs at GD and going harder at him than I do. Oh but he’s allowed to, he’s part of the “family”.

    You are starting to sound like a wanker, champ. No wonder this blog attracts little interest, compared to others. I think I’ll leave you and your “family” to your own devices. Plus I’ve got to work tomorrow (some of us have to.)

  57. Ray Dixon says:

    What I don’t do though is go hard at Iain and run down his character with derogatory personal remarks. After all, it’s his blog and, as he’s gracious enough to let me argue with him and point out where and why I think he’s ‘wrong wrong wrong’ (like I think he is on quite a few issues), I respect that. I guess that’s why I can get away with going hard at GD, although bear in mind that GD is essentially anonymous so when I go on the attack I’m not exactly publicly humiliating him.

  58. Iain Hall says:

    Jeff

    Yeah, one big happy “family”, sure Iain. That’s why Ray is always having digs at GD and going harder at him than I do. Oh but he’s allowed to, he’s part of the “family”.

    What you don’t get is that this is one of the few blogs that has a politically diverse bunch of authors who can strongly disagree about many things but still be friends.

    You are starting to sound like a wanker, champ. No wonder this blog attracts little interest, compared to others. I think I’ll leave you and your “family” to your own devices. Plus I’ve got to work tomorrow (some of us have to.)

    Well you keep coming back, in one form or another and I don’t expect that to change any time soon.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: