Mission Accomplished

33 comments on “Mission Accomplished ”

• Comments are now closed

1. East Wellington Superhero 1

   1 May 2008 at 2:10 pm

   Yes,
   It would be better to let Iran start a nuclear war with Israel and write off the Middle East for, another 100 years.
2. Matthew Pilott 2

   1 May 2008 at 2:19 pm

   EWS – no such correlation.
3. roger nome 3

   1 May 2008 at 2:25 pm

   But AYB – is 100,000 plus Iraqi lives and $2-3 trillion really too much to pay for a US puppet democracy in Iraq, and endless factional infighting?

   We would instead have a powerless dictator with no means to hurt any country, let alone mighty Israel. Surely that would have been worse.

   Sure, the Neo-Conservatives could have made sure nearly everyone in the world has access to clean water for that amount of money. But when you think about it, it’s their personal choice to live in poverty, because the invisible hand says so.

   Stupid leftist.
4. East Wellington Superhero 4

   1 May 2008 at 2:25 pm

   What?
   Can you please translate that for our viewers at home?
5. East Wellington Superhero 5

   1 May 2008 at 2:37 pm

   When someone gets to the point where they can defend dictators or defend a whole region’s decision not to recognise an ethnic group’s basic right to exist, you know they hold to moral credibility.
6. East Wellington Superhero 6

   1 May 2008 at 2:39 pm

   Doh,
   That should read “no moral credibility”. Oh well, at least that typo allowed me to underline my point.
7. roger nome 7

   1 May 2008 at 2:44 pm

   “When someone gets to the point where they can defend dictators or defend a whole region’s decision not to recognise an ethnic group’s basic right to exist, you know they hold to moral credibility.”

   When someone can defend fabricating intelligence in order to create a pretext to invade a country, and in the process turning it into a hell-hole for its inhabitants, whilst ruining you home economy … Well you know that person has no ethical integrity, and they’re stupid.
8. Matthew Pilott 8

   1 May 2008 at 2:48 pm

   EWS, upon what are you referencing “…or defend a whole region’s decision not to recognise an ethnic group’s basic right to exist”?

   Ahmadinejad’s comment about “the State of Israel”, the morally bankrupt militaristic nation hijacked by rabid fundamentalists who don’t represent the views of most of the Israeli people? I think most of the area is getting used to the idea that Israel has to be there, but they’d be happy if the nutbars in control were gone, not to mention the ‘special jewish nature’ of israel. Don’t blame them either.

   When someone gets to the point where they can support the most bankrupt regime in history this side of Nazi Germany, and perhaps Pol Pot, you know they hold no moral credibility.
9. roger nome 9

   1 May 2008 at 2:53 pm

   One of my favorite Iraq quotes.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
10. r0b 10

    1 May 2008 at 3:20 pm

    My tags are incontinent today (Lynn – help!):

    When someone gets to the point where they can defend […a…] decision not to recognise an ethnic group’s basic right to exist, you know they hold [no] moral credibility.

    Orewa. Just saying.

    [lprent: done – I missed that on the message scan. Only spotted it when I started to actually read a post or two]
11. roger nome 11

    1 May 2008 at 3:30 pm

    oh and for the redbaiters of the world who refuse to believe that the Bush administration lied in order to get into Iraq (I know they are few, but they exist), maybe it’s time you took a look at this – an article by James Bamford (The US’s foremost independent intelligence analyst) which is essentially a shorter version of his 2005 book ” A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies”.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/
12. East Wellington Superhero 12

    1 May 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Matt,
    Well, the six day war is a good start. Hamas refuses to recognise them too.

    “rabid fundamentalists who don’t represent the views of most of the Israeli people?” – I’m pretty sure most of the regular Israeli people don’t like random rockets landing on them or suicide bombers blowing up buses.

    “not to mention the ‘special jewish nature’ of israel” – What? That’s like saying Maori can’t have a special Maori nature.

    Anyway, there is a clash of civilisations and one side is far less willing to compromise and one side is far more keen to use extreme violence against civilians. It’s all very well to poo-poo the US from the safety on the South Pacific but its unrealistic.
13. roger nome 13

    1 May 2008 at 6:29 pm

    “Anyway, there is a clash of civilisations and one side is far less willing to compromise and one side is far more keen to use extreme violence against civilians.”

    So Iraq should have been invaded because a terrorist group, that’s in no-way connected to it, was involved in terrorist acts against the US, which were a response to the US’s financial and military backing of Isreal, and the continued presence of the US military throughout the middle-east.

    You just make heaps of sense don’t you EWS?
14. Psycho.Milt 14

    1 May 2008 at 6:37 pm

    To be fair to Dubya, major combat operations had ended. And indeed, US troops have faced no major combat operations against opposing regular forces in Iraq in the 5 years since. Just goes to show, when a politician’s telling you something, always read the fine print…
15. Matthew Pilott 15

    1 May 2008 at 6:40 pm

    The “special Jewish Nature of Israel” is the term of said rabid government which refuses to grant equal rights to Arab citizens of Israel, and refuses to countenance the return of those (Palestinians) who fled or were forced to leave during Israel’s creation. It’s not a reference to the people or their faith, but the nature of the state itself. It’s this that some such as Ahmadinejad aren’t a fan of.

    Regular Israelis don’t like the conflict, believe it or not, as much as the regular Palestinians. The fundamentalists on either side (a plague on both their houses) don’t/won’t/can’t compromise. The fundamentalists on one side recieve billions of dollars of US direct military aid, subsidies and access to sophisticated weaponry. The other side get access to Qassam rockets from Iran, or they make them themselves, and no short supply of small-arms; it’s a fair disparity. Both use extreme violence against civilians – a suicide bombing makes for a much better headline, and when an f-16 bombs a densely populated civilian area, I guess they can pretend their target was ‘military’. Perhaps it’s the truth.

    The end result is an order of magnitude more Palestinian civilians dead than Israeli civilians.

    If the US could act as a gnuine stabilising agent I would have no problem, but they are doing what states do – acting in self interest. Can’t blame them, but given all their rhetoric over the decades about a force for freedom and liberty, well, I’d hope they’d act upon it one day (idealistic I know). However, right now, I believe the US to be a destabilising interest in the area, and their actions are only causing the dangers they purport to be averting to grow.

    As for the six day war – it was a long time ago, and they’re doing better these days: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7362937.stm

    Let’s not give up all hope…
16. AncientGeek 16

    1 May 2008 at 6:41 pm

    rogor: you forgot something.

    Where the terrorist group has never operated from Iraq. The countries dictator had problem’s with fundementalist groups in the past, so didn’t allow them access.
17. roger nome 17

    1 May 2008 at 6:50 pm

    True AG – cheers.
18. Dean 18

    1 May 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Roger:

    “When someone can defend fabricating intelligence in order to create a pretext to invade a country, and in the process turning it into a hell-hole for its inhabitants, whilst ruining you home economy Well you know that person has no ethical integrity, and they’re stupid.”

    Since you chose not to respond to the first paragraph in the post you replied to: How about those Kurds? And on a tangent, since I know this cause is dear to your heart, how about the way women were treated in Iraq? You like women to have the vote, don’t you? Is it A-OK with you that women in countries such as the Iraq ruled by Saddamn were treated like cattle? Or will you simply fall back on a moral equivalency – yet again?

    Feeling stupid yet? You should be.
19. schrodigerscat 19

    1 May 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Dean I rather thought that women have lost a lot of freedom in Iraq since the arrival of the Coalition for the liberation.

    How are you feeling Dean?
20. AncientGeek 20

    1 May 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Hey Dean, are we still talking about Iraq or have you started to talking about Iran. They are quite different societies.

    Prior to the coalition of bad intelligence, Iraq was a largely secular state in its legal structure, including womans rights. As ‘cat refers to, there is some concern about the way that some of those rights have started to whittle away while under the coalitions occupation.

    Both of those countries gave women the vote long ago. Perhaps you’ve shifted the discussion to Saudi Arabia, where they don’t have the vote.

    Perhaps you are just confused and should go and read some material about politics in the arab states. At least do it before you next want to share your wisdom. (Please)
21. Dean 21

    1 May 2008 at 9:53 pm

    “Dean I rather thought that women have lost a lot of freedom in Iraq since the arrival of the Coalition for the liberation.”

    LOL.

    There’s no other way to respond to that. How’s mimicing an ostrich going for you, then?
22. Dean 22

    1 May 2008 at 9:55 pm

    “Prior to the coalition of bad intelligence, Iraq was a largely secular state in its legal structure, including womans rights. As ‘cat refers to, there is some concern about the way that some of those rights have started to whittle away while under the coalitions occupation.

    Both of those countries gave women the vote long ago. Perhaps you’ve shifted the discussion to Saudi Arabia, where they don’t have the vote.”

    What is the colour of the sky on your planet, seriously?

    You do know how voting worked in Iraq under Saddam, don’t you?

    Surely you’re not under the illusion that were was democracy, are you?
23. r0b 23

    1 May 2008 at 10:16 pm

    You really are impervious to facts aren’t you Dean. We’ve done this scene once before already:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1457#comment-24558

    While the Saddam’s regime in Iraq did viciously use some women (often as a tool of political power) in general women in Iraq were among the most liberated in the Middle East (see quote below).

    But since the invasion things have got a lot worse for women. A 2007 account:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/13/gender.iraq

    After the invasion of Iraq, the US government claimed that women there had ‘new rights and new hopes’. In fact their lives have become immeasurably worse, with rapes, burnings and murders now a daily occurrence.

    “It is getting worse, especially the burnings,’ says Khanim Rahim Latif, the manager of Asuda, an Iraqi organisation based in Kurdistan that works to combat violence against women. “Just here in Sulaimaniyah, there were 400 cases of the burning of women last year.’

    Even under Saddam, women in Iraq – including in semi-autonomous Kurdistan – were widely recognised as among the most liberated in the Middle East. They held important positions in business, education and the public sector, and their rights were protected by a statutory family law that was the envy of women’s activists in neighbouring countries. But since the 2003 invasion, advances that took 50 years to establish are crumbling away. In much of the country, women can only now move around with a male escort. Rape is committed habitually by all the main armed groups, including those linked to the government. Women are being murdered throughout Iraq in unprecedented numbers.

    Whatever the state of women in Iraq was before the invasion, it is much worse now. And that is a tragedy.
24. AncientGeek 24

    1 May 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Of course they had a brutal dictatorship at the top. It did however keep up a semblance of democracy. Both men and women were equally disadvantaged.

    They did vote at national level, where they they had a choice of a selection of baathist candidates. There was pretty vibrant local election level as well because it was done using individual candidates.

    As rOb says women in terms of both rights and practice there were probably the most equal amongst any country in the region, apart from Israel.

    Your statement “You like women to have the vote, don’t you?” implied that they didn’t have it in Iraq.

    It (and other statements in your comment) gave me the impression that you have a blatant ignorance of the society, and a over-consumption of propaganda myths.

    Life is a set of grey’s – black and white are the colors of the fanatics, propaganda merchants and their prey.
25. r0b 25

    1 May 2008 at 10:42 pm

    Life is a set of grey’s – black and white are the colors of the fanatics, propaganda merchants and their prey

    I’ll drink to that!
26. Travellerev 26

    2 May 2008 at 10:49 am

    Sometimes, just sometimes you encounter someone of such mindbogglingly stupendous ignorance that the science of eugenics (population control through genocide amongst others) almost begins to make sense, almost. And you, EWS meet all the criteria. Rabid racism, minimal brain power and you have drunken all the KOOL aid of the American AIPAC propaganda machine. Congratulations.
    I am afraid that EWS is beyond salvation but for those of you interested in a little reality the following:
    Iran has a thriving Jewish community of some 21,000 souls with representation in the government of Iran. They have their own hospitals, their own schools and synagogues and are not under threat from Ahmadi Najad or the Islamic leaders whatsoever. They have been offered huge amounts of money by the secular Zionist government of Israel to move to Israel but refused the offer.
    Contrary to the American AIPAC propaganda machine Iran has absolutely no problems with Jews. What’s more men the fundamentalist Jewish organisations had absolutely no problem with Iran or a its president and maintain very cordial relationships with the country, its Islamic leaders and president Ahmadi Najad.
    Also contrary to what the American AIPAC propaganda machine wants you to believe is the fact that fundamental Judaism or are even liberal Judaism and the Islam have no fundamental problems with each other. In fact, until 1948 when secular Zionist terrorists began to systematically kill and terrorise Palestinians to force them of their lands where they had lived for thousands of years there were thriving Jewish Communities in every major city and even smaller cities all along the north African Mediterranean Coast from as far as Morocco until Iran. They had lived there for at thousands of years in peace with their Arab Islamic neighbour as and both religions regard Abraham as their shared ancestor. While fundamentalist Jews don’t recognise Jesus as the messiah, the Muslims do recognise him as one of the prophets it is just that they regard Mohammed is the last and most important of all prophets.
    Even in Spain under Moorish rule there were thriving Jewish and Christian Communities all over Spain and Portugal and it wasn’t until the Christians conquered Spain that Jews became subjected to prosecution.
    In fact the only place the Jews were prosecuted, murdered and isolated from other populations in ghettos was in Europe and Russia. Because you see Christians did have a problem which Jews. The Christians felt it was perfectly all right to prosecute Jews because they had killed Jesus Christ.
    Iran has not attacked another country in 300 years, it just happens to sit on a huge reservoir of oil, and they want control of it and this is something America does not like. America once full control of the Oil Supply in the Middle East and it will do whatever it takes to get it.
    It will lie, murder, commit genocide, whatever it takes. There is nothing generous about its attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq it is polluting the countries indiscriminately with depleted uranium, and contrary to what I read in one of the previous comments more than 1.2 million Iraqis have already perished in this war or more than four million Iraqis are either displaced or refugees and live in abject poverty in Syria or the Lebanon while United States army with the help of the English and Australian troops carry out carpet bombing of whole areas and destroy cities like Fallujah, Mosul, Baghdad in the last couple of weeks Basra.
    The Taliban was prepared to hand over Osama bin Laden and his merry band of terrorists who by the way were trained by the CIA if the United States could deliver proof of their involvement in the attacks of 911. The Taliban had nothing to do with the attacks on 911 and neither had the Afghan people. Most of the alleged hijackers and Osama bin Laden were all Saudi Arabians and none of them was from Afghanistan or Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 911, had no weapon system of any importance left and had absolutely no WND. Their stockpiles had been destroyed 10 years before the events of 911.
    In fact it is ironic that EWS is right in one thing after all: There is a clash of civilisations and one side is far less willing to compromise and one side is far more keen to use extreme violence against civilians. It is just that it’s not the Semitic or Arab people. Because throughout the building of the English empire until the attempt to establish American hegemony around a world it is the Anglo Saxons that have no wish to compromise and it turns out to is them that are keen to use extreme violence against a civilians.
27. higherstandard 27

    2 May 2008 at 11:05 am

    Eve Iran does not have a thriving Jewish community it has declined substantively since the removal of the Shah and undergone a number of abuses under the Fundamentalist regime.
28. Dean 28

    4 May 2008 at 1:21 am

    Rob:

    “While the Saddam’s regime in Iraq did viciously use some women (often as a tool of political power) in general women in Iraq were among the most liberated in the Middle East”

    So let’s recap. Because of what’s happened in Iraq in the past while, the fact that they were sometimes treated, in your own words, “vicously”, means that ANY change is BAD.

    Never mind that they get to vote now in an election which isnt either for Saddam or not bothering to vote at all. I’m guessing that living in a country attempting to be a democracy isn’t the highest thing on your agenda.

    In fact your enitre quite is hilarious – because you’re forgetting the admirable way uneducated or heaven forbid Kurdish women were treated.

    I suggest you retreat back into your cotton wool shell on this one. Because if you think you’ve got a high horse to stand on then you are very much mistaken. Would you like a daughter or a wife or a female relative of yours to have lived under Saddam? I keenly await your reply.
29. Dean 29

    4 May 2008 at 1:24 am

    “They did vote at national level, where they they had a choice of a selection of baathist candidates. There was pretty vibrant local election level as well because it was done using individual candidates.”

    I’m not sure you understand what voting actually means. Can i vibrantly vote as long as it’s for candidates for one party?

    You really just don’t get what voting is, do you.
30. AncientGeek 30

    4 May 2008 at 1:54 am

    Ah Dean, I think that you’re missing the point, or possibly trying to avoid the point.

    Lets recap shall we (to use that inept kiwiblog phrase)

    What we were examining was your abysmal lack of knowledge about an area you were commenting on. In the area I looked at, you said was

    And on a tangent, since I know this cause is dear to your heart, how about the way women were treated in Iraq? You like women to have the vote, don’t you?

    You were completely incorrect. Woman in Iraq had equal voting rights as men under Saddam. As I pointed out, you probably had Iraq confused with other countries in the region.

    The nature of those voting rights wasn’t the question, but I gave an overview of the voting rights that were available and their limitations. I could have given much the same about the limits of voting rights here or in a number of other countries – there are always limitations.

    rOb called you on the relative treatment of woman before and after the coalition occupied Iraq. Again it was apparent that you had no idea what you were talking about in the specifics of Iraq.

    Your “recap” avoided discussing either of these points. Really the question is if you are capable or even worthy of us spending time in discussion with you. You could talk on the matters discussed rather than launching into personal attacks.

    Or should I simply start dismissing you as another ignorant troll. No point talking to someone if they are incapable of learning from or even engaging in discussion. If I wanted to listen to repeats of mindless propaganda, I could always turn on Fox News.
31. Dean 31

    4 May 2008 at 3:09 am

    “The nature of those voting rights wasn’t the question, but I gave an overview of the voting rights that were available and their limitations. I could have given much the same about the limits of voting rights here or in a number of other countries – there are always limitations.”

    Ahh Ancientgreek. If you want to pretend that the voting rights women or anyone had in Iraq under Saddam vs the voting rights they have now and claim some internet comment victory then feel free to do so.

    Some people would call this clutching at straws, or simply demanding that I acknowledge your semantics. Either way, it’s clear that you have no idea how important it is when voting to have a clear choice and not just voting “with equal rights” as long as you’re a: educated, b: not a member of a repressed minority or c: a Kurd.

    In fact your own knowledge in this regard seems to stem from news clippings you’ve found on the internet. Bravo to you, good sir, but might I suggest you step up to the plate and tell us why you continue to assert that a refieme under which one may vote only for candidates from one party might be called “vibrant”?

    Or should I simply start dismissing you as another ignorant troll. No point talking to someone if they are incapable of learning from or even engaging in discussion. If I wanted to listen to repeats of mindless propaganda, I could always turn on National Radio.
32. AncientGeek 32

    4 May 2008 at 10:26 am

    In fact your own knowledge in this regard seems to stem from news clippings you’ve found on the internet.

    I got interested in the baathist movement history during the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-80’s. I was sprouting off the top of my head (the same way you are now), and was pulled up on it by an older friend who’d worked in Iraq for a few years.

    So I did some reading at the uni, and kibitzed in on lectures. I’ve maintained reading and info gathering on the subject since. In particular watching the differences between the two baathist countries – syria and iraq, and their neighbors.

    Perhaps you could do the same – at least you’d look less ignorant. Actually reading some news-clipping yourself would help.
33. Dean 33

    4 May 2008 at 11:38 pm

    “Perhaps you could do the same – at least you’d look less ignorant. Actually reading some news-clipping yourself would help.”

    I just love how you ignored talking about free and fair elections with more than one party present.

    Free and fair elections, Ancientgreek. You do understand what those are, don’t you? Or would you prefer to pretend that elections choosing multiple candidates from ONE party are, in your own words “vibrant”?

    Honestly. If you’re going to call somebody ignorant you’d better read what you posted first. Your sychphancy is stunning.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS