Sunday, January 09, 2005

Oops we missed

The war in Iraq is not a natural disaster.

The numbers of dead are not all in the space of a few moments.

These and many other Iraqi dead are, however, as innocent as the dead from within families peacefully living their lives in Thailand last year.

This story out of northern Iraq highlights yet again why this war, that Australia is still a willing part of, is (and always was) wrong.

An official from a joint US-Iraqi security centre for Salahuddin province said the air strike targeted a suspected insurgent hideout in al-Aitha, a village on the border between Salahuddin and Nineveh provinces.

"The house was not the intended target for the air strike. The intended target was another location nearby."
-The US army has stated. It added that it:
"deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives and that an investigation was under way."


30 Comments:

Blogger weezil said...

Well, thank great Zeus and Hera that the Americans are investigating.As soon as their investigation is complete, that woman's poor dead mother will be back right as reign, wont' she?

Won't she?

10:34 pm  
Blogger Funky Fresh Freddie said...

Nice!

10:46 pm  
Blogger Dave said...

Of course, Dubya and his band of pirates won't get investigated for all the dubious shit they've been involved in will they? What else can someone as helpless as me say at this point? This war stinks.

11:00 pm  
Blogger Nic White said...

Off topic, but I have a feeling you might want to write something on this. The relevant links are in an post of mine:

http://52nd.blogspot.com/2005/01/not-reporting-miscarriages-crime.html

Its outrageous.

11:33 pm  
Blogger EvilPundit said...

Since you oppose the War of Iraqi Liberation, and therefore support Saddam Hussein, you are responsible for the 3,000,000+ deaths caused by your beloved dictator.

Sleep well.

7:40 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

Since you are in favour of the illegal unilateral invasion of Iraq by the US as well as their torture of anyone they deem suitable to torture, thereby advocating state sponsored terrorism and murder instead of peaceful United Nations efforts at rogue regine management via weapons inspectors, you won't mind being tried for war crimes.

Will that be lethal injection or the gas chamber, sir?

Should that be the case, I bet you will sleep more peacefully- and a lot longer- than Suki.

-weez

9:46 pm  
Blogger EvilPundit said...

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, crunchy nutbar.

10:49 pm  
Blogger Dave said...

Since the reasons given for the war have now been proven to be false, I wonder how you are sleeping - and since one of your beloved leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing", John HoWARd is on record as saying before the war that if it wasn't for the grave threat of Saddam's WMDs, then, despite all those Iraqis being tortured, the war would not be worth fighting, I wonder if the families and friends of the 1000+ young Americans and the families of the up to 100,000 Iraqis that have died since the beginning of the war are sleeping peacefully.

Off you go, bold soldier, to liberate Zimbabwe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Tibet, Myanmar, Vietnam, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. No need to research their respective cultures and histories as you are the Western Democrat - and they will embrace you with open arms as the solution to all the world's complexities and problems. Black|White

11:24 pm  
Blogger suki said...

EvilPundit,
Are you aware of the "Comprehensive report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, 30 September 2004" commonly known as the 'Duelfer report'?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
Read it!

Are you also aware that never, ever are civilians legitimate targets of war. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Article 3.1
Read it too!

Are you aware that I sleep soundly and dream in colour.
Now go away!

11:26 pm  
Blogger EvilPundit said...

There is no intelligent life on this planet.

12:17 am  
Blogger weezil said...

EP, I really dig how you mumble incoherently when you've been handed your ass on a platter.

-weez

1:16 am  
Blogger EvilPundit said...

Wanker. Neither you nor Suki even managed to address the point I made, let alone defeat it.

There are blogs elsewhere with a more intelligent readership, where some actual debate becomes possible.

8:02 am  
Blogger Dave said...

EP, your point was this: "Since you oppose the War of Iraqi Liberation, and therefore support Saddam Hussein, you are responsible for the 3,000,000+ deaths caused by your beloved dictator."

Weez, Suki and myself all responded to it with our respective points, please tell me how we didn't... It seems you have failed to respond to our responses. Try scrolling up, it does wonders.

9:13 am  
Blogger EvilPundit said...

All you did was repeat some lame and worn-out talking points about why you thought the war was wrong.

None of you attempted to justify your support for Saddam Hussein's continued oppression of the Iraqi people and their neighbours.

Yet you supported that continuing, and far greater, slaughter by your opposition to the war of liberation.

10:13 am  
Blogger weezil said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:28 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

EP, here's the sum total of your posts in this thread which prompted me to note that you'd been handed your ass on a platter:

"Since you oppose the War of Iraqi Liberation, and therefore support Saddam Hussein, you are responsible for the 3,000,000+ deaths caused by your beloved dictator."

"Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, crunchy nutbar."

"There is no intelligent life on this planet."

Two are utter nonsense and one is a famous bumper sticker.

Would you like HP sauce with your rump cutlet?

9:32 pm  
Blogger TimT said...

A long time ago a parody left-wing blog was set up. It was called the Iraq War Was Wrong Blog, and it satirised perfectly the moral 'indignation' of some blogger when dealing with the Iraq War.
Afraid to say this post sounds a bit like that: 'The Iraq war is, and always was, a wrong war'.

' Yes, the accidental death of civilians is a bad thing. '

Who could disagree with that?

'Yes, the deliberate slaughter of thousands of civilians by Saddam Hussein, who set himself up as a 'leader' of the Iraqi people is a horrendous, terrible, awful thing indeed.'

Why is it that the only person smart enough to acknowledge this (obvious) point so far has been EvilP?

10:05 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

Tim, the only thing you've said right is that the Iraq war was wrong from the get-go and always was; that much is quite so. If your country is not under direct threat from anohter, you don't have a right to attack- period.

You fuckers act like we're here to educate you.

Go get your own information.

-weez

11:08 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:23 pm  
Blogger suki said...

EvilPundit, TimT,
Is invasion and military force your only answer?
Will you change the reasons for invading after the invasion to suit the truth?
Do you abide by any rules?

If so, even invaders during war have to obey the rules of engagement.
Known collectively as the Geneva Conventions. Those who fail to follow the rules must be held accountable by an international court or tribunal.

How many abuses of the rules of engagement is too many?
Is it invaders - citizens = freedom?

How many citizens of Iraq would you be happy to sacrifice?

I expect to see Bush, Blair and HoWARd in the Hague.

11:26 pm  
Blogger Dave said...

EP, you said: "None of you attempted to justify your support for Saddam Hussein's continued oppression of the Iraqi people and their neighbours."

You see, there's the problem, you seem to like things to be pretty black and white. Oh, if someone thinks the war is wrong and is critical of the way in which the Coalition is fighting it, then they must support Saddam's regime. In philosophy, it's called a straw man argument - you set up your opponent's argument in a way that mis-represents it, then it's an easy task to defeat that argument and make it look like you've got the best points and therefore, your line of thinking is right.

Now, let's see if you can address the point I made about Howard saying the war wasn't justified per se in regard to just removing Saddam's regime from power for humane reasons. Furthermore, I suspect you support all the other dictatorships of the other countries I mentioned above because you haven't as yet been advocating invasion, regime change and subsequent "liberation" for them... HHHMMM. It's annoying when someone else simplifies your argument isn't it?

11:43 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

Dave, what's really going on here is the losers are rewriting the rules of the game. Their guy gets his face smashed into the turf on the 50 yard line and they want to call it a touchdown.

Truly, the surest way to succeed is to redefine success.

There were no WMDs, so the Bushies said "bu..bu..but... that Saddam is a baaaaaaaaaaad guy!" I am SO amused that there are any Aussies stupid enough to pick up a Bushie line and run with it.

Tim, EP- we're not laughing with you anymore.

-weez

11:51 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

EvilPundit drooled... "Wanker. Neither you nor Suki even managed to address the point I made, let alone defeat it. "

You didn't make any points. You prattled off one ridiculously fallacious straw-man line and then expected us to put you straight. Educate yourself, peckerwood. We've already gotten our educations.

"There are blogs elsewhere with a more intelligent readership, where some actual debate becomes possible."

I'm sure that well reasoned arguments like "mmmmm... crunchy nut bar" will be as well accepted at those blogs as they are here, but oh, DO please feel free to stop bringing us your business.

You're neither evil nor a pundit. You're a sterile, angry young sod with a mediocre intelligence and not a scintilla of wit. If you were at least funny, we could probably handle your utter wrongability.

Oh, yes, yes... do go haunt those more intelligent blogs.

-weez

12:05 am  
Blogger TimT said...

"Will you change the reasons for invading after the invasion to suit the truth?"

I think you'll find that there are a heck of a lot of people who supported the war on the basis of Hussein's brutality. Me included. No changing of reasons on my part.

8:34 am  
Blogger weezil said...

Really, Tim? That'd put you roughly 3 steps ahead of the US Government.

Face it: Bush & Co. lied to the world about the reasons for taking the US to war with Iraq. We were told the famous lies about non-existent WMDs which were purported to be ready to fire in 45 minutes.

Shrubbo also consistently lies about Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda and terrorism in general. Saddam was a secularist despot, intent upon keeping his position, not handing power to a Muslim republic model e.g. Iran. If Al Qaeda is now active in Iraq, it's because Shrub's war for oil had the unintended consequence of creating a power vacuum. For better or worse, Al Qaeda certainly were not active in Iraq when Saddam was around.

The US went to war with Iraq because George Bush had "lost his patience." Great. I've lost my patience on a number of occasions, but not once have I opened fire on the source of my frustrations.

War is good for the US economy. A US controlled BIG source of oil in the middle east would be adored by the stock market and allow the US to compete with the Saudis. No coincidence that GW is plugged in to the oil biz. A strong economy gets national leaders re-elected... in case you haven't noticed.

The American people had absolutely no interest in the ouster of Saddam Hussein, though from an altruistic point of view, most would certainly like to have seen him go, but by LEGAL means and international cooperative effort. Americans are ALSO sick of their government being viewed as the world's policeman- and wonder why they have to pay for such adventures with their sons, daughters and dollars.

Don't feed me any crap about the US rushing in to save democracy. Not since 1945 have any US military adventures installed any sort of democracy in the places they've bombed. Not ONE. So much for carrying the torch for the power of the common man..... which is what the US Constitution is really all about.

Saddam Hussein was not behind 9/11, was never associated with AlQaeda, had no WMDs and certainly had no capacity to attack America nor American interests. Yes, war on Iraq was a bad idea from the beginning. Yes, Saddam was a despotic cunt who murdered those he should have been serving and definitely needed to be removed from power, but whose responsibility is that? Wouldn't you think the Iraqi people should have had a go? And why isn't the US kicking ass on Mugabe and in Darfour if their visions include saving the people of the world from despots? Could it be... lack of oil?

Some lefties are pacifist Gandhi types and some are more Mandela in their inclination to support military action where it is the last resort. I'm leftie type "B." I don't mind getting the troops IN when that's what's needed. A good example would have been if Aussie troops could have been put in East Timor 6 months before they were, thousands of lives would have been saved. The US was correct to chase down Osama and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

However, instead of the token and now almost abandoned effort in Afghanistan (where Osama almost certainly is hanging out these days), Shrub took the opportunity for a personal war on Iraq instead of carrying out the security interests of the American people. Hamid Karzai is now the Mayor of Kabul; militias and Taliban now roam Afghanistan just as freely as they did in 2001.

And Osama is kicked back with a nice strong cup of tea and is watching CNN on satellite TV.

Isn't he the reason we're having this chat?

Where's Osama?-weez

10:43 am  
Blogger EvilPundit said...

You lefties are so ignorant. You prattle on about Weapons of Mass Destruction as if theu=ir current assumed presence was the only declared reason for the invasion of Iraq, yet you fail to do even the most elementary research in support of your thesis.

If you had bothered to use Google to find the actual reasons given for the invasion, you would have found documents like the US Congress Iraq War Resolution, which contains the actual given reasons, some of which I present to you for your education:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime
As you can see, the actual presence of WMD was only one of many reasons given for the invasion at the time. The only people who are trying to change history to suit themselves are the anti-war Left.

1:15 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

EP, I am so very pleased that you learned how to do a Google search and cut/paste- all in the same day. Good onya, son. Your mum will be proud.

Unfortunately, cut/paste doesn't make you either right OR authoritative.

Now fuck off until you get a brain and can come up with your own critical analyses.

-weez

5:34 pm  
Blogger Dave said...

Still waiting for my points to be addressed. Amazing - dodging and weaving with cut and paste from Congress. Utterly stunning and independent arguments!

9:39 pm  
Blogger Andrew Bartlett said...

Its fortunate that EP posted the US Congress War Resolution, as it shows how many falsehoods the US rationale for invading Iraq was based on. No threat to the security of the US, no possession or developing of significant chemical and biological weapons, no active seeking of nuclear weapons capability, no ongoing threat to international peace and security in the region (esp compared to now), no willingness (or ability) to attack the USA, no al Qaida links ....

All the apologists for the 'might is right, so its OK to unilaterally and illegally invade anyone who pisses us off' brigade can come up with is the feeble taunt that opponents of the invasion support Saddam Hussein and every bad thing he did. An equivalent argument would be to say that anyone who opposes shooting someone engaged in domestic violence must support domestic violence, because they're opposing an action that will stop it happening.
This sort of logic is so shabby it belongs in primary school. For God's sake, it's so feeble that Alexander Downer uses it.
Of course, there is also that small point that the head of the Australian Government, as opposed to the US Congress, specifically said that regime change was not a sufficient reason for invading Iraq. Not to mention that the Australian Parliament did not vote in support of the invasion at all. I know it's only Parliament, but I like to think their view (as opposed to relying on the USA equivalent) should count for something, at least for Australians.

10:04 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

Good god, Bartlett, have a heart. Don't be comparing our young troll to Alexander Downer.

The kid's pretty screwed up already- you don't want to tip him right off the edge, do you?

-weez

10:15 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home