Young man, the election is never over until democracy falls, it merely is in the preparation for the next phase. If the democratic process is too much for you, avert your eyes, and refill that lotus shake!

Will

EEE GADS Michael, you of all people! Surely not!

Ok, everybody , pay up....I told you so....

Michael, "I am giving you a 10 for actually having the balls to post that"!

Will

. Let's see one was "mperdue2" which was obvious. I used "tehghey" for awhile but I even posted that I was using that because my mperdue account was screwed up in this thread. There was "8008135" (boobies) which I never even confirmed or used in posts. And "zluvr1" but I only posted 4 messages and none were confrontational or anything (that's when mperdue and mperdue2 were blocked HAHAHA). So that's only five unless there was another that I can't remember. So which of those were you betting on? They were all either obvious or benign. Any others you thought were me?

MIchael

Did you get points for referring all of those "Members"?

Are you sure your alterego was not posting as some of our more noticeable repeat customers?

I was kidding about the bet, I should have, but I didn't! Seems like there was one more that was most definitely you, but the fumes are clogging my brain-yes, as a matter of fact, I do take the trash out almost every hour!

Will

Sorry to bring this back up again, but i really enjoy reading this thread seeing foreign views on such things as on australian forums, political and religous threads are frowned upon. I have never really taken part in much political discussion but this thread has given me somewhat of an interest in it. I find in Australian people tend to vote for the most dependable appearing candidate (often the lesser of 2 evils), no longer having a deep seeded root in having to vote for the forgotten ideals of labour or liberal, or in the US, republican or democrat. A lot of what is said has made me think a lot about the global situation, as well as being in a foreign country. Tonight I was reading the an australian newspaper (online form japan) i found an article that really made me think, I wonder if here is the right place for it? i found Sergeant Scott's comment interesting in particular.

How many dead innocent Iraqis is too many?

November 9, 2004

Surely we have not been reduced to arguing that we are not as bad as terrorists, writes Waleed Aly.

Too many innocent people are dying in Iraq. A recent report, in the medical journal The Lancet, estimates 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the beginning of the US-led invasion. Half of them are women and children. Almost all were killed by coalition air strikes.

Take a minute to think about the enormity of this human cost. Think of it as September 11, 30 times over.

Though it wildly exceeds all previous figures, The Lancet estimate is credible, and perhaps even conservative, according to independent statisticians who analysed the data and found the report's methodologically sound.

But what if it is not? Even the lowest estimate, unsurprisingly that of the British Foreign Secretary, places the number of civilian deaths at 10,000. The popular website http://www.iraqbodycount.com puts the figure at a minimum of 14,000. We are still talking about four times the number of September 11 casualties. That's eight planes and eight towers.

Surely now, the governments that took us to this war and we, as people who are happy to re-elect them, must face up to our culpability for this carnage. We claim to hold that the lives of civilians are sacrosanct. We assert that the fabric of humanity is torn with every death of every innocent civilian. Indeed, that is why terrorism sickens us.

So why do we not think of these deaths as tragic in the same way we do those of September 11, Bali, Madrid or Beslan? For the Iraqis, we will hold no multi-faith services, no commemorative anniversary functions and we will give no human faces to them. Perhaps some innocent lives are more sacrosanct than others.

We are talking about four times the number of September 11 casualties. Eight planes and eight towers.Of course, there is a crucial difference between the civilian deaths caused by terrorism, and those caused by the US-led coalition in Iraq. Coalition forces did not target the innocent as terrorists do.

True, we should not lose sight of this. But we should also not abuse it to dehumanise those we have killed, and evade the responsibility we rightfully bear. We speak of Iraqi civilians, even 100,000 of them, not as victims, but as collateral damage. We did not murder them as terrorists murder their victims, because there was no intention to kill them.

It is simply not good enough to hide our guilt in this way. Our actions were always destined to claim thousands of civilian lives. This was not merely probable; it was certain. We recognised that certainty and pressed on anyway. The fact that killing innocents was not the aim, but rather a guaranteed byproduct of our action, does not absolve us.

Australian lawyers call this reckless murder, and once stripped of euphemism, that is what collateral damage is. We own the responsibility for the foreseen, likely consequences of our actions.

Confronted with The Lancet's grotesque estimate, Defence Minister Robert Hill fell back on the standard defence that Iraqis would be better off without Saddam Hussein. This is the argument that killing is justified where it is necessary in defence of another.

However, on the basis of The Lancet estimate, it is ridiculous to suggest that justification applies here. It took Saddam several decades to kill 300,000 people. We have managed a third of that in just 18 months.

But whatever the death toll, if removing Saddam was really the goal, can we honestly say all this deadly "shock and awe" was necessary to achieve it?

Sergeant Scott, a soldier in Iraq, clearly did not think so when he told Britain's Daily Telegraph: "You could have sent two men in to kill Saddam. Why did we have to kill so many people?" He was speaking less than a month after the invasion began. I cannot imagine what he would say now.

This does not mean there is moral equivalence between al-Qaeda-style terrorism and our civilian killings in Iraq. But does there have to be? That our actions do not meet the depravity of terrorism does not justify them. Since when have terrorists provided the moral standard against which we judge ourselves? Are we really reduced to arguing that we are not as bad as them?

Our concern, as people whose governments are waging war in our name, should be for the legitimacy of our own actions. When it comes to our actions in Iraq, that legitimacy has been fatally eroded. We have now run out of excuses.

Waleed Aly is a Melbourne lawyer and a member of the executive of the Islamic Council of Victoria.

Sorry if people want this thread to die, I guess I just want an outlet for all my thoughts and concerns with the latest US offensive biled by the Pentagaon as one of the biggest since the Vietnam War.

I really would hate to be in the shoes of the troops there to serve and die for their countries, and am the same time in awe of their courage.

I also sometimes think that if your own country was occupied against your will, what would you consider as justified actions against invading troops in comparison to the acts we despise viewing on the news every night?

I wonder if I will regret posting here, I have bitten my tongue several times.

I have too much time on my hands in Japan

James,

Have no regrets mate.

Your views are just as important as the views of anyone else.

At least you had the common sense to refrain from using foul language. (I'm sure you wouldn't do that ).

I may not agree with some of your comments but I respect your right to have them.

The quoted figures are a matter of deep concern however, what I find hard to believe is that the rebels are deliberately killing their own people. Life seems to have little value to them.

Rick.

Thanks Rick,

I didnt think i experessed any comments that were contorversial

I am just sick of reading theage.com.au every night and seeing more and more people being killed for what reason I do not know. I just thought that article was from a great and unique perspective, an Islamic melbourne lawyer.

reading the paper tonight it seems in Melbourne now it has become popular to start shooting people over differences as well.

Any civilian Death is precious to me. Unfortunately civilian deaths are not precious too others on many occasions.

A countries soldiers have gone hiding in its population centers. In that specific instance, the hiding soldier is the one stating that the value of the few soldiers outweighs the value of the many civilians. I am not saying that his action is good or bad, nor that I agree with it. Only that he, as a soldier, knew what the result could be when he hid among innocents, and was willing to lower the value of civilians lives to save his own. That is what happens when soldiers don't believe in their cause. They place their countrymen in harms way. I can only hope the civilians that were placed at risk, and killed because of it, understood the decision they were forced into, and were a part of it-even if unwittingly.

I know if it came down to protecting my country-even from a insursion I viewed a s illegal, I would hide anywhere civilians were not for this very reason. I am accountable for my own actions.

I would not put the ones whose lives I put mine in front of at risk. I would not put my family, friends and neighbors at risk if I knew I could save them with my sacrifice-even without being a soldier.

I believe a man should take responsibility for his actions. I also believe holding a President and his country responsable for the actions of another leader and army is not doing that. There is responsability for every action or reaction.

Not to trivialize the losses on either side, but when you live in a known earthquake zone for any longer than necessary, are you not responsable for your being at risk? Refugees leave a war zone for a reason-to get out of harms way. The real question here is why is the cty still populated.

That is absoutely not to say that that I agree with what has happened, or that there could not be a better way of handling a situation of this magnatude, only that I have not thought of it, and evidently neither has anyone else. I know if I were there as a civilian I would be quoting Eddie Murphy: "Nice place, too bad we can't stay." The lives of my family would be more important than anything else. Leaving pennieless and hungry beats staying dead any day.

Will

Drunkenmaster,

I hope you have opened some eyes.

Euphemisms of war: "neutralized", "collateral damage","surgical strike", the list goes on.

It usually means 4 innocents killed for every combatant.

In our rush to deliver freedom to Iraq, have we lost sight of who is really bearing the cost?

Are we rasing a new generation of Bin Laden's with the orphans of our war?

Questions friends, not statements.

Remember at the beginning of this war. The first night the president ordered bombers to strike a building that Saddam was supposed to be in (supposedly their timing was slightly off--late).

Why couldn't he have done that time and time again until sucessful?

Why was an army and occupation necessary?

He obviously thought it was the knock out punch the first night, why not the second, third, every night after?

If the aim (now) was to remove Saddam, why was an army necessary. The Isralies would have dropped a team of special forces, attacked any suspected target and airlifted them out.

I just don't understand our commander in chiefs thinking here.

Of course not. Just that you might be happier if you didn't have to "WORK" so hard reading things that aren't worth reading. Your diaper rash might go away too.

Ok..so now I must have a skin ailment because you can't take some playful criticism? Carl, lighten up!

And I also see that you fixed your spelling error, which, btw, was the prompt for the whole "work" issue to begin with. Smart boy, way to cover you tracks.

For the rest of you...who I am is my business. I didn't ask for your names. But if you really need to know, it would be more cordial if you just came out and asked, rather than running to a back door with the site administrator and trying to figure out who I am. What are you guys, CSI detectives? C'mon...have more manners than that!