There was no rational or justification for 'Operation Iraqi Liberty' (OIL). OIL was clearly motivated by an irrational and unjustified fear. If there was a rational it was undeniably an economic rational that can be summed up in one word 'OIL'.

Soren you demostrate a lot of ignorance and hypocracy by asserting the justification for OIL was Iraq's defiance of the UN. Do you need reminding of the fact OIL was an illegal war that was never supported by the UN Security Council. The next time the US is over come with fear or is faced with the geographical conundrum of US oil being possessed by another sovereign state, I beg you to please seek the authority of the UN Security Council before you declare an illegal war in defiance of the UN.

If you sincerely want to "resurrect international standards and set a precedent of responsibility for other potential rogue, terroristic states" you should first do some thing about the genocides in this world before you seek to secure a free market democracy in an oil rich sovereign state for your own selfish interests.

Soren, it is not clear what was your motivation for writing this piece, but it does little more than illustrate exactly why the US should not have invaded Iraq.

"So America stepped in to do what the UN had failed to do"

This is pure vigilantism. This is "taking the law into your own hands". This is the recourse of the morally weak, and is a close relative of terrorism.

And the only reason that the US has managed to get away with it is that there is no organized force that can match them in battle. This is the act of a bully - I do it because I can, and no-one can stop me. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, or morality, or ethics, merely superior fire power.

"It is clear diplomacy was not going to work"

Fortunately for your argument, no-one can prove you wrong on this one,
but it is specious nonetheless. I could equally say, similarly without the need for proof or substantiation, that another few weeks would have seen a peaceful solution, an agreed backdown, and the prevention of many thousands of unnecessary deaths. See how easy it is when you don't have to present any evidence?

"If nations, especially belligerent ones that have a documented will to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, are going to be able to treat international law with contempt, then global stability has regressed back to the pre-World War 1 era in which “might makes right” was the prevailing geo-political ethic."

It took me a moment to realise that you were not referring to the US. But you could easily have been, couldn't you? Doesn't that strike you as a little odd?

"A reversion to such a volatile international climate would be more disastrous and inhumane than the Iraq war could possibly be. In the face of such a prospect...."

Nothing in your piece demonstrates that this is inevitable, or even likely, but you continue to build an argument against it.

The invasion was wrong, and no amount of imaginative hindsight will change that.

Sorry to be critical, Soren, but you are on a different wave-length to many other philosophers and political scientists.

1. The attack on Iraq had been plotted well before September 11. In fact, the 9/11 tragedy fitted neatly into the neo-con and Zionist Project for the American 21st Century, arranged not long after the first Gulf War.

2. Rather than a wake-up call for America, 9/11 had certain unelected occupants of the White house clapping their hands.

If we had persons of true wisdom and understanding now running the world, rather than mostly two-timer ex-oil executives, Soren, the argument in your thesis could possibly hold water. The Canadian philosopher, Ralston Saul had it right when he said the American public had been successfully dumbed down after being fed with a continuous fear of subsequent terrorism, which has proven all too true.

Unfortunately, Soren, in both America and Britain, we still have remnants of strong political thought which still justify colonialism and economic imperialism, more Old Testament Promised Land stuff, as if us Christians and possibly Jews have the God-given right to grab countries like Iraq and slaughter right and left in the name of the Lord. But their are no records in the New Testament of Jesus advocatiing such martial -style doctrine, Soren.

I would advise you to check Google for the historical record of the Donation of Constantine, a fake declaration written by the Holy Roman Church around 1000 AD. to give the false OK for Christians to begin the Crusades.

George C - WA (Bushbred)

“Project for the New American Century.” (PNAC). http://www.newamericancentury.org/

In their “Statement of Principles” :- “We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.”.

Sounds absurd, until it is realised that this group is made up of Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, and Paul Wolfowitz

This group developed the document “Rebuilding Americas Defences” Sept 2000, which was produced before 9/11, and the second war in IRAQ.

That document outlines their attitudes and plans for IRAQ and several other countries. Some of that plan involves Oil, but for the most part it envisions world domination and global leadership.

What is also frightening, is that there has been almost no comment about PNAC in the main-stream press in Australia, even though this group has such a distinguished ensemble of people involved.

The illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq was based 100% on lies, misconceptions and half truths.

Bush has now admitted that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 or terrorism of any kind. All the pieces of evidence used to justify the invasion have since been denounced and shown to be obvious forgeries etc. Bush, Blair and Howards own intelligence communities tried to show them this but it is obvious that other factors were at play which was always going to prevent a peaceful resolution of the phoney WMD issue.

I am genuinely scared for the future of this planet when megalomaniacs like the above mentioned can so easily manipulate the masses along with the compliant, propagandist mainstream media (who are equally to blame for their pathetic cowtowing to their respective Governments).

END THE WAR NOW! Every day we are there just breeds more hatred of Western nations thus increasing the likelyhood of terrorist acts not negating them.

TAken in reverse order

1/ Destructor.. true to your name, 'end the war now' and REVERT to animalistic, brutal, merciless and horrible crimes of mass human slaughter, the cutting off of tongues, the torture and murder of your children in front of your eyes, the erection of palaces without number, while the people starve, re-establish the Sunni minority gang of oppression against the vast majority and against every minority- yes, thats what you want, as for your unbalanced "view" I flush it down the toilet in the name of every kurd and shia who experienced these things.

2/ Timkins,

at least your view has some credibility and is backed up by some references. Well done ! (so unlike you...cough) I agree that oil (the guarantee of supply, not the theft of) was a significant factor in the minds of the US leaders. 'shock horror' -> self interest actually exists in THEM as well as US.

3/ Brushbred

Read Romans 13 The Emporer does not 'carry the sword for no reason'. They carry it to put fear in the evildoer. But when the Emporer IS the evildoer, who gained power thru murder, they have nothing to look forward to other than a similar experience, or the experience which overtook Sadaam Hussein. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Every wife who was arbitrarily selected and turned into a sex toy by his sons, rejoices at this.

4/ PERICLES.

You surprise me, "Viliganteism"... err.. How would you describe the act of a Veto by a member of the Security Councilagainst action to fix some world genocide just because they have a vested economic or strategic interest in the country concerned ? Its worse than vigilantism, its pure 'complicity in genocide'. Such a body as the UN has no value or moral authority. The invasion, albeit with oil as a factor, also had justice and freedom in mind. Such an evil veto would be described by the Old Testament Prophets thus "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.. Woe to the judge who sells his decision for a bribe"

...continued