Hi romingfree

Thanks for your comments. Notwithstanding Bush's 2003 invasion Iraq was already thoroughly unstable and cruel to its own people under the Sunni dominated government of Saddam Hussein.

People totally forget that under Saddam Iraq forght an opportunistic war against Iran from 1980 to 1988 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War in which around a million people died.

Two years later Iraq invaded a defenceless Kuwait for Kuwait's oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait .

Saddam meanwhile slaughtered Kurds and Shiites in many cases with poison gas against children.

What this means is that Iraq, left to itself was a warring, unstable, inhumane place that attacked neighboring countries before 2003. Whether the 2003 invasion made this dire situation worse is impossible to say.

Obama, to his credit, is reluctant to embroil the US in other countries' wars, but countries need to take a stand against the slaughter of innocents by ISIS in Iraq.

Preventing this slaughter may be the prime reason for the US re-intervention over the last few days. However the US would also have had foreknowledge about long-term Iraqi leader and Shiite Prime Minister Maliki's intention, 2 days ago, to launch a coup against the newly installed Iraqi President Fuad Masum who is a Kurd.

The US re-intervention then is partly to shore up the Kurds compromise position against the warring Sunni-Shiite opponents in Iraq. More Kurd power in Baghdad is preferable to the Shiite vs Sunni warring that has produced ISIS.

Regards

Pete

Too little, Too late.

We in Australia cannot expect more than this half-hearted American response should we find ourselves in a similar trouble - that's why we need to prepare and have our own nukes and biological weapons, just in case and just so we no longer need to bow to American dictates. Only having a good stock of this kind of weapons will assure that we will never need to actually use them.

Pete, where do I stand on ISIS? Some think they are a Western invention to give the USA an excuse to take control of more of Iraq's oil. Don't forget Gazprom and China have oil interests there too. Dr Paul Craig Roberts thinks that ISIS are a natural Muslim movement which is reacting to Western aggression. ISIS have come from nowhere with a lot of funds and weapons. I think they are a Western creation just like Al Qaeda.

Pete your personal attacks on James O'Neill demonstrates your desperation.

Dear Arjay,

Who cares HOW ISIS was created? The beast is now out of the bottle and do you think that if nothing is done about it, it will stop at Australian shores?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bombing-iraq-for-u-s-oil-companies/5395527 This article supports my theory about the oil. ISIS it seems has got out of US control and if they take the Kurdish oil their power will be much greater. The Kurds are the 9th biggest oil producers on the planet.

Iraq was always about the oil.

Hi Yuyutsu

I agree that Australia will need nuclear weapons because we are too distant from the US to rely on the US nuclear umbrella forever. Also the US might cede the East Asian region to China one day, when China becomes a more powerful superpower than the US.

We still need a nuclear delivery system and countries are increasingly turning to submarine launched ballistic missiles. Israel may have mounted such missiles in its Dolphin subs. Preferably Australia should acquire nuclear propelled subs as missile platforms. The Virginia class nuclear subs which the US has offered to Australia would be ideal. Australia needs to develop a nuclear industry to support such submarines and build nuclear weapons.
---

Hi Arjay

I responded to James O'Neill because he stooped so low as to be personally insulting on this thread at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16584#290280 .
Naturally I'll ignore him from now on, noting that he is unable to write articles himself.

Have you explored the possibility that ISIS might be the creation of Sunni monied interests?

Regards

Pete

Pete