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

..continued part 2

(Pericles)Your usual form is to recognize the 'way of the world' and suggest that the invasion of Iraq is no 'less' justified than many other invasions which we would describe as 'just' throughout history.

5/ TEIRAN.

at least you made a very valid point, about tackling OTHER genocides as well, rather than just those which fit self interest. Alas, people and countries (except Saint Teiran :) are not like that. Besides, Pericles and Destructor would crucify you for meddling in someone elses back yard.

To all...

To condemn the US invasion, is also to condemn D Day, to condemn the British for declaring war on Germany when they had not attacked Britain, but invaded Poland. I think their decision to declare war was of the 'Move now, or never have the chance' ilk.

Personally, I cannot justify the attack on Iraq any more than I can condemn it. I just look back over world history, and see that by and large we have the choice of evils. If one is less evil than another, we have little choice but to go with it. With every 'liberation' their also comes 'exploitation', I can't see that changing while human hearts and selfishness reigns supreme. The UN, 'international law' none of these will change what we fundamentally 'are'.

I see no less cruelty today than 1000 yrs ago, I don't accept we are 'socially evolving better' (take away our comforts based on previous wars and exploitation and our true selves will emerge quick smart)

Is it any wonder that I repeat the call 'All have sinned'(and continue to make it). I see the kingdom of God as the goal of humanity, where God reigns in our hearts.

There is no earthly utopia for the making or the taking. New systems or ideologies don't change people, they just repackage them. Inner renewal at our deepest level will remove a lot of the ugliness of humanity, and that is only found through and in Christ.

How surprising it is that only our crusading Christian missionary is thus far in agreement with Williams' pathetic attempt at historical revisionism.

The Oil War in Iraq was illegally begun by the American Neo-Cons and their obsequious allies, including Australia. It was justified by a bald-faced lie about WMDs, and continues unabated in Iraq.

Last week's events in London only confirm that the Oil War's link to the abatement of terrorism is a nonsense. But at least the oil is flowing again, at least until it runs out.

Perhaps B-D could do us the service of confining his biblical blather to the theological threads?

Perhaps Garra could do us the service of confining his communist propaganda to the trashcan?

Anyone crying about how the iraq war was all about Oil is doing so on blind faith.

I find it amazing that people think legality is decided by the UN. What a load of crap. To let the UN decide legality is the most absurd concept in all of history (Maybe after communism). Having China and russia with vetoes, and some of the worlds biggest human rights violators on the UN human rights committees should clue you in, but obviously you are so blinded by your zealous fanatical faith that you cannot do anything but bow down in worship to this corrupt and bloated bureaucracy. What is clear from findings since the invasion is that much of the UN members opposition to removing a brutal terrorist sponsoring democidal dictator was due to their oil interests being tide up in iraq.

For those who claim that we could have used more diplomacy. It is quite clear that waiting too much longer would have proved disasterous. Saddam's oil for food scam had made a mockery out of sanctions and given him a lot of support for removing them and any call for inspections. It is quite clear that he intended to immediately restart all his nuclear ambitions once that happened. And all the time whilst we waited for diplomacy to 'work' the iraqi people continued to be oppressed and abused by Saddam.

Clearly the leftwing fanatacism is strong with this thread.

Thanks Grey - I supposed I asked for that...

However, while I'm more of a middle-aged hippie/greenie than a 'communist', I think that an intelligent Neo-Marxian analysis of current world events would be very pertinent to this discussion - e.g. the commentary provided by George Monbiot et al.

I refer to the current version of the Middle Eastern conflict as the Oil War, because that's what I think future historians will call it. It began in the Middle East after the Second World War, and will only end when we come up with an economically and environmentally viable alternative to oil. You should read the mounting evidence for 'Peak Oil' - i.e. the theory that world oil production will soon start to decline, at the same time as demand for it increases exponentially in 'developing' economies. While I don't share the doomsday scenarios that some people are beginning to take seriously, I fear that we are entering a period of unprecedented global economic instability - and hence, conflict.

I also think that it will prove to be a historically tragic coincidence of the worst order, that vast reserves of oil were initially discovered underneath the sands of the birthplaces of two of the world's great religions. The unfortunate admixture of religious zealotry and global economics based on oil have been two of the major determinants of the mess the world's in today.

Under these conditions, what would you propose as an alternative to the UN? That everybody unites under Christ, or some other such twaddle?

At least the UN provides a rational basis for improvement.

Fair crack of the whip Grey.

>>I find it amazing that people think legality is decided by the UN<<

Legality is a slippery term at the best of times Grey, but fundamentally you always have to identify it with a political entity. It does not have some form of separate existence as you seem to imply. What is legal in California could well be illegal in Oregon, as you well know, so pretending that there is some special case for the UN is untenable.

It's decisions only have as much legality - same as every jusrisdiction - as its members allow it. Of course, if the US were not a member, they could argue that their resolutions don't apply to them. But they are, so they can't.

>>For those who claim that we could have used more diplomacy. It is quite clear that waiting too much longer would have proved disasterous.<<

As I said before, this is unprovable. You like to think of the US invasion as a humanitarian exercise because that eases your conscience. But it doesn't make it any more right.

You and Boaz make a good pairing on this.

>>Such a body as the UN has no value or moral authority.<<

Boaz, if this is the case, why is the US a signed-up member? Why is Australia? You cannot have your cake and eat it you know. It is like playing soccer and making up your own rules. In 1823 William Webb Ellis decided the game was not to his taste, picked up the ball and ran with it, thus inventing rugby - but at least he was honest about it. If the US were honest, they would have withdrawn from the UN at the same time as taking the law into their own hands. But they didn't, hence my reference to vigilantism.

I sometimes wonder how apologists of the war can be so divorced from reality. They are unable or unwilling to comprehend opposing arguments, but are quite adept at doublethink.

To claim that the supposed risk that Saddam would give his stockpiles of WMDs to terrorists was not the justification is utterly absurd. There is no credibility in any article or anyone who claims otherwise. Now the reason for war, that can't be reduced to something so simple as oil, but it was a factor.

What I would like is a cite that France, Germany, Russia etc. were opposed to the war because of oil interests/scams. Not just that oil kickbacks occurred, the US itself received most of the kickbacks, but that they were a motivator.

More diplomacy to what end? For him to give up his WMDs? Done. For him to cooperate with inspections? Done. Perhaps for him to give up control of Iraq? Not an easy thing to do diplomatically and yet, backed up by the threat of military force, an offer was made only to be disregarded by the US. Diplomacy was working, but the Bush administration wanted war.

Sorry, I meant to say the US gave the most kickbacks to Saddam in return for oil, it didn't receive them.

Simple point:
Iraq could not defeat Iran in years of war. Why was the US afraid that Iraq posed such a threat if this 3rd world country couldn’t defeat another 3rd world country? Perhaps because greed and convenience won out over diplomacy and efforts to change the economics of power? Threats of WMD? We have found that to be baseless, as was suspected all along.

I won’t bother with any religious implications as we all know the twain shall never meet – at least from the other side of the floor…

BD,

The war in Iraq might have some good intent but a lot more self interest:

- Historically, most countries under the British flag had monarchies, degree of democracy and multiple party systems. When the US ‘inherited’ the region as the new superpower, they went back to a single party/single leader with no alternative or shadow government. Until a decade ago, the US wouldn’t even communicate with local politicians and leaders in the exile. The ‘stability over liberty’ was the US norm for the Middle East until Sep 11. Remember the first gulf war? Ask the Iraqis to rise only to turn and leave? Name one dictator in the region who was not appointed by the US.
- Iraq war wasn’t about terrorism because it actually made it worse. Iraq, among other authoritarian regimes was on the terrorists’ hit list as well. Lots of analysts today would argue that dictators’ regimes kept terrorists out.
- As per one of my previous postings: look at the priority of coming to rescue people from oppression/ discrimination/ genocide. What is the ‘top priority now”: Darfur. Their recently discovered natural gas reserves put them on the priority list of those who ‘deserve’ to be liberated. What is happening to all other sorts of oppressive regimes? Saudi? Libya? Yemen? Providing a home for the Palestinians? What sets the priorities and agenda is interest BD.
- Living in the Middle East as a citizen: you get fed garbage by the media for blaming the West for the economical mismanagement and oppression. But here is the question: you put a dictator in there at least have the decency to have a plan B of planning a coup or take him out alone without a million killed, wounded and homeless. It is like charging me for putting a snake in my house and taking my kids life to rid me of the snake.
- Finally, it is hypocritical to dwell on the ‘evil’ dictator stories when it was NATO who watched him killing kurds or assisting with his chemical weapon against Iranians
AK

The Bush Government started to secretly plan to go to war with Iraq in the first month of the Bush administration. It should further be stipulated that the Bush Government was not planning political pressure on Saddam’s Iraq until after 9/11 just war. War was clearly an idea that was part of the Bush agenda before he was even elected as President. So if Saddam had WMD from the end of Gulf War I all the way to September 10th 2001, on September 11th Iraq and WMD became an excuse not a reason to go to war.

Also, there was not 14 years of diplomacy. The first Gulf War ended in 1991 and the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 or ”a final opportunity to comply with it’s disarmament obligation” was passed on November 2002. How do you get 14 years? And actually it seemed diplomacy (although you can’t call demanding something from someone very diplomatic) backed with strong resolution was working. The inspectors were in they were seeing the WMD sites and were given the documents again to state that Iraq had got rid of all there WMD years previously. The UN can work when everybody gets serious.

In Bush’s speech to the UN he does mention Iraq’s support for terrorist groups, it’s human rights record, “Oil For Food” program problems, WMD and not allowing weapons inspectors. But Saddam was only documented as supporting Hamas terrorists not al Qaeda. The human rights violations of gassing and mass killings had taken place a decade or more previously and there had been since many worse and continuing human rights violation in other countries with no such similar action from the US. And regarding WMD how long can you allow people into your country looking for something you don’t have?

Fellow Human/Ash

yes, a lot of your points are VERY true and valid. The sins of the West are uncountable, without question.

It boils down to a lesser of 2 evils I suppose. When I look at the early history of Islam and the pre-Islamic history of Bosnia (to name just 2 places) I find it is an endles saga of 'alliance and counter alliance' and 'Suzereign/Vassal' relationships.

Nothing has changed. We perceive our survival in terms of perceived threats and all 'tribes', groups and nations, act according to the balance of all these issues, including resources, their own ethnic/tribal balance, external threats.

In the end, we have to have the wisdom to recognize the virtue of a King Cyrus of Persia, compared to the cruelty a Nebadchudnezzer of Babylon.

So, when I look at the USA, and am fully aware of the horrific things done in the name of 'freedom' by both government and corporate intities, they still seem more like a 'Cyrus' than a Nebadchadnezzer :)

The dictators installed/supported/assisted by the West, and the notable opposition on the SAME grounds as stated above by the French/Germans, (i.e. vested interest) are just the 'same old/same old' of history since pretty much day 1.

I draw comfort from the fact that in the USA one can express such opinions, and criticize the establishment, u can even say "Jews control the Media" :) The only kind of things you can't say are 'I have a bomb' at an airport.

P.S. please don't freak out at the post I'll be making in the 'nutbags' thread. Nothing personal but very passionate.
As a Christian I would embrace you in Gods love, no matter what I say about 'Islam' :) ok... never forget that.

"So does the fact WMDs were not found in Iraq paint the war unjust? No more than the police are to be considered unjust for arresting a driver who refuses to take a breathalyser when required, even if it happens to be he is not actually drunk." -SW

The fact is that Saddam didn't refuse to take a breathalyser, inspections were allowed, no doubt for his vested interest in keeping an iron grip on power, to be sure. But still, they were allowed. Scott Ritter declared Iraq essentially free of WMD back in 1998, just before the US-UK ordered the UN inspectors to leave ahead of 'operation desert fox'. Inspections were proceeding well prior to the US-UK invasion, just ask Blix. In what respect was diplomacy not working?

The fact is that diplomacy was leading away from war, exactly what the US-UK didn't want (we now know plans to invade were on the agenda since 12th sept '01). The language used in UN resolution 1441 was designed as too far-reaching for saddam to accept in order to provide a justification for war, no matter how well inspections went. This process was fast-tracked when it became apparent that UN inspectors were finding nothing.

This talk surrounding the 'liberation' of Iraq fails to take into account Iraqis themselves. Estimates range up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead as a result of the war, and many more deaths due to years of sanctions, mostly children. Add to this the fact that public services are no better off, and in some cases worse. Take into account also the almost complete selling-off of Iraq's assets to foreign corporations and the daily humiliation and suffering dished out by the occupying forces, and you begin to get an idea of the price paid for 'liberation'. It's easy to boast of 'liberation' and 'freedom' when you're detached from Bush's particular interpretation of it. Labelling Iraq a "terrorist nation" (surely it is more so now?) implies that Saddam was the only resident of Iraq. Such language that hides the human cost is commonplace among supporters of the war.

Williams' argument boils down to two basic premises:

1. The end justifies the means
2. Might is right

It's truly remarkable that the Christian warmongers in these forums can accommodate these principles within the absolute morality that it is claimed that their religion provides.

The war in Iraq has very little to do with Christianity and Islam.

It's the oil, stupid.