FISH.... that (to be blunt) is a totally stupid question.

You and all of us know only too well that the sabotage and mayhem being inflicted on Iraqis BY IRAQIS and outside Jihadists, is responsible for the problems with Standard of living.

You should also be prepared to admit that its not a 'one size fits all' There are areas where things are MUCH MUCH better, where the insugency is less effective or under control. and of course, in the Sunni Triangle where the formerly privileged minority who have the most to LOSE by a fair society are kicking and screaming and bombing and maiming purely to regain that lost privilege.

The insurgency is NOT about 'nationalism' its about ETHNO CENTRISM i.e. "Sunni's will rule"ism

How you can be so blind amazes me.

You should also know enough about history to recognize that where there is a multi ethnic society, the best form of social order is one imposed from outside, or from a prevailing /majority which rules benevolantly. The Sunni minority did NOT do that, they ruled for THEM.

Arjay,
I remain optimistic regards the International Criminal Court (ICC). Organisations such as the UN Security Council are often political, as various despots and autocratic regimes can be protected by the politics within those organisations. The ICC has only just started, but it is based more on law rather than politics, and I see that the UN Security Council has even referred a case to the ICC. http://www.icc-cpi.int/cases.html
So there is a ray of hope that the various despots throughout the world can be brought to heal through the ICC, if the ICC is given sufficient support and resources.

In his speech, the US general said “more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military,". What he left out was “legal”, and of course the US has been rather obstructionist in the development of the ICC, because it feels that some of it’s own people could be put on trial (eg Kissinger).

What to do now in IRAQ. I would think it best to following the current US plan of gradual withdrawal leaving behind some military bases, but any further flair up’s or the possibility of civil war occurring in Iraq, then both the ICC and the UN should become involved, not just the US and some allies it has rounded up (including Australia).

I also think it necessary for the UN to become involved in helping to establish more democracy in places such as Afghanistan, rather than leaving that country in a mess or under US control also.

In regards to oil, it is running out in the middle East, with nations such as Syria, Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia reaching peak, so there will have to be programs undertaken in many countries to reduce dependency on oil.

May not be too difficult. I have seen estimates that if people in the US turned down their domestic hot water heater thermostat a few degrees, wore more thermal underwear to work instead of relying on central heating, and took the bus more often rather than driving their own cars, then the US would not need Iraq oil.

"We, the people on the ground, the innocent civilians, the foot soldier sent to fight, the emergency workers who have to clear up the corpses, deserve to be clearly told why we are fighting, why we are in danger.

Once the “other side” reveals both themselves and their demands, we, the people of the democracies, can then decide if we can live with a negotiated peace or if we will choose to go to war."

There is clearly two battle fronts. Islam and its prophets and the West and its profits.

Attack, being natural to expansionist goals, is the modus operandi of both Islam and the West. Sometimes this attack can be active - Iraq etc, or passive - look at the demographic realities that will face Europe as its immigration 'policies' come to fruition in the next couple of generations.

The irony for the West is that it has practiced homogenocide through contraception & abortion as well as promoting environmental and social degradation in pursuit of materialism and individualism. So who will win these wars and on what basis? Will the dominant culture also be the culture that has most to offer?

As the non terrorists (christians) were the first to invade a terrorist (muslim) nation (Iraq 1991) maybe they should be the ones who take in lead in making Peace.

Imagine in 20 yrs from now that Australia possesses 70% of the world's uranium and the rest of the world can no longer burn fossil fuels.

Now due to religious evangelism,the Catholics of NSW are fighting with the Church of England in Victoria and the Baptists of South Australia.Due to the war supplies of Uranium to the rest of the world are cut drastically.

Is China and India our new world powers going to sit idely by and wait for us to get our act together?No one wants to steal our uranium,they just want to buy it at market value,but we are too involved in our stupid religious wars.

Do we have a responsibility to the rest of the world because they will surely perish without us,or can we rightfully scream racist and say to hell with the rest of the world,our self destruction is more important.

Would China and India be justified in invading Australia and setting us straight?

Sure the US has made a mess of the Middle East,but the rest of the planet rely on them for energy for industry and agriculture.It is about survival.

I like the ideas presented in this article, especially giving the terrorists or their representatives a proper hearing. And I too would like to know if it is finite.

I would also like to see on a program such as Insight, SBS, a proper discussion concentrating on the aussie muslims point of view of what they believe the terrorists want and how we can solve it, and also how we can solve it within the context of Australia's needs as well. It was obvious from Insight's program the other night that oz muslims are dying to discuss or justify the terrorists point of view. So lets give them a proper hearing once and for all.

Arjay - you also make a good point: The need to survive is what makes the world go around. It's easy to be PC when life is comfortable and you're confident about your future.