Does confession clear the soul? Would it help if B,B,H confess as is shown by the publication of UK cabinet proceedings, the record signed by Rycroft, that the war and the intelligence (Propaganda)devised to suit the purpose?
Sure the document only truly nails B and B, but H is implicated, maybe so far only by circumstantial evidence.ANZUS.
That is there is no beloved piece of paper showing Australia’s involvement.
So guilt and people should be -- what brought before the courts. America does not recognise them and I am sure the did not see was not told etc ultimately why should I give material to the opposition as he has stated over AWB, recently will prevail.

What then we are hardly likely to apologise to the Iraq people. Would such help? Your point is that the condition has progressed well beyond this, though warned the Governments chose to ignore the warnings from various quarters of the likely consequences and now finds value in using the predicted increase in terrorist danger, as a means of creating fear allowing easier passage of various laws for control. However definitions of terrorism are essential.
So in this mess in which childish sound bites of must not cut and run hold sway, what?
We could with Howard agree that rule by a powerful nation, the American century?, is the way forward to ? Peace? That the UN is useless and wait for the next debacle when the human spirit gorged in disgust can again turn to some hopeful other way. A new UN?
I am with you in your utter disgust though recognising that Quigley in Ruses for War records the various not very pretty stratagems of the past, showing such to be part of the human condition, involving lies and promises. As Herman Goering has said people don’t want war Governments decide,. Frighten the populace and brand the resistors to war as unpatriotic or worse, seditious.

It was sickening also to see Blair, Howard (and Beazley) acting as if all was going swimmingly in Iraq, and nobody standing up and pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Where was the intense scrutiny that has taken place in the USA and the UK? Blair is severely 'on the nose' in the UK, but treated here like a Liberal party hero. The case for war (WMDs, remember them?) was a lie, there was no proper debate allowed before we went, and there's been precious little since. In the meantime, there have been between 33,000 and 38,000 civilian killed in Iraq (refer iraqbodycount.org), hundreds of thousands injured, Al Qaeda is now in Iraq, which it wasn't before, and the extremists have been given their biggest recruiting boost ever.

Howard a leader? What a joke.

It is a real chore to wake every morning and reconcile the beauty of one's placid rural surroundings with the insanity of the news from Iraq. Even the morning breeze is redolent with the excrement of the War For Profit Gang. There is no place distant enough to avoid the stink.

Do the carpetbaggers for the Corporatocracy breathe too deeply of the Canberra atmosphere? Does the miasma make their heads swim?

How else to explain the substitution of lies for reality?

How else to explain the bogus "War on Terror"?

How else to explain the corruption of the ideals of freedom and democracy?

How else to explain the stoppering of mouths with sedition laws?

How else to explain the transfer of wealth from the many to the few?

In the United States of America, the symbiosis of politics, big business and organised crime is now in plain view. Indeed the elements have merged into one globalised golem. It does not take any great genius to see that this golem has it's foot planted squarely on the neck of Australia - and that our leaders have not the will or courage to resist.

AMSADL,

There is NO war in Iraq - the 'war' is ended and the correct term is 'occupation'.

The civilians killed in Iraq are mostly killed by so-called sunni 'insurgents' in islamic terrorist attacks.

The war was CLEARLY based on a lie - but it is in the realist strategic interest of the US, and hence Australia.

Iraq used chemical weapons to exterminate its own people, hence, the US is the moral party, whether it lied or not.

IF this were a war on Islam or a war about oil pillage, then, as the hegemon, the US has the power to exterminate every last Muslim in the Middle East and take all the oil fields it likes - this has not happened...

AMSADL, in a naturalistic sense, people and States are not moral - some States lie to their people... and other States use chemical weapons against their poeple, torture, rape, and execute their people, opress their people's freedoms of expression and religion etc....

At the end of they day, we find ourselves in a State of morals relative to other States - a lie does not matter much AMSADL...

a lie does not matter much AMSADL... what matters much is the war taking place in Australian society - Middle Eastern culture and Islam are at war with Australian society.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/30/1143441240379.html

"TASK FORCE GAIN [currently slated as the MIDDLE EASTERN Organised Crime Squad] were called in after a drive-by shooting followed by a
fibro home being peppered with bullets left two dead.

"The two dead men are understood to be a 26-year-old amateur boxer of LEBANESE descent who recently participated in a debate on the Cronulla riots, saying he believed that "his boys'' kept out of trouble by playing sport.

"It is understood the victim, from Granville, had a conviction for the manslaughter of a man STABBED TO DEATH in an altercation in an AUBURN hotel around seven years ago.

"The other victim is believed to be a 25-year-old AUBURN man who had DRUG CONVICTIONS. TASK FORCE GAIN [currently slated as the MIDDLE EASTERN Organised Crime Squad] are involved in the investigation.

"Firemen hosed blood and fuel from the road before three vehicles - including a BMW and a Tarago - were towed away. Police said the fuel tank of one of the cars was ruptured by a bullet.

People arguing and shouting

""There were people arguing and shouting with the police so they called for more cops and pushed the people away.''

"Mr Awny said some of the young men were "ON THE PHONE CALLING PEOPLE AND BY THE SECOND PEOPLE WOULD JUST COME - they were saying 'come, someone just got killed.''' (Muslims used mobile phones to a similar effect in the revenge attacks - and NSW parliament passed laws for police to SEIZE mobile phones).

"Insp Sims said police did not believe the shooting was linked to a driveby shooting in Railway Street in the nearby suburb of Guildford less than three hours later.

[Deleted for offensive comment.]

I would expect future and indeed current historians to argue over the rights and wrongs of the second Gulf war for centuries to come. As of course is the way of historians. Why there is still dispute on the question of the Trojan war of three thousand years ago.

A good emotional diatribe against the three daemons (Bush, Blair and Howard) is great for rallying the socialists and their fellow travellers. There is nothing like a good march, with a touch of Larrikinism and/or public disorder, to assure our lefties that that they are saving the world.

The real question is this: What would have happened if Bush had not gone into Iraq. Greg Sheridan in the Australian of 23 March 2006 gives some potent reasons for invasion.

If entry into Iraq is taken as a nodal point in history, then the possible scenarios of the “not to invade path" are counterfactual. Since counterfactual history is speculative and unknowable there has to be endless scope for argument.

The important issue as far as I am concerned was explained in the Wall Street Journal of 22nd March-“What if we Lose?” Clearly, BB &H must stand firm and not lose their nerve to the left orientated whingers.

Could somebody out there in Forum Land please explain to this mere mortal how the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam made the United States a safer place? It seems to be one of the more spurious pretexts Bush reverts to (depending on the occasion or state of siege he is under from journalists) to justify his actions.

This is not the sort of question without notice one could put to John Howard - John would need time to ring George to get the answer!

I can't see how, for even a millisecond, one can blame the governments of the U.S, U.K, and Australia for what is going on in Iraq.

It's actually quite selfish.

Iraqi's have always killed each other, the middle-east is notoriously known as the most bigoted, racist place on earth. People are so tribal they can't get along for a second.

What we did was to give them the opportunity to live like western nations (where they all flock to) so that they could have some sort of life. But alas, sectarian nonsense is getting in the way because they are tribalistic beasts.

To be so brutal with your methods of killing is outrageous, but this is why it happens. Wheraes in the west, we believe in HUMAN RIGHTS, not rights only for westerners, people lead better lives. Sure, the U.S has some pretty serious flaws, but without their prescence the world would be a horrible place.

Anybody who doubts that has some serious anthropological reading to do about the nature of the barbarian cultures which make up most of our planet.

I believe we should all pull out now too, only because I don;t think they are worth western troops giving their lives for. They are brats who, the moment Saddam was gone, wanted Iraq to have skyscrapers like western cities. Well it don't happen overnight.

This is another problem. They wont work with each other. The Brits started off a garbage run in Basra, giving out trucks, giving runs for a few families to pick up rubbish. After two weeks, the Brits noticed that although they were doing their jobs, there was still rubbish everywhere. When confronted, they admitted that at night they would go to the tip and fill up rubbish there, thereby getting paid for not doing the work.

When the British said "But don't you care about your nation" they just laughed, and said, "Only care about Al-Sadr, only clean my tribes area.

But to blame us is madness, this is the best opportunity they'll ever get. They owe us their souls.

The only hope for a partial truce/peace in Iraq is for the occupying troops to withdraw and the three main tribes/sects have their own boundries so they can live independently within those bounds.
Then they will probably keep on sniping at each other as they always have done but it is no business of outsiders.
There will never be a true democracy in the Middle East, democracy will never fit in with Islam and only a fool would expect it .

Aspiring politicians and foreign ministers could do worse than to read Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly". In her book she describes how politians have gone against clear and repeated evidence that it is not in their interest to go to war in Vietnam or pull the Trojan horse within their walls.

A magnanimous leader would admit their mistake and would try to rectify it. However;

Bush will just keep on the same course and leave it till the next president clean up. He already admitted this a few weeks ago.

Blair is trying desperately to focus his legacy on preventing global warming and third world poverty.

Howard doesn't seem to be doing anything in this regard, perhaps he is planning to challenge Menzies term. As things are now he'll go down in history as the man who killed the Australian dream, where few can afford their own home or have any job security.

If you view it a little differently: Just think, near 8 million Iraqis voted for democratic governance, and now there are 2 and a bit million nut cases from all over the Middle East that want to destroy you and them. Really, you could say without any doubt Australian Society is sounding nearly the same.
But one thing, in the Iraqi Constitution, they say who does and does not migrate there, so who has the more civilized governance potential.
The Violence is pure and simple “Tribal”.
Read this well thought out article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0327/p09s01-coop.html

I note with some sorrow those posts listing fear of the Middle east, the yellow peril of to-day, as reson. Please read some history following the West's actions there and read of the Arabs fight for their hegemony bit like the West's.
The question surely is whether making excuses and then going to war, we were the agressors, as was the actions of the past See Quigley Ruses for War, is still the fashion. That is the morality suggested by the UN is no more. Perhaps there was no morailtyy just a tired beggarded populace who sort the simplicity and pipe dream of ethical behaviour. Howard as well as the American's with their century opt for the old style big power dominance. This means as many killed and hurt as now, makes the news papers content! The weeping wife the dismembered kid what drama! warming and heart rendering.
Or can we again try for a better world, really try I mean we vocalise enough . See the many strands denying the fixity of gene expression in human behaviour and the role of social perhpas early brain imprinting Foreign Affairs January/February 2006 "A Natural History of Peace' amongst others.
What a naive unfashionable thought I say old chap do grow up!

The only person who could control Iraq was a ruthless dictator like Saddam,but then we would be all whinging about him gassing and murdering his own people.

Face it,the place is feral with stupid religious ideology and the Yanks haven't got the will or the ruthlessness spirit to match what they are facing.Iraqis have been fighting for centuries.Nothing has changed.

Divide the place into three separate religious ideologies as it was pre-British invasion.It will take decades if not centuries for true civilisation to evolve.So lets stop the hand wringing ,scapegoating and look at practical solutions.

Here are a few quotes -

"I had to kill him Sarge, he would have grown up to be a Commie" - Sgt Rock, comic book soldier in Vietnam

"Terror is the War of the Poor, War is the Terror of the Rich" - Peter Ustinov.

"Right is always right, even if no-ones doing it. Wrong is always wrong, even if everybody's doing it"

I think the truth lies somewhere among these sentiments.

The bottom line is that people are dying to make the world safe for Haliburton and so that some Arab can enjoy a Big Mac in downtown Baghdad. Going to war for the US is an insurance premium that Howard thinks we need to pay so we can enjoy ongoing economic and political favors.

Here are a few quotes -

"I had to kill him Sarge, he would have grown up to be a Commie" - Sgt Rock, comic book soldier in Vietnam

"Terror is the War of the Poor, War is the Terror of the Rich" - Peter Ustinov.

"Right is always right, even if no-ones doing it. Wrong is always wrong, even if everybody's doing it" - Unknown

I think the truth lies somewhere among these sentiments.

The bottom line is that people are dying to make the world safe for Haliburton and so that some Arab can enjoy a Big Mac in downtown Baghdad. Going to war for the US is an insurance premium that Howard thinks we need to pay so we can enjoy ongoing economic and political favors when the New World Order is achieved.

Could well agree with Gary Brown and most of the insightly commentaries. As one of a group of oldies who try to find the answers back in history, I recently got very interested in an article from Google called "The Nine Paths of Global Citizenship" edited by Doug McGill. Though it does give impressions concerning the Paths to Reason, Faith, Democracy. Humanity, Ecology, Free Trade, Feminism, Corporatism, and Perennialism, it seems Reason and Faith are the pair to which the rest are linked.

It is so interesting that McGill chooses Socrates as the patron saint of reason, and Albert Schweitzer the Patron Saint of Faith.

But the chosen pair are so far apart in history that Socrates should be the choice. Why, because though he never ever wrote a word, his talks or teachings came from deep within, as quoted by Plutarch. And so fitting regarding our political and global socio-political problems of today, because Socrates talked about one world, as we might talk about globalisation and one system of democratic thought.

It is also critical that among his Socratic reasoners, McGill chooses Immanuel Kant, who in opposition to his later German contemporary, Wilhem Hegel, chose peaceful negotiation as a social cleanser while Hegel chose war as the cleanser of the soul. It is interesting also that many late 19th century Westerners, both economic and political became avid followers of Hegel. Some researchers say, in fact, that Hegel helped promote both Nazism as well as Stalinistic Marxism.

I think the point that many on these pages don't seem to understand is that International Law has set out quite a deal about what is and what is not acceptable behavior, and when it is or is not permissable to invade another country.

Has Australia been implicated and partaken in an illegal war?

Please read this from the International War Crimes Tribunal regarding the first Gulf War. The Bush mentioned is Ex President Bush Senior.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim3.htm#find

The biggest problem for the future is that if a country uses flawed or wrong intelligence to invade another country for whatever reason ... then other countries may use the same precedent to do the same in the future. International Law is therfore weakened through countries defying it.

In the big wide world of the International community "do as I say not as I do" just doesn't cut it.

If Australia is a signatory to these International Laws members of our Govt. may be brought before the tribunal at some future date to face charges if this war is in fact deemed illegal.

As can be seen from the rulings of the tribunal and the basis for those rulings the point that Hussein is allegedly a murderous dictator may not be grounds enough to go to war....

Please read this to find out more about International Law and War Crimes and why it was introduced.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm

Bushred - Part Two

As the above Socratic theorem leans much towards democracy, it is so important that McGill chooses an American, Woodrow Wilson, who was the original founder of the League of Nations. However, McGill who groups Socratic reasoners together when he brings in Woodrow Wilson as the founder of the League of Nations, fails to mention Immanuel Kant, who was grouped earlier among McGill's Socratic reasoners.

Indeed, Immanuel Kant is so important historically, being well known as the one so disgusted with Napoleon breaking the Enlightenment code of Liberty Equality and Fraternity, that he wrote a thesis on a Perpetual Peace achieved through a Federation of Nations, the idea from which both the League of Nations and the United Nations were devised according to most historians.

Further, in relation to the above, in his Path to Democracy, McGill quotes Jonathen Schell, who argues in his “Unconquerable World” that the string of non-violent revolutions that occurred in the late 20th century in the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, South Africa, South Korea and other countries is evidence that America’s present very active military and imperial dominance as the way to democratise problem nations like Iraq, goes against the grain of the obvious successes of modern people power.

Finally, it also must be emphasised, that the strength of such people power, as proven, is not generally related totally to the ballot, but similar to the 1688 Glorious Revolution in Britain, which behind the scenes was strongly influenced by the English philosopher John Locke, still a very popular historical figure in the US of A.

Finally, we are reminded how Chris Patten in his popular book, "Not Quite the Diplomat" gives reminder of the different America that initiated the wonderful Marshall Plan than the US we are witnessing right now. The problem is the thesis would take as lengthy a book as Chris Petten wrote, rather than the space allotted here.

George C, WA - Bushbred

The three wise monkeys have got us in to this mess, not being able to see past their ideology, now we are in it has become a war we are vunable to retreat from.

They have opened a tin of worms, which will take the lives of our sons and daughters, for oil. Good on you those who agree with them, "there are none so blind, as those who will not see>"

America will not leave the Middle East until every drop of Texas tea is sucked out of the sand. Iran (pop 68 million) has 18 million trained military or reservists so it won't be the pushover that Iraq was supposed to be. Britian is already recording increased levels of uranium fallout in its country as a result of Bushs' war against the poor. R I P Democracy.

Great gutsy article. After the Blair visit and the sycophantic media coverage here I am absolutely disgusted with this coalition of the willing charade. The Australian's coverage and their chastizing of Beazley for being 'out of step' was the worst of it.

Wow. Some really moronic ideas out here.
Let's see. I guess people like Gary Brown would have been much happier leaving the Iraqi people to rot in oppression and murder under Saddam, with far higher deaths than today.

I guess people like Gary would prefer that people only got the media's bad news from iraq round up, as opposed to the many good news stories the main stream media never cover.

I guess people like Gary would like us to cut and run and leave Iraq to spiral out of control costing a lot more lives.

Heaven forbid taking a risk to help the millions of Iraqi's that were tortured and brutalised under Saddam to have a chance to forge their own country.

The anti iraq crowd countinues to blather as if their opinion is moral. Really, all it is is cowardice and selfishness

Alan Grey

If the US found it in their hearts and souls to cut and run (and quite rightly so we might add!) from Vietnam, is it not but a matter of time before Bush and his misguided power-brokers in the Pentagon learn from history and orchestrate a similar cut and run from Iraq?

Well Gary...Seems we have changed from a two hump camel to a one hump camel in the desert of politics. Well done, dumb down and get on side?
'Bout time!

Allan,

Even though I am against the war and remain against it as it was sold to us based on false intelligence I also realise that to leave without a detailed exit strategy would also be wrong. Can we ever trust intelligence delivered to us by a politician again?

As a country who is a member of the so called "coalition of the willing" we must take responsibility and attempt to solve the onging problems that this war has created. We also must stay supportive of our soldiers who have been ordered into harms way based on this faulty intelligence.

It would be wrong of us to leave the Iraqi civilian population at the hands of the insergents and war lords in what will probably develop into a civil war. The only strategy I can think of is to continue to train Iraqi's to defend Iraq and then to pull back to a distance where we can deploy our troups at short notice for a time until we know things are under control. None of this however was considered by our Govt before we said yes to the war.

I don't know where you get your statistics but I suspect that there have been more deaths from the wars than Suddams tyranical rule, if you know otherwise I'd like to know them. Remember regime change was never the reason for the war - our politicians assured us of this!

To label debate "cowardess" just because it disagrees with your thoughts is a little perplexing. Fighting for improved principles is hardly cowardess it might just be the most patriotic thing we can do.

"The pen is mightier than the sword and the keypad is like the pen"

Were Aussie digger lives saved by bringing them home from Vietnam.... Yes! Was it cowardly to bring them home?

Read this article.... http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661

and this article ... http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/publishednews.html

By saying "we" must set to rights the wrongs "we" have caused in Iraq, "we" are still guilty of interference in Arab affairs.
I am quite sure that whatever procedure is installed in their countries, it will be uninstalled if it suits them.
Coalition troops should be withdrawn immediately and the Arabs left to sort their affairs out to their own satisfaction.
They are going to do it anyway so why waste time, money and more lives on a useless struggle.

All wars are a battle of resources. For people like Bush, Blair, Hussien, Howard, terrorists' manipulaters (supposedly leaders)- people are just another resource to be used to further their own agendas. Choosing from US appointed stooges is not true democracy. And who says that the Iraqi culture even wants democracy? Is Kuwait really democratic? When Iraq is "democratic" can it legitmately invade Kuwait to spread the great good of US style "democracy". Give these grubs a four x two with a four inch nail in the end, put them in a paddock and let them make their warfare a little more personal and real and we will see how keen they are to go to war.

Hanging around car parks and colleges coercing eighteen year old boys and girls to go to war is more criminal than anything Peter Hicks has done. For every boy or girl who comes home in a body bag the person who enlisted them should be held accountable. War is wrong. The world cannot afford to waste lives and resource on this stupidity. War is wrong. Always has been always will be. Fight,fight you'll never win. (Bubbles)

To the post that said Iran has 18 million troops, are you serious?

Iran is a very weak nation, the planes they have are trashy French jets from the 1970's. They, like all middle-eastern nations, are all talk.

Weak, unwilling to fight, cowards. Remember all the marches of old women, threatening to die for Saddam?

Same thing. Special surveys are done in Iran regularly by western military powers, all show that around 80% absolutely detest the Iranian government.

Wouldn't you? They are people too, you know.

They want freedom like the rest of us, there are underground Christians who can't practice because the Islamic lunatics who run Iran are arseholes.

When Israel attacks the nuclear sites, in about six months at most I believe, Iran will crumble.

They won't even strike back!

Their new president is a fool who will destroy his nation, and if you listen to the backroom guys who talk at the U.N, they all want to assasinate him.

The only problem, and in typical Muslim style, the Iranians have put their nuclear bases in built up areas so that the attackers look evil for killing kids.

Really, does anybody but the despicable lovers John Pilger & Noam Chomsky buy that?

Oh, for all you Chomsky lovers out there, I hope you are real fans, who actually read his books instead of just holding them at UNI so your trendy!

He actually defended the war crimes of the Pol-Pot regime, and even leftists turned their backs on him. So you're all following a fraud!

Benjamin,
On Chomsky, I had not heard of until you mentioned, has his critics also, as I do learn a little on these friendly chats. I used the best of search engines, Google, and found the fans, and the critics., of this aged sage. He has at least one critic in the name of Keith Windschuttle, another Academic that I was quiet ignorant of, at least I have learned a little from tonight’s reading. To me, the UN. Is just another Bill my government subscribes too, with taxpayers money.

I agree with Opinionated2 that a disorderly pullout from Iraq would be disastrous. This would accelerate the move into full-blown civil war.

The Iraqi security forces (including the army) have proven themselves enthusiastic killers of their own people. Thus handing over security duties to the Iraqis would be an abrogation of the Coalition's responsibility for starting the Iraqi conflict in the first place.

So a negotiated peace between the warring sides should be the priority.

As other posters have said, a partition of the country seems to be the only long term "solution".

Pet

I street protested against the war in Iraq, wrote to the PM said history would prove him to be a poor leader, and that I wouldn’t be duped by him playing on people’s fears. Mailed that terrorist fridge magnet package back to him too. I wasn’t going to be played for a fool.

The Iraq war stunk to high Heaven, no way did I think it was justified. Afganistan sure, but Iraq ? WMD's c'mon! I thought my government was treating me with contempt - hiding the real reasons for their participation in the war with the WMD smokescreen. I was very angry.

This was before I learned anything at all about Islam.

This was before I bothered to brush up on the religious drivers behind Islamic jihad.

If the US hadn't taken the fight to the jihadis, it would be taken to us I'm sure about this now. The more I learn the more I am grateful for the US once again! This time at the start of the 21st century. Trust me I didn't want to have to admit that.

My anti americanism was just an adolescent whine.

The actions in Iraq have delayed by a few years some of the worst we can expect from this seismic shift in global politics.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5345

You remember Nasser and the Suez debacle, it was the US that completely opposed England’s attempt to reinforce their colonial interests. The US doesn’t care for global hegemony like some balloon heads claim. They care about the US and protecting themselves from ppl who hate them. (Lots of ppl hate America its has what they don’t)

It was only when some planes were flown into their buildings and killed all those thousands of ppl that they did something.

So they choose to fight over there instead of on home soil, good luck to them. Leaving Iraq won’t appease, asking nicely won’t appease, Islam must dominate the globe or it is a false religion – “come to success” is the call to prayer in Islam. What is Islam if the US #1 and not them?

It seems a few of our Poster people need to grow up, or take on more insightly reading, especially concerning the Middle East right back just after the end of WW1, when TE Lawrence was betrayed by by his own High Command during the Treaty of Versailles, his compatriots, mostly Iraqis losing out to British colonial greed, but then promised what turned out to be an Indian-style Dyarky democracy, the Iraqis having to be quietened down in 1925, with ten thousand Iraqi deaths after being bombed with mustard gas, by means of the gallant British Royal Flying Corps.

Just more unnecessary historical pap, some of our contributors might say. But the point about it is, that such historical pap, is re-written time and time again in each newer version of Middle East history, mostly to prove from genuine historians how we never ever seem to learn by our mistakes.

There our UK brothers are into Iraq again for the third or fourth time after getting kicked out since WW2, this time the Brits and us Aussie brothers acting as lap-dogs to our American Anglophilic cousins, all trying to speak the Queen’s good English.

Blimey, reading all that was hard going.
A few cold-war warriors still plug away pointlessly...
I know this sounds condescending, but I'm part of the elite so it's in character. Forget all the crazed internet links, find a few good books or personal contacts from which to learn directly about Iraq, its history & cultures, how and why the Iraqis responded to the invasion the way they did, and especially how and why the inept aftermath encouraged the fundamentalists. Especially try to understand why so many who welcomed the fall of Saddam so quickly changed into resistance fighters.
The information's readily available from enough sources to get close to the truth.
And us ancients hoped the US had learned from the Vietnam experience...
It's obvious why the US invaded and why it will continue its hegemony in the middle east whatever the outcome of the resistance in the next few years. Those bases all positioned so close to the borders with Iraq's neighbours should provide one clue. My best guess at present is that they'll withdraw in stages with reducing complement to some or all of them as security slowly improves. They'll try to maintain a presence of some kind - permanently if possible.
Lies have been the essence of politics all my life, and I'm old.
A good rule is - ask yourself who'll benefit from this behaviour and how. Then you'll understand why. The wily old journalist who confronted George last week with the insistent question, "Just why did we invade Iraq?" knew the answer, but George just couldn't bring himself to address it directly. An embarrassing moment, but pure politics.

Again an insightly historian might say with such a dog’s breakfast going on in Iraq, with the Shias whom the Anglo triology had promised to save from Saddam, really burning now with venom against the Brits, Yanks and Aussies. However, Saddam’s Sunnis, whom George W’ was sure he’d done in after three months campaign, have now proven to be even better suicide bombers than bin Laden’s terrorists. Further, the Yanks and Brits are now in such a fuddle with the Murdoch media having to turn out more spin, the Yanks have been offering Saddam’s former Sunni officer caste jobs in the new Iraq, and not low-scale positions either. But nothing new with the Americans, seeing they had called the Sunnis their buddies during Saddam’s attack on Iran in 1981. Supplied them with chemical weapons besides. But that’s all just another Middle Eastern true story about the dupings of the good old US of A.

We could well wonder what a modern Shakespeare could volumise about Iraq since WW1. Or better still, since BC times, when Mesopotamia along with Egypt pretty well held the authority as the seat of world intellect.

Of course, Georgy boy Bush, happened to know this too despite his proven low mentality. That was why he told his doughboys not to worry about the Iraqi lower-class ratbags stealing from and trying to wreck the priceless Baghdad museum. But Georgie Boy might have been well up to it when he agreed the Iraqis now had to forget that the museum held relics concerned with a glorious past, because the young Iraqis now needed to learn about the great American Way. But we could well reckon our modern Willy Shakespeare looking at Iraq right now, would have very grave doubts about the American Way.

Yes, Shakespeare would have really had a ball about Iraq alone, apart from Israel and Iran, especially with Saddam and George W’ as the main characters. And, better still, with the spin-weaving Condy Rice as the femme fatale.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Martin,

After 711 the Bush Admin deliberately took actions based on falsified intelligence and has destabilized the world further.

In other posts you claim to be Christian - So let's look at some of the Christian values these self proclaimed Christians showed - They used falsified evidence in the UN..., They lied and continued to lie, they used false testimony to link Hussein to Bin laden, and they covert Iraqs belongings... oil, they have used torture, and they have kept people in camp x-ray without trial outside USA laws.

Can they proclaim and Christian values through these examples?

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661

Note the bit in this article that said they might have disguised a U2 plane. Is it legal to deliberately set someone up to start a war? Is this Christian? What stops others from using similar tactics?

Your final line "they choose to fight a war over there... good on them" Can you point me to the passage from Jesus that says this is acceptable?

What made the west strong was that we are supposed to be better than this through Christian values.

The Bush Admin used terms like good Vs evil to blind people, and they pretend to have Christian values to get people onside.

Sorry but their actions have increased their enemies not reduced them. The fact that their propoganda has worked on you doesn't change things it just proves lying works.

Islam isn't weakened by the US actions ... it is only angered more...

Judaism and Islam are "eye for an eye" religions and guess what ... that is how they think... look at the Middle East. If you do some more reading you may find that you have been swayed far too easily.

Remember that Hussein and Bin Laden both used to be associates of the USA. Was it Christian to turn a blind eye to Hussein's despotic rule when he was allegedly "a fried"?

Please don't think I am anti American ... I am not ... but I am certainly not for their Admins actions in creating the disaster that is Iraq.

I admit the US has never been too smart. But its not calculating and manipulative.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GF21Aa01.html

Henery. Are you religious? Without a theological understanding much of what is happening will be lost on you. Eg Bush’s and the Islamist’s self understanding. We ought to just go by what they say. This is what Opinionated2 is rightly doing. Judging the US Admin by what they have said.

Henery I believe if you filter everything through the lens of mere power politics you miss much. Humans are much more than that. History revolves around religion for good or for ill.

Bases didn’t motivate the US to enter WW1, WW2, Vietnam. What bases do they need in Iraq? After Desert Storm they high tailed it out of there when the ‘spoils’ were on offer. It was the US who acted in Sarajevo and Kosovo – when Europe was too weak to do anything.

Cambodia and Latin America were terrible examples of US foreign policy. Being friends with Hussein and Bin Laden was dumb but you have to put it into the cold war context. Hussein’s secular regime must have seemed like the best chance for local freedom c.f. Iran’s theocracy. Dumb though.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC14Ak02.html

“Pacifism is fine as long as one is prepared to be subjugated” GK Chesterton. Opinionated you don’t believe everything would have been fine if the Allies didn’t sacrifice their blood to fight evil do you? Life is sacrifice – Our Lord taught us that. Many don’t like God’s idea that love has to cost something and refuse to sacrifice for anything greater than themselves.

A man who goes by the nom de guerre Spengler is an excellent geo-political journalist. You could do much worse than go read him.

The US were nicely fixated on themselves until 9/11, similar thing happened at Pearl Harbour. Yet they were still attacked. What was America doing wrong then? It can’t win. Damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t.

Though the US has been dumb, I think sometimes there can be dumb luck.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB28Ak02.html

Spengler is right again here.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD04Ak02.html

I didn't really know how to answer your last post Martin but here goes.

Martin you typed "I admit the US has never been too smart. But its not calculating and manipulative."

Did you actually read the bit about the U2 spy plane painted in UN colours in the article at
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661

Would you call that calculating or manipulative?

You asked "... you don’t believe everything would have been fine if the Allies didn’t sacrifice their blood to fight evil do you?

Answer of course not everything wouldn't have been fine if WW2 hadn't happened. There are times when you need to fight ... Hitler was one of the most despotic rulers in history who's aim it was to control the world along with his Italian & Japanese allies. He killed 6 million innocent people.

Even though Hussein was also a despotic ruler, the evidence we were told, that was used to justify the war was wrong. Now if these self proclaimed Christians are going to lie to us to start a war what else could these people get up to?

The American people don't even trust Bush these days.... funny that, especially as he claims to be a Christian. The majority of the US people are saying we don't trust our Christian leader.

See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/eveningnews/main1005982.shtml

Read http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

If people who claim to be Christians are prepared to lie or exaggerate to start a war then we had better start worrying because we can no longer trust what made the west strong.

In effect haven't we become as bad as the bad guys we are supposed to be fighting?

Well apart from that Gary did you see the article in the Canberra Times on Wednesday that Defence had yet again buggered up a DMO contract, this time the Euro Copter Tiger, as totally predicted at the Senate Inquiry into the DMO about three years ago. What is the vernacular phrase, pissing in the wind?