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!