Fine except that this was an aggressive war from the outset, a crusade.
Based on what?
The history of the American century and its players. The revelations of the Downing Street Memorandum, the Rycroft document because he was the signatory of this British Cabinet Document.
This showed that the evidence for going to war was in fact meagre and that propaganda, required to bring a reluctant electorate on side was skewed to emphasise the more fearful Oif imagined aspects, and the righteousness of the cause, a dichotomy of good and evil. This has continued following the consequences of the war only now it is the Terrorists (a name for people who individually do what in this and Vietnam the generals did from on high not strapping exposives to their soldiers)
Australia is not listed in the document. However it seems unlikely we were uninformed given our commitment to the USA Sept 2001 (ANZAS) and by mid 2002 we were involved in CENT-COM the planning in the US of the war.
Agreed the paper link is not available though presumably must be in Government documents or even in muzzled public servants. Similar stone walling to that of the AWB saga. (still to conclude)

Yet we were at war on the basis of mythical weapons a fact demonstrated before the event as likely but unproven (Blix) soon to become the terrorists and links to Iran and Al Queda.
And still going to church still becoming apocalyptic at death of ours not concerned at theirs. The dichotomy continues cognitive dissonance rules. And still does, the next election will be fought on the idea of these Islamic Fascist terrorists. Belief will still rule in the honesty of media and politicians

Yes, fine, but I think it is time to move onto the next war. Australia's next military engagement.

We went into Iraq with virtually no national debate, on the basis of a phone call from Bush to Howard.

US military stategists, in planning what they have labelled the 'long war', will be working on a presumption that Australia will, without fail, without question, throw itself behind them and commit troops. We haven't dissented in 50 years, after all.

If Australians don't anticipate, then in a few years time we will be having the very same debate all over again - lamenting our engagement in Iran?, or North Koria?, or Venezuela?

Henry Reynolds would be proud of this young historian. He refers to the Iraq war as, ‘a war about which our Commonwealth Government thought too little.’ No explanation, no proof; just a bald statement.

All based on his vast experience, of course, as he moved from the schoolyard to the cloisters

Leigh,
Where are those dammed weapons of mass destruction that would kill us within 45 minutes, the reason we invaded? Have any been recovered yet? Those cruel people who said it was all about oil, shame on you.

What then Leigh is the evidence that the Government DID give the war serious thought? As is said in the article, it was supposed to be about WMDs. Howard said the government KNEW (not suspected or thought but KNEW) that Iraq had WMDs. Obviously they gave this little critical thought, because most people in the world strongly suspected the evidence was not there at all. THe government just took the flimsy intelligence as gospel, because they had already made up their mind to support Bush regardless.

The evidence that the Government gave little thought to proper justification of going to war is clear cut, for all to see - that's unless you are determined not to see it.

Actually, I think that the government did give Australia's entry into the war considerable thought and acted on the advise of a number of different agencies and organisations.

Firstly, ONA was providing what was obviously conflicting information about the WMD. One "Whistleblower" was later sacked because he stated that ONA could not substantiate US claims about WMD.

Defence, Foreign Affairs and ASIS would have been providing similar information to ONA, probably contradictory.

The crunch would have come from the Strategic Studies people. In committing to the US, Australia would be affirming an unquestioning strategic alliance. Australia's defence policy, since 1942, has been heavily dependent upon American support, not just in terms of troops on the ground, but in ancillary roles such as maintaining safe tradeways and supply routes.

In effect, the US has been Australia's defence insurance policy. Iraq was paying the premium. Unfortunately Australians have been put in harms way.

Condolences to the family of Private Kovco.

On 22 March 2003 a young man was blown to bits in Iraq by a bomb in a taxt - this marked the first ever suicide bomber in Iraq.

The mystery is that it was in the northern enclave of the Kurds and far from the shock and awe of Baghdad. The murderers of this young man were never found.

The government demonised him in the media, they tried to claim he was some sort of evil spy. In truth he was simply an excellent young journalist trying to bring the truth of the plight of the Kurds to the world when the world had forgotten.

I met him on fathers's day 2002 when he was freely filming Afghan and Iraqi refugees to take the film back to their families if he could, he was a lovely and peaceful young man who would not have hurt a fly.

Last month I saw a photo of his daughter born after his death and wept for this young man, his daughter has his eyes you see.

Beautiful, deep blue eyes looking at the world.

RIP Paul Moran, journalist, husband and father. Our first casualty in Iraq constantly and deliberately forgotten by all but his family and colleagues.

He was not even a combatant and he was trying hard to leave Iraq because his wife was pregnant.

No tears for Paul, no inquest, no investigation, no repatriation by the government - probably just as well ABC did that anyway.

Jeremy Little was the victim later of a bomb, but who cares hey? Not a soldier to be glorified by our "dear Leader" who despises any journalist who doesn't toady to him.

I do not know the latest poll of Iraqis about the "war" and following events but really to judge the effectiveness of these actions. Should we not ask them?

We can judge from Australia's perspective but it is Iraq so lets ask Iraqis.

Also "No political consequence" so far there is none as people through an election voted them in again. Eventually they might suffer something. Time and democracy will tell.

Those elusive weapons of mass destruction are very well hidden... on American soil. How blind we all are.

THERE WERE NO WMD ?

After reading (and then researching this) please let me NEVER hear again the saying "There were no WMD"......

QUOTE:
[The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.]

The 'lefy' response is typified by the following comment:

"General Sada obviously must own shares of Haliburton, bought before the war, and is all part of the conspiracy of lies of people who wanted to go to war"

NOW.. I'M GOING TO SHOUTTTTTTT THIS because I've already brought this info to the forum but it is repeatedly ignored.

1/ SADA WAS ONE OF THE PILOTS TO FLEW THE PLANES TAKING THEM !

2/ Shares in Haliburton ? Conspiracy ? Lies ? if you can research this mans testimony and still say these things, it is abundantly clear that those taking this view are in DEFinite need of psycho therapy for 'entrenched paranoia and delusion'

I guarantee that if G.Bush described a 'Duck' with feathers, webbed feet and a flat bill and goes Quack Quack -that mob would STILL call it a "conspiracy of lies and in reality it is a DOG"

CONCLUSION.

1/ THERE WERE WMD !

2/ PLO have CLAIMED they have them via Syria

3/ SADA WAS THE PILOT WHO FLEW THEM TO SYRIA AND ADMITTED IT.

For goodness sake... take those blinkers off.

David B, writing in capitals still doesn't make something true. Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, David Kay, Charles Deulfer and all the weapons inspectors have said precisely the same thing - Iraq had no WMD.

None, nada, zip and claiming they were flown to Syria is really pointless because that would mean Iraq still had no WMD. The twisted logic of the right wingers in this country is amazing.

America on the other hand used depleted uranium by the tonne, cluster bombs by the hundreds of thousands, phosphorous bombs, new age Mark 77 napalm, bunker busters, daisy cutters and all manner of weapons including new trial weapons.

Give it a rest mate - not even in this new civil war that we have wished on Iraq have any manner of WMD been used.

The rest of the world cannot be wrong David.

Ah, David you might need a bex & good lie down now. No WMD were found, and no evidence has been found they were there to start with.

Your general sounds about as reliable as that other useful idiot Chalabai. Did you belive him also? What's one man's fancies when the U.N. and U.S. found nothing? How much verfication did the NY Sun do?
Mate, you've definitely picked the wrong horse here.

The article makes a valid point regarding the absence of political consequences here in Australia. The fact a sniper got shot by his own sidearm seems to be sufficient to hold everyone's interest as the local-angle story, while the bigger picture is more or less ignored. Whether this is due to political lethargy on behalf of the elctorate, or the sheer weight of support for John Howard in the popular press (not including Fairfax) is hard to decide.

Marilyn,

Iraq did at some point have WMD. How else did they use nerve gas on the Kurds and Iranian's?

The point is at some time between using nerve gas and the US led Coalition invasion, UN Inspectors couldn't locate them. They were either destroyed (as is likely), hidden or as Boaz_David states, moved to somewhere else.

To simply state that because they aren't there now means that they were never there is simply a fallacy.

Cheers.

Narcissist, when the Iraqi regime was using those WMD on the Kurds the entire world stood by and did nothing.

Now how do you think they got those things and why on earth woutd it be acceptable to blow up Iraq 15 years afterwards?

The fact is that the weapons were all destroyed by in 1991, something the US knew.

So be pedantic if you want to go back 15 years but what is the point? When we blew up Iraq they didn't have any.

By the terms of the Nuremberg Convention, Howard should be tried at The Hague -

- for conducting and enabling an aggressive war.

- no matter what fine nuance or spin Ruddock may care to garnish our war crime with. 100,000 dead, even before the sly-boys duped them into killing one another on our behalf in their "civil war".

This is the famous Salvador Option (Google it) so beloved of Mr Negroponte (Google him). The crimes are hidden in plain view.

If there is a parallel to be imagined, then imagine us joining the Nazis to crush Poland - for such was the array of opposing forces. No heroism there - just a safe bet based on sound business judgement. We like to pick certainties.

Looking back, one sees the past with a new clarity, for this was a long time in the planning. For example, there was a constitutional sticking point. The Governor General is titular head of the armed forces, with the power of veto.

The highly principled and trustworthy GG William Dean was removed (without precedent) before his term was up. He was replaced by the compromised and malleable Hollingworth, who was disposed of once his job was done (a patsy - really neat). Now we are saddled with a military man, who will not get in the way at all.

Check the dates and timing for yourselves. Coincidence? I very much doubt it!

Let me clarify the Salvador Option for Iraq:

From the Guardian -

" The Pentagon has secretly shipped tens of thousands of small arms from Bosnia to Iraq in the past two years, using a web of private companies, at least one of which is a noted arms smuggler blacklisted by Washington and the UN.

According to a report by Amnesty International, which investigated the sales, the US government arranged for the delivery of at least 200,000 Kalashnikov machine guns from Bosnia to Iraq in 2004-05. But though the weaponry was said to be for arming the fledgling Iraqi military, there is no evidence of the guns reaching their recipient. "

The rest is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1773106,00.html

See - the crimes are hidden in plain view. Do you ever wonder how we will unseat the war mongers? Bush, Blair and Howard are themselves patsies, who put their heads in the noose for the corporate forces who thought they would open the Iraq-Mart and make a financial killing - privatise the profits and socialise the costs.

But do we have the collective nous to unravel this ball of wax, or do we go on fiddling around the edges?

The warn in IRAQ,what war?may we all assk ourseleves,as by the recorded evidence,it should be classed as a TRERRORIST ACT against the civilian population of that country,and the known ones responsible for that is the three Bush Blair and John Howard,how can this ever have been justified,as there was never any logical reason for that invasion,and speaking of John Howard,his supporters in Australia still thinks of him as one of Australia's greatest Prime Ministers,indeed a bad reflection,about the humanity of so many Australians