Hi Trueaussie,

Sorry you missed my sarcasm mate. Obviously wars are never won. Regardless of the result everybody loses. I have no nostalgia for war, only repugnance and horror.

The point is that invading another country is always a failure. Look at Afghanistan's history for example. Over thousands of years they have been invaded, attacked, crushed so many times you wonder how there are still Afghani's. What they have done historically is simply retreat into the mountains and wait until the invaders leave or relax and they are back in their own country. It just doesn't work, never has, never will unless the invaders actually stay permanently and populate that country.

What's your proposal re Iraq? Stay forever? Kill everybody and repopulate it with non Iraqi's? When will "the job" be done? What will be your measure of an end to that situation? Tell us please as the reality is there can be no other result but the US, and us as followers, leaving Iraq and the people to whatever their fate holds.

You know as well as I that regardless of when the US etc leave the whole region will descend in turmoil and someone similar to Saddam will appear. It's looking like El Sadyr to me.

Which makes the whole exercise pointless don't you think? So why stay? Of course going should never have happened but it did. The problem now is how to get out at all, let alone with anything resembling peace.

How “get out”?

Simply. Would Australian contingent stay in Iraq as US and Britons march out?

Mr Bagaric's 'loyalty' obviously only applies to the US. Where is Australia's loyalty to the West Papuans, who paid a very high price for helping diggers fight the Japanese in WWII? Where is the loyalty to the Vietnamese unfortunate enough to support the series of puppet governments fronting for the French and Americans up to when we 'cut and run'?

The US needs Australia as a usefully placed and nicely endowed 52 state, essential to the Full Spectrum Dominance that is official US Defence Dept policy. Australia needs the US like a fish needs a six-ship factory fishing fleet. Better we learn to get on with our neighbours (suggestion: stop collaborating with corrupt officals in stripping of natural resources) and quit sucking up to the planetary thug.

Aquarivs - yes, I was mentioning that America didn't enter world war two until after pearl harbor.

There's a few things you're conveniently ignoring here.

You're saying that the US would be jus as criticised for adopting isolationist policy as it is for interventionist. There's something to that, but take note of these points:

WW2 was a little different to the middle eastern wars. You can say 'coalition of the willing' all you like, but essentially it was the US that sparked and waged this war. WW2 embroiled all of Europe and most of Asia, then North America as well.

Secondly - compared to the current administration, the Clinton regime could be called isolationist. Why is at that anti-American sentiment is running at an all time high when they adopt an interventionist stance?

If it was really about spreading democracy, why is it always the middle east and close south american neighbours that get the interventionist treatment? Why is Africa ignored?

Make no mistake aquarivs - the anti american sentiment is about hypocrisy and failure, not a cut and dry interventionist approach.

TurnRightThenLeft
Make no mistake my personal understanding of politics goes beyond popular opinion. Every nut job with an axe to grind is out in full force the day after the election and it does not matter who or which party is elected. No honest leader is going to pass him or herself off as capable of being all things to all interest. They declare themselves prior to election and if elected go about their plans and policies. But no one today actually gets elected by the general public, I doubt they ever did. They get elected by special interest groups and lobbyist and old guard politicos. And whether you or I like it or not they are not lobbying for the individual politician. They are lobbying for reward and further influence. Government is give and take and our leaders have to give a lot to the takers in order to afford to do one good thing for the common voter and the general good of the public.
But since the average citizen gets the political spin of the haters and the attackers more so than an unbiased reporting on the issue I personally understand their lack of interest and any enthusaism, patriotic spirit or loyalty. Attack, belittle, tear down, smear, ridicule, undermine, and tell half the story and go for emotional punch rather than tell the real story. Grab the headline. It's not your politicians that think the general population is stupid. It's the news media. Sadly their view is readily accepted.