I would be more impressed if the Australian Laboe party started to take an interest in the welfare of the citizens of West Papua, but then, West Papua has no oil and the Indonesians do.

Lindsay, are you reading this thread? If so, maybe you could respond.

Before the invasion of Iraq, so many of us knew that it principally boiled down to the control of strategic oil supplies and their relationship to the value of the US dollar - and therefore the maintenance of the status quo. Any fool with an internet connection and a little technical knowlege knew that the excuses given by Powell were unlikely at best - just plain lies at worst.

Only two lone dissenting voices spring to my mind in the run-up to the invasion.

The first was Andrew Wilkie. The desire to tell the truth trumped his loyalty to the cabal of secret-mongers.

The second was Mark Latham, who began to speak the truth out loud, before he was swept aside by "circumstances". George Bush is indeed the most dangerous president in US history, but he pales in comparison to his handlers.

So where do we go to for some plain godawful truth?

Is resistance useless?

Can we even hope for a soft landing while we are joined to a criminal conspiracy hell bent on world domination?

Truth in politcis is a rare commodity

- we know we are not in Iraq to curb their WMD capability and we know we are not there because Iraq was a terrorist stronghold -

when compared to parts of the Phillipines Syria and Lebanon for example even then their international aspirations are more rhetoric -Iraq was a benign military and political cot case - and it looks like it is destined to stay that way for quite some time

we can only ever guess at the real reason we are there; maybe it was oil, I hang my hat on revenge - at least when it comes to the USA. As for the rest of us it is purely self interest and not wanting to put the US off side.

The argument about democracy is pure BS - the West has tried to strangle the elected government of Palestine - becuase it hates Hamas more than it respects the principles of democracy

Truly independant nation states either never joined the COW or have long since cut and run - a far braver course of action than most think

The article sums up the anti-war position clearly enough.

Chris there were considerably more than two dissenting voices prior to the invasion. The size of the crowd that took to the streets was the largest since Vietnam. Howard's response? He won't be swayed by 'the mob'.

Nope, we're there because we're lapdogs, or at least because our government is content to see us, and have us seen, as that much. Most Iraqis, when asked, see no good reason for Asutralia to be involved. The only comfort to be gained now is that most Australians, when asked, say the same thing.

You are pretty well spot on, Lindsay. Certainly it has mostly been a case of neo-colonialism, and some mixed up Biblical tale about a Promised Land for the good and disposal for those who are not good. Trouble is in the older God's eyes the Muslims could be on the good side as well.

In more modern times there has been the different marketeering slogans causing millions of non-whites to be slaughtered. Apart from gold and silver, in more piratical times, first the spice and tobacco economy, then the tea and coffee economy, now the oil and gas economy, which looks like will break the record with killings made in the name of freedom and the market economy.

Will we ever wake up? Gandhi tried to show us how, as did Nelson Mandela, and possibly Pope John. But looks like Zionist led regime change and the Plan for the American 21st century along with US unipolar rights to be the only one with military might, could still make a horrible mess of things.

All one can say if there really is a sensible God somwhere up there, please give someone out of the global crowd the insight and commonsense to fix it all without dropping a bomb, or firing a shot.

Tanner's piece is as short of positive proposals as it is long on Schadenfreude. He is even massively wrong with the headline.

The question is not "...the same as it always was: why are we in Iraq?" It is "how do we stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution?"

It is one thing to beat ones breast and wail about what a mistake it all was (and it was), but entirely another to propose a practical, workable and realistic solution. So far, all the opponents of Howard's strategy (follow the US) have been able to do is make cheap political points. And with the debacle that exists, making cheap political points at Howard's expense is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Since it is not possible to erase the past and start again, would it not be a really neat idea for these pieces to start "Iraq was a big mistake. Now let's work out what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people and make that our target."

Even determining "what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people" is a mammoth task, but that is not a good reason to ignore it.

Part of me wants to let the three factions simply get on with killing each other, but another part says that is inhumane. Unfortunately I am not a well-paid and super-featherbedded politician with all the time in the world to ponder these highly important issues. Nor do I have a massive department of public servants beavering away in the background working out fresh initiatives and exciting, radical and dynamic (*choke*) proposals

But I do know I could write a more constructive piece than Mr tanner.