Agreed.
Why not indict the leaders who with the aid of compliant media lied us into Iraq? We signed the rome staute which is incorporated in our law. Showing there is no double standard may even quiet the scene a little.
The rise of terrorist ,that is them, we never are, was predicted as was the insuffienciency of tropo niumbers and post "winning" planning, now become a mire f coruption, ours.
Sure some law, which we deny in favour of 'might is right' is needed but not ours. We merely add to terror.
Why not a UN force funded by those who will not USA UK or Aust for obvious reasons? The veto ah yes problem. Sure where to find a leader perhaps of the caliber of Dag Hammerskeld whom we killed? But our efforts are negative!

From the latest current affairs programs from Iraq, the picture of what the common people have to live in, the destroyed infrastructure, lack of basic amenities, food shortage, and list goes on...and it seems to continues to remain without a general improvement...that takes planning...

When one compares this with the billions(trilliion by now) spent by coalition in Iraq, first question is how was this money spent? the answer would most probably be on the military occupation. So the common person of the coalition army, who probably gets their usual average wage, but is wearing and supported by very expensive military gear, equipment and weapons of destruction.

So the obvious assessment is that most of that money went to those who own those industries that produce those expensive military stuff and whom far away from the hot spot of death and mayhem that is now Iraq where the 'common person coalition officer' on the ground and the 'common Iraqi' face, and suffer and die in. Living in daily insecurity of life and health is a terrible stressful state...

Only issue then is the nature of connection between those in government, politics and military industry, and how these billions flowed out to them and whom...dont think this information will ever be known, if so the truth will be out there for all to see and this Iraqi war over shortly after...then criminal prosecution of those in power of authority will follow... I think if even oneninth of that money was spend in redeveloping Iraq, would lead to a happier people, and the mayhem will immediately diminish and the soldiers can start coming home...wish this is what John Howard have said...and the money ceased to the destruction industry and started flowing into the construction industry...

Sam
Ps~post war redevelopment is nothing new...eg post war germany marshall plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_World_War_II

John Howard is yesterday's man, and it's time for him to go.

The US Alliance is critical to Australian security. George Bush's term as President is in its final stage and the American voters recently sent a clear message the they will, more likely than not, elect an anti-Iraq war candidate as next President.

So why did John Howard so bitterly slag off one of the leading Democrat candidates - and therefore a possible US President? If the US Alliance is critical, who wants a PM who can't turn his head towards the future of that Alliance?

FrankGol,
I'll tell you why mate, he's losing it, he has stumbled again and again this year, we all know his own party dislike him in the words of Queensland Liberal Senator, and "hard man" George Brandis "the lying rodent" he has at last got some opposition and is not hacking the pace.

Perhaps he expects the electorate to believe that if he is knowledgeable enough to give advice to the U.S.A. on what they should or shouldn't think, that we "great unwashed" will see him as a world statesman, well that backfired badly. The diversion of a RAAF aircraft for his own private convenience on the way back from ASEAN conference, and all the years of never ever G.S.T. the 1993 election killed that policy off.

Then the radical extremeist Islamic problem "we will decide who comes here, and the circumstances under which they come" he has been there deciding for 11 years deciding who can come, and he has obviously let these people in, "in the national interest" too many lies, too much baggage,
too many things that have been left undone, $2B on a second Vietnam, while our Heath and Education systems begin to crumble. Climate change should have been addresses, he only uttered those "c" words for the first time 24 hrs after Bush in the "State of the Union" speech. He will fight, like a small man with a giant sized inferiority complex, but this time I believe he will lose narrowly.

Ratty has only one card left to play, "national security" his Govt. is getting creamed on all issues except this and economic management. He can't fight on the economy as this only strengthens Costello (who he privately hates. NSW-VIC factions of the Libs).

He did not even consult with his cabinet over his water policy (the Nats would ask too many questions).

So we will have more and more personal attacks on Rudd and Howard will slip into oblivion, even money he won't even stand at the next election.

Howard is challenging Rudd to say what will happen in Iraq if the troops leave. The truth is that noone really knows but at least the Iraqis will have to sort it out themselves. We do know that the war in Iraq has been lost, leaving the troops there just continues the deaths, the destruction and utter chaos until such time as the US accepts reality and pulls out - think Vietnam.
A majority of Iraqis want all foreign troops out of their country. A majority of Americans want their soldiers out of Iraq. So Bush's response, supported by poodle Howard is to put more troops in. Has the whole world gone crazy.