The IPA: the institute of one-dimensional man and his one dimensional "reason". The champion of the white man was born to rule arrogance. Let us help you and tell you about "jesus" and our genocidal angry war god while we steal all of your resources and destroy your culture. Apologists for Empire.

I much prefer this assessment of the situation in Iraq.

www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=160594

"Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd was accurate when he said that the implication of the Prime Minister's remarks was that the Democratic Party of the US was effectively the preferred party of terrorists."

The thing is, the Democratic Party IS the preferred party of terrorists. They have said so.

On the 2006 election..
"The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel," the terror leader said. "So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections." - Abu Ayyub al-Masri, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq

The answer to your title, John, might have easily been cleared up
with an expansion of your later question - why was Iraq preferred by the Alliance rather than the more humanistic problem in Sudan.

The question must surely be answered by what some call Western wheeler-dealerism, like colonialism, better described as a proffered Bible indicating goodness - and a loaded six-gun in the other hand behind the back indicating the real intention - Western penetration and influence for gain.

Mubarek of Egypt not so long ago termed it Western intrusion and injustice in the Middle East.

It means that the promised democracy wiil surely be patterned on what was called in the 1920s Dyarky Democracy or double-rule, which today will be run from the White-House with representative commissioners or commissars, matching every strategic Iraqi government position.

To be sure bin-Laden would have strong knowledge of such an outcome, as would have most of his terrorist followers. Not that we have to be non-patriotic about it, it just happens to be logical of what we might call the American Historical Way, or rather the Amerigo - Britannica Way

Me again.
Once upon a time the theft and plunder of western imperialism was justified with the lies of bringing "jesus" and civilization to the "godless" "heathens" and "barbarians".

Now the justification is "freedom" and "democracy". Funny how these terms werent intially used to justify the USA invasion of Iraq.
Bringing "jesus" to everyone in the Middle East is also an important factor in the equation. Chillingly so if it is considered within the context of the "end-time" Left Behind pyschosis subscribed to by millions of dreadly sane Americans.

But the principle reason for the invasion of Iraq was always PLUNDER. I remember reading a fascinating article which laid out in precise detail about how this exercise in grand theft was (and is to be) engineered.It had much to do with the "constitution" put in place by Paul Bremer. I have forgotten the author and reference. However the author argued that altogether the plunder of the resources of Iraq was the largest and most rapid grand theft ever undertaken in history.

Please GOOGLE this reference which will give you some idea of what and how: Kevin Zeese American Chronicle Corporate Us Takeover of Iraq Economy.

Ah the wonders of "freedom" and the "rule of law"!

In the dentist's waiting room this morning I saw a short excerpt of Tony Abbott in "conversation" with Julia Gillard on this topic.

He said, in a highly condescending manner and with a facial expression that could easily be construed as a sneer, words to the effect that "We don't walk away from our mates"

Unfortunately this seems to be the limit of his intellectual engagement with the problem, and presumably that of his government colleagues.

We are badly missing any form of statesmanship on this.

There is in fact a strong case to be made for Australian troops continuing to engage in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as indeed there is a strong case for their withdrawal.

All we are fed, however, is slogans and political posturing.

We are held in such contempt by our political leaders that we cannot be trusted to comprehend either the complexity of the issue, or the difficulty of reaching a solution.

Let alone a solution that can be compacted into a single sentence, which would literally be a miracle.

We will know that we have strong, reliable and courageous leadership in this country the moment we hear either of the following sentences:

"We made some mistakes in Iraq. We had the best of intentions, but we misjudged the complexities of bringing together the different factions after the main conflict with Saddam Hussein. The most important thing is not to waste our energies making excuses or laying blame, but to come to grips with a difficult task in a humane and sensitive manner."

or:

"The Government undoubtedly made some mistakes in Iraq. They may have had the best of intentions, but I believe they misjudged the complexities of bringing together the different factions after the main conflict with Saddam Hussein. The most important thing is not to waste our energies laying blame on individuals, the government as a whole, or even our American allies, but to come to grips with a difficult task in a humane and sensitive manner."

Chances of hearing any of this?

Buckleys.

If I were advising either side, those are the words that I would advise them to use Pericles, but I think you're right, neither will. Our research consistently shows that people are longing for someone to bring the Australian community together. While I think that Rudd is currently odds-on to win the next election (and not just because the betting markets say so), I also think he could quite easily lose. The reason is that he basically plays conventional politics which centres around them and us.

A Bob Hawke could have said the words that you've penned. So too could a Peter Beattie. But not Rudd or Howard.

For me the pity about the whole issue is that no matter whether you agreed with the war in the first place or not, it happened. I don't think not having voted for the war absolves one of the responsibility for it. Which means we can't just say - not my war and I'm going home.

Which doesn't mean that you can be there for ever either, just that the important issue isn't staying or leaving, it is stabilising and helping the recovery of the country that we have injured.