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.

The reality is that America has already lost the war in Iraq. What remains in Bush's mind is how to save face, hence the desperate "Battle of the Bulge" strategy (i.e., Bush is in Hitler's position - roughly) involved in the "surge" and in Howard's mind is desperation as he recognizes that America has lost and that he has sold Australia's birthright for a mess of pottage.

As for not deserting your mates - I do not commit myself to going along with my mates right or wrong. If my mate is about to murder someone then, according to Howard (Hammer of Baghdad), Lord Downer and His Eminence Tony Abbott, I should join in with him, especially if he asks me to because not to do so is to desert your mates.

Not this little black duck! If my mate betrays my mateship by expecting me to become complicit in his criminality then my reading of mateship is to try to convince him not to do whatever nefarious activity he proposes and then, if he persists in his intention, to walk away. Why should i make a criminal of myself out of some distorted misperception of what loyalty is about.

As to Howard's commenst about Obama, that was an unacceptable involvement of my Prime Minister in the internal politics of another State.

With a fairly strong knowledge after a study of global power balances during the Cold War, and looking at the Middle East problem from a spacial neutral position, was daring to wonder whether things could be evened up in the Middle East if Iran with its arsenal of long-range rockets, could be supllied with a few nuclear warheads, possibly from Russia or China.

With known outside knowledge, reckon things might surprisingly remain static for quite a long time, but with little Israel and Iran both right ready by their rockets.

Would give reminder of the Cold War, no doubt with Bush and his Gang ready with radar-guided anti-missile artillery.

So looks like Iran would be needing the same, again possibly from Russia or China.

As what helped to end the Cold War, and what helped to keep the Martins and M'Coys in harmony - to arm each side accordingly might be the answer for peace.

Maybe then, George Dubya would get out, taking Dicky Cheney and his oily camp followers with him, and even letting the knocked about Iraqis give away the Yankee dollar and go back on the European euro once again.

With the help of the Saudi Arabian Princes and the Saudi mullahs maybe we could even make peace between the ME Shias and Sunnis.

Some hopes, I suppose, for getting the Sunnis and Shias on speaking terms would be about the toughest part of the venture.

Which Iraq are you talking about mate? Howard's imaginary Iraq, where we train the bejesus out of people with wooden rifles? Or the one George thinks is there. You know, the one where 18 year olds from small towns in rural USA get sent to a living hell?

Or is it the one where 3 people's are supposed to get on when this doesn't happen anywhere else in the world.

Or is it the one where religions co exist peacefully, excepting the car bombs etc.

Which Iraq do you mean mate?

Of course Iraq never existed at all. The West created artificial borders some 50+ years ago and said "There you go, get into democracy, oh and by the way we're going to install a puppet leader and arm him then leave him to wipe out his enemies". And then some. You know, just like the US armed the Mujahaddin (spelling suspect). And left ehm to wipe out their enemies.

What a pathetic article coming from the IPA! The PM merely spelled out the great dangers that the defeat of the US in Iraq by sundry of murderous bandits would bring in its wake, by the withdrawal of its troops, to the West, and more specifically to Australia. The truth of this resounding evidence, is turned shamelessly by Roscam, into an emotional argument of the Prime Minister.

The fact is, that a vote for APPEASERS will not change the nature of APPEASERS toward terrorists.

See POWER POLITICS-http://power-politics1.blogspot.com

With respect, the argument by Howard and Bush that we have to stabilize Iraq before leaving is just another face saving out-of-touch-with-reality piece of nonsense.

The minute the US pulls out of Iraq (whether now or in twenty years) any "stabilization" it has left there will evaporate just like any government (like teh present one) that it has installed. Any US installed governmnet will collapse like the house of cards it is because it will not be(is not) culturally native to Iraq.

The US still does not understand what it has stirred up and, in keeping with its usual failure to comprehend anything other than US style ways, having failed (what a surprise) to install US style institutions with US values (and Bush has shown that he does not even practice the values he says he the US stands for) is now using brute force to try and impose its will. The US, unfortunately, keeps trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

The bloodshed will continue as the Iraqi factions jockey for the best position from which to fill the power vacuum that will exist (and already partially does) when teh US pulls out. Bloodshed and bloody faction will occur anyway - all we are doing is prolonging teh agony. The US is defeated in Iraq - it just does not understand that fact yet.

What a mess. I remember the late Edward Said saying on Lateline just before the Iraqi invasion that this was going to be a disaster. Boy was he right.
We now have to look into our crystal balls and see what will happen next. My prediction will be that this will turn into a Pakistan / Indian partition story, this time the protaganists will be sunni and shi'ite rather than Hindu and Muslim.
There will be a third conflict as Kurds are taken on by the Turkish Army for control of Kurdistan. This is the future that will have to happen. Too much blood has been spilt for this conflict not to happen.
If Iran and Iraq can fight for ten years and have a million killed for no result, this next conflict could outdo them all.
One solution is to realise that partition is the only answer, have it happen as quickly as possible and try to minimise bloodshed. As it stands the Tigris & Euphrates will flow with blood regardless.
BTW I have yet to see any great involvement of al-Qaeda , most conflict has been based on religious affiliations. I have the view that most Sunni violence towards Shi'ite has been labelled al-Qaeda.
A more nuanced explanation of the situation in Iraq is called for.

I have to agree with Seaweed.

The Yanks and Little Johnny won't admit that they have already lost the war. These are tribal people we are dealing with and democracy is not part of their culture. If it was, their leaders would accept concensus and compromise, but this will not happen. Power is what it is all about.

The best thing that should happen, is to go back to the three main Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd areas and let each area sort out what they want. There is going to be more bloodshed, whichever way it happens, but at least, there will be less lives lost in total as is happening while this civil war lasts.

It would appear that both the British and Australian troops have played a more successful role in stabilising the areas under their control. Perhaps this is because they do not use the "Brute force and ignorance" methods of the Yanks.

The proportionately lower casualty rate amongst our troops seems to bear witness to that, so from a strategic point of view, it might be better if the Yanks all went home and we sent a few more of ours over to show them how it should be done. (I am only half serious here)

Tony Blair has declared that he will to pull half of his Iraq troops by Christmas.

These troops are in a zone of Iraq that was now considered safe.

Our troops are in a safer zone again.

And now overnight the Daines have pulled out all their troops.

But King Rat is sending more.

I know King Rat is infautated with Georgie Boy but this getting way out of hand.

In 2003 King RAT said this:

"It is our intention to ensure that the period of coalition control is kept to a minimum and that the responsibility for governing Iraq is taken up by an Interim Iraqi Authority as soon as practicable. This will be the first step on the pathway to representative government"

Yeah Sure.

Any partition created/imposed by the Americans will suffer the same fate as any government created by the Americans. Once the American effective power goes such government/partition will be like smoke in a breeze. To assume that a partition can be imposed is in the same category as assuming that the US can impose an effective government which will endure after the Americans leave. The only solution that will last is one that the Iraqis accept (or arrive at after fighting it out).

The Americans are unlikely to withdraw while Bush remains in power.

Isn't it interesting that Clinton was impeached for a sexual peccadillo while Bush, who does not have a tenth of Clinton's integrity, has lied to the Americans, dishonestly led them into an illegal war for the benefit of his rich friends, perverted the rule of law and damaged America and the world significantly is not even in danger of such action. Says a lot about US politicians who are elected by the people but who govern for the rich corporations.

Ultimately, I foresee in Iraq something similar or equivalent to the scenes in Saigon as the last Americans fled from the embassy rooftops in helicopters when that city fell to the North Vietnamese - only the Americans will suffer much more (self induced) humiliation this time.