Unless the Howard government gets in again and deliberately prunes the social science section of our Humanities, it is believed as I as a qualified social scientist would write - that without the backing of Tony Blair and John Howard, George W Bush might never have given the illegal order to attack Irak?

One wonders why the both of them continually be so sure of their ability to influence International Relations?

Maybe it is a good idea for us to discuss which side they are now backing in the Middle East, especially bordering Israel?

Hi bushbred,

I suspect they [Blair and Howard] didn't want to stop Bush in the end. The only 'legitimate' excuse Blair had was WMD, as regime change is illegal. This is why Blair had to sex up the dodgy dossier. The only genuine facts available were that the weapons inspectors couldn't find any WMD. If they had been allowed to finish their job, there was every chance the weapons inspectors could have declared Iraq WMD free - removing their only casus belli. This is obviously why they decided to 'get in' there quickly.

Most people in Britain despise Blair because of it and a very large number of us over here, me included, believe sincerely that he is a war criminal.

I hate to say it, but in the end, Saddam was proved innocent (in relation to the reasons for going to war - no wonder they had to make sure he was executed). Unfortunately 655,000 lives tell us we can't say the same for the leaders of the coalition of the killing.

I would suggest that the British public would like to see Blair reassigned to the Foreign Office. Or the Fieed Office. Or the Final Opening. FO.

Howard is irrelevant and always has been. A small dog humping Bush's leg is about it.

Tariq Ali

This is the longest of the longest adieu coming from you. Whose ideological train of Trotskyism has been derailed so long long ago, and its mangled pieces are heaped in the museum of history. And for you the ultimate adieu!

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

Themistocles. As a social thinker, what objective contribution can you make, other than try to demean a person who has always been for social justice, for all.

Do you accept the brutality in Iraq, created by western nations?

Do you have any understanding, of how Iraq came to be as a country?

Do you have any understanding of social justice and rights for each and every person?

Do you live by the criteria of, Me! Me! Me!?

The problem with these sort of articles is that the writer often is only against what the 'Anglo's' are doing because they are Anglo and he is not.

I believe RACISM is the biggest issue today, bigger than Islamic terrorism - it is the REASON for terrorism.

Bin Laden became a terrorist because of Israel's occupation of Lebanon yet Syria occupied Lebanon for 26yrs, until US pressure forced them out!

Didn't hear Lebanese Muslims thank the US for their foreign policy then! Or with Kosovo.

Muslims say they are against oppression of Muslims? Why not non-Muslims?

Why don't they ever say anything about Sudan, where Muslim gangs are pack-raping and killing black women, along with their children and

husbands. 200000 dead.

Muslims rant about Palestine, but none care. I've never seen a protest out the front of the Jordanian, Lebanese, or Syrian embassies, nations that keep Palestinian refugees in squalid camps (entirely funded by the west of course). These 'brothers' aren't allowed out to work, buy land, in society, live as inferiors.

Where are the Woomera protestors? Imagine if we didn't let refugees mix in with society? The Palestinians have been in those camps for over 50yrs!

They only care about non-Muslims lording it over Muslims - for image reasons. It's all about racism.

The West Bank was part of Jordan until 67, yet never saw Palestinian kill himself and Jordanians because of the occupation.

Same with Gaza, which was part of Egypt until 67 yet never suffered attacks by Palestinians angry about the occupation.

They didn't even see it as an occupation, as they were Arab too. It only became an occupation when non-Muslims took the land. This is racism.

In Indonesia, the reason they bombed Bali was because we took land from them to give Timorese. This is a sin under Islam.

Back to the article, it's racism.

Mostly shows itself as a 'pure-impure' thing mostly, the Lebanese youth in Australia who have Anglo girlfriends (they like them to be about 13 or 14) but when they get married it has to be to a virgin Muslim girl.