You win OLO.

I haven't commented on OLO articles for some time but you appear to be censoring a comment I'm attempting to make with a fictitious (perhaps politically motivated?) Error Message.

I'll publish this relevant pre election theory for Nelson's comments elsewhere.

Regards

Pete

OK PaulL,

What was THE defining reason for going to war then?

Your devoted goldfish,

Michael
(P.S. NOTHING is more important to the economy and life as we know it than energy)

"Pacifists argue that war is always morally wrong or else the consequence of war is always bad. Pacifism is a respectable position, although how well it would have worked against Nazi Germany or Al qaeda is open for discussion."

The first thing to make a distinction about anti-green is starting a war as an act of aggression and then joining a war as an act of defence.

Aggressive wars are illegal in international war. Dialogue and negotiation was noe used fully before teh Iraq war. Talking is the only way to GUARANTEE saving lives - you can't guarantee to do so whent he bombs start dropping!

NELSON's COMMENTS ELECTORALLY APPEALING

Just returning to the reason for the article (Brendan Nelson's admission that oil is/was an important reason for Australia's involvement in Iraq). Nelson should be commended for finally telling part of the truth.

While Howard and Costello quickly distanced themselves form Nelson's oil comments this may all be part of the Government's pre-election maneuvering. Nelson is a good guy but he also act politically. By giving a real reason for our Iraq policy Nelson has placed himself in the political (wet) middle ground that can attract votes.

The key electoral group (swinging voters) have been given the opportunity to accept the appealing logic that our involvement in Iraq serves to strengthen our oil security and presumably suppress oil price increases. Howard and Costello can distance themselves but a key member of the Government has said Iraq (partly) = oil security and thats good for the economy/hip pocket.

Voters considering Rudd's withdrawal might be left with the worry that Australia unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq will put oil prices at risk in some way.

ALP and LIBS WILL LOOK TO US (for good or otherwise):

BTW - Rudd know's that the 120 man army grouping that protects the Australian embassy in Baghdad must remain even if other Australian units withdraw from Iraq. Australian combat losses in Iraq have been minimal and Australia will still be in Afghanistan (on a larger scale) anyway. So Australia’s Iraq withdrawal will only be partial under Labor.

If the above comments on Nelson and Rudd look a little different note my previous comments (from September 2005) on OLO that oil is/was a compelling reason, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=182#15059 and many times since.

The occupation of Iraq for oil (for the oil industry and oil price based consumer confidence) is continuing as expected no matter the human costs to the US or Iraqis.

Pete

“Dialogue and negotiation was noe used fully before teh Iraq war."

What!! How many years of sanctions did Saddam Hussein defy? 10 or 12. Anyway, you are assuming that any dialogue/negotiation would be in good faith. When you negotiate with someone who never intends to implement your agreements, what do you do? Negotiate some more? Sanctions? Sanctions only affected the ordinary people of Iraq.

Unless the Israelis had acted when they did, Iraq would have had nuclear technology. Thanks to Jacques Chirac (Shah Iraq) for that mess. Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people, yet people still make jokes as though Saddam never had any WMD’s.

As for International law. That’s a joke. Saddam ignored international law whenever it suited him. Without consequence, law is useless

"Talking is the only way to GUARANTEE saving lives - you can't guarantee to do so whent he bombs start dropping!"

Just tell that to the Poles and the Czechs and the rest of Eastern Europe. Nevill Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” worked well for them didn’t it. I know you pacifists like to believe that violence is never the answer but sometimes peace comes at too high a price. Appeasement is never an acceptable position for a liberal democracy. It just encourages the person being appeased as well as any other crazies with an agenda.

plantaganet

If its only about the oil then why didn't the US invade Saudi Arbia? Iraqs oil is a trickle compared with that in Saudi. Saudi has a much smaller army than Iraq.

Why didn't US invade Saudi ? The US already had troops in Saudi at the time - it withdrew them after Iraq was occupied (as per Osama's demands - so much for Bush not appeasing terrorists).

In any case, the Saudi government is the strongest US ally going (and has been since world war 2), so what purpose would invasion have served ? Things are already just as US policy would like.

BTW - Iraq has greater oil reserves than Saudi - like I said, read up on come oil industry history - back when supply was plentiful (1910 - 2000), efforts had to be made to "encourage" countries not to produce. Iraq was always the "non producer" of last resort.

As a result it now has the world's largest reserves (and by far the lowest cost to produce ones, if security costs are not included).

There isn't a single more valuable resource on the planet...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm