Paul L,
I admired the work of Richard Butler in Iraq. I agree that Saddam tried to thwart him at every turn. Yet an ABC report years ago stated Butler’s team destroyed more illegal weapons than the first Iraq war! Though the regime tried to stall inspectors, ultimately the process was successful — until Saddam stopped co-operating to the point where Butler’s team decided to leave in protest.

Yet international pressure was so great that a second round of inspectors was allowed back in. History has shown that the 2nd inspection process was working. There simply were no WMD’s. One does not invade a country on the potential hypothetical future actions of a leader. EG: “There is no way he would not have rearmed.”

Paul, I will continue to quote peak oil as a prime factor in all geo-political debate as it is quite simply, “The Greatest Story Never Told”. The very reason that there is uncertainty over the date of peak oil is a terrible concern. Are we to blunder along in the dark on our most important resource!? From the Senate inquiry:-

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/report/c03.htm

3.133 'Early peak' commentators have criticised what they regard as overoptimistic official estimates of future oil supply with detailed and plausible arguments. The committee is not aware of any official agency publications which attempt to rebut peak oil arguments in similar detail.

3.134 Affordable oil is fundamental to modern economies. The risks involved are high if peak oil comes earlier than expected, or if economies cannot adapt quickly enough to the post-peak decline. The 2005 ‘Hirsch report’ for the US Department of Energy argues that peak oil has the potential to cause dramatically higher oil prices and protracted economic hardship, and that this is a problem ‘unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society.’ It argues that timely, aggressive mitigation initiatives will be needed:

Prudent risk management requires the planning and implementation of mitigation well before peaking. Early mitigation will almost certainly be less expensive that delayed mitigation.[113]

Anti-Green, as a retired old cockie and a middle-road observer who has gained Honours in his retirement in International Relations, reckon it is about time you big league followers got with it.

Unfortunately, the big league or the proven winner through history is often the most powerful, as when the Roman writer Tactitus wrote how peace to his Roman leaders was always assured when the whole of the enemy was either enslaved or put to the sword.

Even the so-called Good Lord gave the same assurance when he told the Israelites on the way to the Promised Land to put all the PL occupants to the sword because they were unbelievers.

And so it went on, even by-passing the young Jesus who taught that He had come on earth to decry the tale of the Promised Land and its unfortunate thievery and cruelty to other humankind.

But the unkind Promised Land lurk has gone on and still going on, Romanised Christians telling lies and eagerly supporting it right to this very day.

We don't need to be God-followers to believe in such philosophies, Anti-Green, but just plain commonsense coupled with wisdom and understanding should tell us sport lovers it has broken far too many rules.

The trouble with the Big League today thererore, is it can't define whether its motives are for peace and democracy or just a return to the old colonial grab for contraband which in all truth is still well part of how we got where we are.

The trouble is the Islamics or terrorists as we call them, are back on the same old track too, us reborn Crusader Westerners only adding fuel to their also reborn flames.

Not that I totally back the Greenies, mate, but reckon as far as a future fair go is concerned they are mentally on the more honest track.

Dear Bushbred,

As I understand your argument, you are making the suggesting that the theoretical causes for war should include “divine orders?

Of course, a non believer one can always substitute “priestly whim” for “devine command.”

War is always a serious and complex matter, always with loss of life, destruction of property and livelihood. Therefore the objectives of war should be realistic, achievable and worthwhile. Unfortunately what is worthwhile at the beginning of a conflict may not turn out that way, Alternatively new aims and objectives may arise in the course of the war.

In short war is a totally unpredictable exercise and is best avoided.

Reality is that we ourselves (as a society) cannot manage our own affairs within the RULE OF LAW as permissible within the constitutional framework. We had John Howard making up any kind of nonsense to justify the murderous invasion, to detail unconstitutionally refugees without DUE PROCESS OF LAW, to unlawfully tow unseaworthy boats back into open sea leaving the occupants at the perils of the sea, we had the Australian Federal Police unconstitutionally funding people (aliens) to prevent “refugees” coming to the Commonwealth of Australia, we have John Howard & Co being the TERRORIST upon the parliament to force voting without all members have a copy of the Bill they are to vote upon and without being allowed sufficient time to debate, and on and on its goes, and then we are, so to say, taking the high grounds as to claim about everyone in the world is a TERRORIST but us!
We had no business to invade Iraq, and those who as like G. W. Bush relies on that God told him in my view are lacking what is commonly referred to as “brains”.
(I avoid explicit words being used that might be offensive, but you can guess them).

During WWII people who were fighting the invaders, such as the Dutch in The Netherlands, were “verzet strijders” (resistants fighters/freedom fighters) and those from aboard (other countries) who assisted in this were likewise praised. However, because we invaded another “friendly” country (as we never declared war against Iraq) we have the gall to call the resistants fighters “TERRORIST”.
We declared war at “INDIVIDUALS” where the Framers of the Constitution themselves made clear you could not declare war against an imaginary enemy
What we did was declare war against anyone in the world by this. I oppose any form of violence, but can UNDERSTAND that where we went crazy to declare WAR against anyone, we just get back their response we asked for.
Our TERRORIST are-those-in-the-Federal-Government who caused this all in the first place and they have the blood on their hands, such as the 88 Australians killed in Bali!

As a qualified philosophical historian, Anti-Green, I am probably less religious than you.

But reckon International Relations is much about commonsense, as I mentioned. The trouble is that when the Big League piles up munitions big enough to knock out anyone or anything, it does tend to leave commonsense behind, relying too much personally on the part of the brain that's just behind the eyes and ears.

To be sure, seemingly the problem with the mentality of
George W Bush.

Modern technics are making it so much worse. Better to maybe bring back the belief that From Deserts the Prophets Come.

And that's not religion, matey, but a heading from a book by
Geoffrey Serle in praise to 19th century Australian poets and writers.

Cheers - BB

So, blood for Muslim oil and just money for Australian gas and uranium sold on discounted prices to China and Russia for ages oncoming, by national-liberal pseudo-economists Costello&Howard examplify.