Why are we still involved in the war in Iraq?
How is it (or ever was) a threat to Australia?
I'm interested to read what people think ...

There was/is no war, Foxy. What we have is an invasion. An illegal unsanctioned invasion.

The main reason we are in Iraq is to over throw an evil dictator who was an ever growing threat to the region and possibly the world.

Sure there are many ignorant people who have little or no grasp on the complicated world that we live in and if you ask them they will tell you we are only there to steal Iraqi oil. This is a fallacy because you can hardly steal something you pay hard currency for.

Basically we should have gotten rid of the dictator in Iraq a long time ago but as I am sure you are aware there are many problems in this would and we all wish would could fix them all at once but sadly its just not possible.

We didn’t get rid of Saddam in the 80’s because of the soviet union (bigger fish to fry) we did not get rid of him in the first gulf war because there was a lack of will (it was put in the too hard basket) finally we got somebody with balls like George W and also a trigger (9/11) and now we are getting on with business!

Sure it is not pretty but in the long run I think it will be the right option. Besides the number of children in Iraq who were dying from UN imposed sanctions makes the going on their today look quite peaceful.

“He estimated the most likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000.”

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/sanclook.htm

You will never hear the anti American crowd quoting those figures! When you confront them with these figures they usually run out of the room or hide under the bed but still full of venom and criticism of the Iraq war.

Foxy people don’t like the Iraq war because 1. They hate America. 2. They have no grasp on international politics or 3. They are just left wing loons who are against anybody having a go at trying to make this world a better place.

Dear EasyTimes,

Thanks for all the information you gave me. I'm still in the learning process concerning this subject. I'm currently reading the book by Madeline Albright, "The Mighty & The Almighty." In it she tells us, and I quote, "Although U.S. policy has suffered numerous setbacks in Iraq, the administration still talks of 'victory.' In truth, the chance for the kind of clear-cut triumph achieved during the first Gulf War probably never existed. More than three years after the invasion, Iraq's future remains murky. Both in that country and in America, there is a sense that the coalition military - by its very presence - may be doing as much to unite and sustain the insurgency as to defeat it. Even training the Iraqi military and police could backfire if those forces do not give their loyalty to leaders who represent the whole country. There is a fine line, but a significant one, between creating a true national army and just teaching a lot of people who don't like each other how to use guns..."

Don't listen to EasyTimes pathetic arguments. Notice how he linked 9/11 to Iraq? That's an f-ing lie. EasyTimes has no concept of what a war crime is, nor an illegal war. His casual talk that suggests western states should be invading places they don't like around the world is an obscene sentiment. You also have idiots like Brendan Nelson suggesting it's ok to secure another sovereign nations oil by using force. As for Albright, take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8

> Foxy people don’t like the Iraq war because 1. They hate America. 2. They have no grasp on international politics or 3. They are just left wing loons who are against anybody having a go at trying to make this world a better place.

This simply can't pass without comment. It is absolutely disgraceful that you label your fellow Australians in this way, not least because it is simply wrong and deceitful, while suggesting that the USA should be put on some kind of pedestal to be worshipped.

I will respond to your points anyway

1. Australians are loyal to Australia and Australians, not the United States. They can hate whoever they damn well please. Conversley you seem to have a servile mentality toward the USA and that definitely has the mark of a traitor, not a patriot. If you want to whine about American 'prestige' like Howard, the Americans have destroyed it themselves through their corrupt foreign policy interventions and aggressions in other countries (assassinations, war crimes, abductions, torture ...all documented if you care to open your eyes and remove your nostalgic glasses).

2. What is this nonsense supposed to even mean? Perhaps by "international" you meant "our relationship with the United States" in which case you just demonstrate your servility.

3. How is this world a better place when a country is invaded based on lies, causing the displacement and killing of more Iraqis than Hussein's regime ever achieved? How is it safer to create a new generation of people who hate the West because their parents, brothers or sisters, or children were killed during the Iraq invasion, and subsequent occupation? "make this world a better place" What a sickening euphemism.

That last point btw merely underlines your ignorance. You have to be truly naive to presume this is about making the world "a better place". Not even children are that blind. War is peace is it.

Well General Sanchez the commander of the USA forces in Iraq can tell you what is wrong.

These segways are from a speech he made now he is retired... See for yourself...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=118622&title=now-you-tell-us

and read the Washington Post coverage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101300426.html

and the Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22585048-15084,00.html

Guess what? Our troups are in harms way due to the all the way with the USA policy of Howard, Downer and Co. Well General Sanchez paints a very bleak picture.. and so he should ... he has finally gotten around to telling the truth.

I wonder when Little Johnnie Howard our Commander in Chief will tell us the truth? Hmmm It could take forever! Come on Johnnie please tell the truth just once before we lose any other soldiers to this huge mistake... Our serviceman deserve to hear the truth!

Foxy~

You're doing the right thing by educating yourself via opinions from the people directly involved. They are the ones in the know. You, me, EasyTimes and everyone else are a product of our enviornment, beliefs (religious or not), upbringing, personal agenda and what they get their info from.

Read stuff from everyone. Find books on what happened before the war...just before, to way before. There's doco's around. Read about the people on the street to the ones in office.

In forums like this you'll get opinion. And mostly passionate opinion based on personal agenda.

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that Iraq was an illegal invasion. The yanks bypassed global law to invade for reasons only known to them. They blackmailed 'allies' into the war through trade 'negotiations'. It seems that the invasion is for resource security (oil). Saddam was never a threat to the West. He wasn't a good man either, but neither are the leaders of many nations. If it's not about resource security then why not invade Zimbabwe, North Korea, most South American nations, Iran, Syria, Lebabnon?....they apparently are in desparate need of help. Iraq is positioned perfectly for muscling other ME countries.

Basic summary. All the best in your learning.

EasyTimes had the best explanation.
I think the US is doing the best it can against many evil odds. Saddam was bad for the world and for his people. I dont think it was much about oil. The USA will have huge "hidden" technological stores.
Its about doing what is right against dictorships and evil governments.
The good guys are the US, England and Australia...any of the Bible based nations.
The baddies are Russia (still) and China and North Korea and anywhere the demon powers have established evil governments that persecute others. LIGHT and darkness is what the war on earth's about. God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Christ-believers...and the other side including all of the eastern religions who, if you look closely, do an ongoing dance with evil spirits in their worhip of false gods..e.g. the fat Buddha. Its not complex whats happening.
Steel...you ought to take that hate to Jesus, man...its bad.

Easytimes, I can't let that go without comment either.

I find it rather hilarious that you make the comment "people don't like the Iraq war because they have no grasp on international politics"
Then you go and make a horrendous number of glaringly stupid errors - and the fact that Gibo's quick to line up to support you with lines like 'the bible based nations are the good guys' doesn't do you any favours for intelligent discussion.

Steel uses some colourful language to point out that it's a lie, but perhaps I should make things a little clearer for you:

Hussein ran a fairly secular regime - yes, he was a Sunni dictator, however Sharia law was not in place, plus he didn't allow Muslim groups much influence.
Essentially, he controlled the country through a secular regime.

If you had the slightest understanding of international politics (this is why I find your 'ignorance' accusations so funny) you'd be aware that Iraq is in the heart of the area that Al Qaeda would like as a muslim caliphate.

Hussein was an enemy of Al Qaeda. Yes, he was an enemy of the west, but because he refused to relinquish any control by instituting sharia, he was indeed an opponent.

What's more, Al Qaeda really had no presence in Iraq before the invasion. Saddam's iron fist kept them out, while Al Qaeda largely operated out of the northern regions of pakistan, with links to the Taliban and other militant groups throughout the mid-east and North Africa.

This invasion wasn't about terrorism. It wasn't entirely about oil as some on the far left indicate, though oil certainly played a large part.

Foxy, there's much more to this - don't fall for tripe from either those with a one-eyed hatred for America, or for US apologists or new-age christian fundamentalist missionaries.

"The USA will have huge "hidden" technological stores.
Its about doing what is right against dictorships and evil governments.
The good guys are the US, England and Australia...any of the Bible based nations. "

Ahahahahahahahahhahahhhahahahahahahahahaha

How do you breathe with your head up there?.

Hidden technologies eh?. Saving for a rainy day?. Arnie's gonna come through in the end? lol. Egypt was in the bible. Are they a goodie, or a baddie?. So was Persia...your thoughts on that?. Actually, don't bother.

Few, if any of us have moral vision that is 20-20. If we are sure we are right, we may be less likely to explore alternatives or to develop a plan B should plan A go astray. We may be so convinced of the merits of our cause that we neglect the effort to convince others. We may be so insistent about achieving the right goals that we fail to select the right means. History is filled with enterprises that have failed despite firm beliefs of those who launched them. From what I have read - President Bush's core convictions led America from 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq and prolonged the occupation of a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. This move seems to have widened the split between Muslims and the United States, given new life to Al Qaeda, and made far more difficult the challenge of defeating international terror.

I just thought I would provide you with more of what General Sanchez said - Could we be in another Vietnam?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8CPIjMa-HJc

What brought our troups home from the Vietnam war were We changed Governments, 2. We the People saying enough is enough. 3. USA lost the war! Our soldiers didn't the USA politicians did!

Well so far Australia has had few casualties (How are they going by the way - the forgotten people) and the tragic death of another soldier (I won't mention his name out of respect for his family)now being investigated by the NSW coroner.

The fact that we haven't lost more is a blessing - so let's bless our soldiers lives more by "Bringing them Home".

This is an illegal war under International law based on falsified intelligence and we need to get our ADF personnel out of there.

This war has killed 10's if not 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and the death toll keeps rising. Over 4000 coalition forces have been killed.

Now Turkey want to invade the Kurds... Maybe you should watch this - even though it is humour to see how hypocritical the USA position is!

Sometimes it takes comedians to expose the truth as only they can... afterall we can't trust the main stream media to give us the facts and we definitely can't trust Howard, Bush and co.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=121852&title=aasif-mandvi-turkey-lurking

Steel proved my point about people who hate the United States and no matter what actions the United States takes people like Steel will always be foaming at the mouth like a chimp with an itchy bottom when ever anybody mentions America. Its rather sad and petty of him but very unsurprising.

What you need to consider is how many people were dying before the liberation of Iraq because of the UN sanctions. As stated in the link in my first post at least 227 000 children under 5 died between 1990 -1998 and that was a conservative estimate. This is appalling number of young children die!

But you can be certain that the anti Iraq war crew carefully forgets this (because its very inconvenient fact) and in my opinion leaves you with no other choice but to liberate Iraq from the claws of Saddam.

The UN is a useless world organisation which is only there to make the average joe/pleb/villager feel warm and fuzzy.

People who are against the war in Iraq are a very indecisive bunch! They can sit there in the grandstand being critical of those having a go but when it comes to ideas themselves all you hear is the “sounds of silence”

I am sure these people would have been against fighting for rightness in WW2 they would have been refusing to act decisively until the japs where landing in Cape York and by then it would have been to late. Thank god Curtin ignored that lot then!

I say let the strong lead and ignore the weak and cowardly

"Ignore the weak and cowardly". Given your knowledge and reasoning powers are rather weak, and your attitudes often cowardly, I have no problem ignoring you.

Ok, now I'm really confused by your argument EasyTimes. So, the US had to invade Iraq to save them from crippling economic sanctions imposed by the UN (and strongly advocated by the US)?

Makes perfect sense.

Opinionated2 – nobody pretends that the war in Iraq has gone totally to plan and I think in the next year or 2 there should be a draw down of US troops their! Or at least have them confined to barracks unless a major disturbance occurs! The Iraqi have to start doing things for themselves.

Dnicholson – My Arugments are sound and factual! Your vacuous post is testimony to the lack of substance people such as yourself have on the topic.

Bugsy it does make perfect sense because UN sanctions cant go on forever. All those children dying has to be stopped. If you lift the UN sanctions you are back to square 1 and you have a murderous dictator with lots of money building his arsenal again to cause more problems in this world. Eventually you have to say enough is enough

You understand now?

As you can see from all the posts against the Iraq war all you get from these people are sniping and criticism. Not even a peep about an alternative option on dealing with Saddam nothing just sniping and criticism.

I don’t pretend to be omniscient but I have a better grasp on the overall scenario then most people on OLO

I don't think that the US had any better grasp on the situation than you do ET. That is not a complement. All the planning went into having a quick invasion, but no planning went into the occupation or exit strategy. This is extremely poor work.

One stunning example of this is the "de-Baathification" of Iraq and the disbanding of the army. Even the Brits told the US not to do it, but Paul Bremer did it anyway. If it is Bremer's fault alone, and was not the White House policy (Condi Rice claims this), this still means that they appointed a man that did not consult the White House on major decisions but gave him authority to unilaterally make those decisions. If Bremer went against White House policy, why did the president say that he did a great job?

The whole thing is a cluster#### and the 'Merkins didn't know what they were doing. Of course you can defend it, but the fact is that Iraq will take a long time to recover from this and are in a worse state that before the invasion, Saddam or no Saddam.

It's simple. It's all about the oil.

Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was found to have no WMDs ( a major reason for the invasion). An 'evil dictator' was deposed and murdered/executed leaving the country and region in a far worse state than when he was in power.

Nice one George, Tony and Johnny.

What caused my anger there was not hate toward the United States, but anger at your bald lies, EasyTimes.

EasyTimes said, "My Arugments are sound and factual! Your vacuous post is testimony to the lack of substance people such as yourself have on the topic."

People have shown you to be wrong so I don't see how you can make that claim with such certainty unless it's arrogance blind or otherwise.

EasyTimes, "If you lift the UN sanctions you are back to square 1 and you have a murderous dictator with lots of money building his arsenal again to cause more problems in this world. Eventually you have to say enough is enough"

Apparently those sanctions were useless and ignored, since he was deemed a threat by people like you anyway. Your moral choice sacrifices the lives of several hundred thousand children, innocent victims who died because of those sanctions, for an hypothetical fear of a perceived situation? You ignore that the USA turned it's back on a Shia uprising in the early 90s, leading to their executions. You ignore that the USA sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein to be used against the Iranians in a war and which were later used on Kurds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq#U.S._non-intervention

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
"Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports."

Can anyone remember a war/invasion that America has started in the last 300 years that she has actually WON?

I can't.....interesting, isn't it?

I'm horrified at the suffering the Iraqi people have endured, both by their own regimes and from overbearing childish, international school bullies [(insert any country you like in this space)], who think "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine for the taking"

They don't deserve any of this.

Well, it's been interesting - reading all the various opinions on this topic... So many emotions involved... However, what no one seems to be able to answer is - how much longer will our involvement go on?
U.S. President George W. Bush is trimming the number of US TROOPS by 30,000 to 130,000. Prime Minister John Howard is still holding firm at existing numbers of 1575 troops. Labor Opposition leader Kevin Rudd has undertaken to pull our troops out gradually when he wins the upcoming federal election ... and so it goes on ...

" Oh where are you coming from soldier, gaunt soldier
With weapons beyond any reach of my mind
With weapons so deadly the world must grow older
And die in its tracks if it does not turn kind.

Once again the critics have proven themselves to be just empty windbags! That’s why nobody listens to you lot. Full of animosity and spite they like to be the antagonists of any movement against there extreme left wing views.

Unless you have a better idea I suggest you sit there and be quite because although you are all very narcisstic your own elevated sense of yourself is hardly going to register on other peoples radars unless you have a workable idea. None of you do!

I know you all take schadenfreude from them Americans hard work but it only goes to show what ninnies you all are.

So in conclusion the Iraq war has not gone to plan. Its sad that many people have deid but leaving things as they were would not have been the right option due to the suffering of the Iraqi people the potential threat posed by Saddam. So commending the people who have tried to make a difference is the right thing to do.

Well, I'd agree with some elements of your last post there Easytimes, though I still think you're mostly wrong.
At least you're also disparaging far left views instead of mainstream left, which is better - I get so sick and tired of people saying the 'left' or the 'right' are right, when it's the fringe on either side that is always squawking the loudest, and they're always emotional rather than factual.

That being said Easytimes, there's several things here that need to be considered - and it takes more recognition of the complexity of the region.

For starters, Saddam was just one angry fish in a sea of dictatorships and extremists.
Funnily enough, as nasty as he may have been, Saddam represented a key plank in a delicate balancing act that existed in the region, and has now been shattered.
Ultimately, it's the simpletons who think it's simply a matter of getting rid of the baddies who make the most trouble.

Consider these aspects:

1) Saddam's number one enemy has always been Iran. On his hit list, the US came behind Iran and probably behind Israel as well.

So we had in effect, two dictators who nullified one another. They couldn't afford to attack anyone else, because it would leave them open, and if they attacked each other, I dare say the US wouldn't be all that concerned, provided the oil kept flowing.

Now that Iraq is gone, Iran is growing bold - I made this point ten months ago and it's more or less coming to fruition.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5373#67400

Cont'd

2) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan represent the central control of Al Qaeda.
Saudi Arabia funds madrassas, while in the lawless mountain regions of Pakistan, AQ can operate with impunity.
And yet, the US does nothing - both governments are friendly to them.

Look - if you want to compare moralities, of course, the US come out above dictators such as Saddam.
But that doesn't mean the US are all fluffy bunnies and altruistic - they're looking after themselves.
And this entire war was a cockup. How can you say otherwise? No WMD! Thousands of fatalities! Where once Al Qaeda couldn't operate, now they have a haven where they can shoot at Americans! Plus, Iran, a genuine Sharia theocracy, is growing bold.

You can say they went in there with strong ideals, and the concept of introducing democracy, but history had shown them that was an unrealistic dream, but they did it anyway.

It was stupidity, plain and simple.

It's funny - communists had a flawed system that was based on unrealistic morality. When it was put in place it failed, and they are historically reviled.
Yet when the US causes a major catastrophe, even if they did mean well, the apologetics are out in force.

TRTL – Before you can deal with nasty junta’s you need a trigger to go in. We have not had a good enough one yet with Iran, North Korea, Burma etc.

Triggers are essential due to left branding you a war monger if you make any attempt to make this would a better place. 9/11 was not a very good trigger but it will do.

Remember the criticism Australia got for helping East Timor. I remember some people were saying we were only going there for the oil! That’s the left for you.

The left wing of societies is the reason why blokes like Pol Pot can get away with murdering millions of people and the world will sit there and do nothing. Lets say hypothetically we had done something to try and save the poor people of Cambodia the left would have yelled and screamed like a banshee about the “illegal” invasion of Cambodia.

Then they would wait for an Australian to cause some collateral damage like accidentally bombing a civilian target. As soon as this happens they would jump for joy and quickly brand the Australian military “baby killers” and say things are worse off in Cambodia now then they were under Pol Pot.

It takes a lot of gumption to do what George and John have done in the face of such ignorant hypocrites!

Congratulating failure is not a way of improving the world.

"The left wing of societies is the reason why blokes like Pol Pot can get away with murdering millions of people..." (Quote: Greasyslime)

What an unintelligent little twerp you are!

Dear ET,

Talking about East Timor, I read that many of the Indonesian special forces known as Kopassus, described by Amnesty International as 'truly barbaric' and 'responsible for the worst atrocities in East Timor', were trained in Australia. And moreover, that Australia has resumed its close contacts with Indonesia's unreconstructed genocidal army, which has a history of association with and manipulation of extreme Islamicist groups of the kind found guilty in the Bali bombing of October 2002.

EasyTimes, "Triggers are essential due to left branding you a war monger if you make any attempt to make this would a better place. 9/11 was not a very good trigger but it will do."

Do you even know why 9-11 happened? There was a... "trigger".
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html (this is long-winded and misses some points but you can skip to the conclusion if you want)

> "The left wing of societies is the reason why blokes like Pol Pot can get away with murdering millions of people and the world will sit there and do nothing."

The left are over-represented on the human rights front, so you point is ludicrous.

> "Then they would wait for an Australian to cause some collateral damage like accidentally bombing a civilian target."

Ok this is a subject I want to provide some opinion on. I'm getting sick of the media portraying soldiers and contractors as making accidental killings and civilians not being targeted wilfully. The fact is, that is complete rubbish. I collected some of these articles to remove some of the blind spots created by the media.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/10/soldiers.charged/index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/01/terror/main1676384.shtml
http://www.bzangygroink.co.uk/wordpress/archives/2007/10/12/us-murders-34-civilians-9-children/
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/63780/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1012contractoroct12,0,4399312.story
http://www.ablogistan.com/archives/2007/09/worse_than_abu.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMe08e2wMZk (Iraq War Vets talk about random civilian killings)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gans6oct06,0,1155563.story?coll=la-opinion-center

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/281105trophyvideo.htm
*this last one comes with a warning, since you are actually witnessing murderers in action (no blood or close-ups that i could see).

Easytimes - stop linking Iraq to 9-11. It makes you look like an idiot.

You're not listening - Saddam was ANTI Al-Qaeda.

The Afghanistan invasion was in response to 9-11. That's fine.

The 'trigger point' for Iraq you refer to, wasn't so much a 'trigger point' as an interpretation of intelligence - a false one at that.
It was the search for WMD. I do think the US honestly believed there were WMD there, though I suspect they interpreted intelligence in the manner that suited them.

They believed that because they wanted to.

9-11 however, was no trigger point for Iraq. I repeat - Iraq isn't part of the war on terror. It's a sideshow that distracts from the war on terror. Please try to understand this.

This isn't something you can just make an opinion on. It's a fact. Even Bush didn't link Iraq to 9-11, except by making references to 9-11 after references to Iraq.

If you actually understood the politics of the region, you'd be aware it's not just some big entity you can draw a circle around.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd be aware these nations are all quite different to one another.

It's quite clear you know very little about the politics of the region, but feel the need to make apologies for the US regardless of the facts of the matter. Honestly, get a clue.

TRTL – You have miss understood me!

9/11 was the trigger/excuse they need to kick Saddam out! As much as I care they could have used Saddam stepping on a worm as the trigger to kick him out!

A trigger is a reason to tell the public there is a need to act! It does not have to be 100% true it just has to sound good!

I have not seen any evidence yet to link Saddam to 9/11. But I see plenty linking him to thousands of murderous acts which in themselves are a good enough reason to act against him.

I am fairly sure Saddam had some sort of chemical weapons after all he would not have been stuffing UN inspectors around for year if he did not have something to hide and I doubt he would have used every last one of them against the Kurds. I think the Americans may have destroyed them in the first air raids against Iraq after all I am sure they would have be primary targets to destroy.

Your quibbles trtl are merely proof that the main body of your argument is flawed and that you are trying to score some last minute consolation points. Too little to late I think!

Steel – The only thing the left does when it comes to human rights is to say how out raged they are. They talk a lot but you never see any action.

Foxy – I hope you are not trying to link Aussies to some of the crimes that occurred in East Timor!

Ginx and Bugsy – If either of you had any class you would admit that you have been proven wrong and exposed for the apparatchik of ignorance that represent.

ET, you it a "trigger", the Romans called it a pretext. It is/was of course glaringly obvious that the invasion of Iraq was "triggered" by a false pretext, even before the invasion took place. This does not matter. They tried it and failed. Much would have been forgiven by many if they had not failed under circumstances that even Colin Powell tried to convey to the president as being "difficult" (at best).

This is not a schoolyard game of rugby we are talking about here, where you can "at least you tried". The consequences of failure mean innocent lives being lost and soldiers families losing their loved ones, men and women of our own society scarred for life by the things they have to do.

The Romans did not reward failure, why should we?

Dear ET,

No, I'm not trying to link Aussies with some of the crimes in East Timor. I'm simply stating what I've read. And, if certain extremist groups did receive their training in Australia who is to blame for the
crimes they then go and commit?

Bugsy where does this “rewarding failure” come in? Whats the reward you are talking about?

Lets look again at what was happening before the liberation of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of children under the age of 5 dying! And Bugsy says we should just leave things as they are! Who cares if all these children are dying! Bugsy doesn’t! Bugsy you can be a champion of procrastination if you like but when other go in and get their hands dirty don’t make a fool of yourself by bellowing like a dazed walrus at them for trying to better this world we all live in.

Foxy – Lets make this simple if you teach me to use a gun and then a few years late I go off and shoot somebody are you responsible?

Foxy don’t fall for the brain washing antics of the left. The left are all wind and no substance! They like to make a lot of noise but are completely incapable of any action. If they took any action they would leave themselves open to being branded hypocrites.

That’s why they are very vociferous but putting their money where their mouth is goes completely against the grain of the left.

I still have not heard any alternatives to George, John and Tony’s Stratagem.

Dear ET,

I am responsible, if I supplied you with the gun ...

I've got a question? Our Government claims that we are in Iraq to train their police and army to fight the inrugency. In Australia it takes 3 months to train a police officer for duty in the community.
During the Vietnam war it took 3 months to train conscripts before they were sent to Vietnam. After 4 years, why are we still in Iraq?

Meant to say 'insurgency.' Or is it Al Qaeda?

Oh, ET, but you would have us praising those you have committed us to, in G.W. Bush's words " a long war against a determined enemy". I believe we should not praise them at all, nor would the Romans in my comparison earlier. G.W. was of course referring to Al-qaeda, but Al-qaeda, with its goal of a Muslim revolution across many ME states was not actually welcome in pre-invasion Iraq, or most ME states actually, and still isn't in many areas.

G.W. used the terror attacks from an organisation that presented no real threat to the United States as an entity and used it for an alternate agenda. It is very clear that G.W. does not really care to invade countries with dictators that have starving children or oppressed peoples around the world, unless they have oil.

The actions of Paul Bremer in Iraq, with de-Baathification could not have destabilised Iraq any more than if the it was an ultimate goal of the US to ensure that the region is destabilised.

I must admit to a personal complicity and shame, I could see G.W.'s resolve to go to war and not allow diplomacy a chance to succeed, but I had a quiet hope that they had a good plan that might succeed and that it may be be good for the region. I now realise that they did not plan for the post invasion phase and understand why. G.W. is not a man that makes plans, what he does is employ people that he thinks are good and lets them make the decisions. This is what he did with Paul Bremer. This is the 'decision' that is quite likely to be the biggest mistake in the whole mess.

I will not commend, applaud, laud, praise, approve or reward the complete incompetence that has been the debacle that is the occupation of Iraq today. I can only suspect that if the mission was truly accomplished the way it as intended, then "the mission" is a lot less moral than you seem to think it is.

I thought the past and present conflicts in Afghanistan had more to do with international interest protecting the gas pipeline corridor and less to do with terrorism.

I can't even remember why the USSR invaded Afghanistan in the first place.

spritegal, yes, The Afganistan invasion was more to do with the pipeline than any other reason. Prime Minister Hamid Karzai on the payroll of Unocal, the oil company that was involved in the pipeline plan.

The USSR wanted access to the Indian Ocean. If they had held Afghanistan, Pakistan was next, with the help of India.

Wow People sure get heated over the Iraq war... but the defenders of it are just out of touch with reality.

As soon as you start telling the truth you are accused of being anti USA. But USA allegedly stands for truth... so how can telling the truth be against the USA? Most USA people are against the war are they anti-USA? Were the people who brought the soldiers home from Vietnam anti-Usa?

I don't think anyone here is against the USA people... they are just against the methods used by the USA Government and our Government to twist the truth. Is telling untruths to start a war Illegal... Yes!

The fact that Governments can deliberately and wilfully lie is an outrage to a democratic system.

General Sanchez tells us the truth - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8CPIjMa-HJc Is he anti-Usa?

There were no weapons of Mass Destruction... There was no link to Alqaeda and 9/11. Regime change was no justification for the war... and yet that is all we did - Ask Howard.

My biggest worry is that in the future Iraqi's might make claims against Australia and Australian soldiers for partaking in an illegal war.

And who put us in that position.... John Howard - by telling his country lies!

Interesting. We are in broad agreement on this thread yet you have posted an attack on me which has no relation to the thread. You did this once before JSP1488.

This is something else again. And you are not going to do it again.

Jack The Lad - I get so sick of people saying things like 'it's a typical leftie way to end arguments.'

Yeah, well, then I may as well just say vague generalisations about entire political spectrums are a 'typical rightie' response.

There is no typical right or left wing response. There's good arguments made from each side, and bad ones.
You're just as guilty of displaying a bad one. If you have to resort to the ole 'ooh! Lefties always argue badly!' as you're argument, you're hardly doing any better now are you?

In relation to Iraq... Easytimes, as far as I can tell, you're saying it was okay for the US to use a fake reason like 9-11 as a pretext (in order to placate those opposed to war) to invade the country, in order to replace a dictator, because the people would be better off in the end.

There's several things flawed in this. Firstly, you've just said it's okay to lie to the public to launch a war. Tell me - even if we agreed that the Iraq war was justified, what's to stop more of these pretexts (and lets face it, pretext is just a softer word than lie) being used for unjust wars? Are those pretexts okay as well?

Secondly - the number of deaths that have occurred as a result of this war are all out of proportion - as bad as Saddam was, he hadn't killed this many. This is effectively cutting the Iraqi people's noses to spite Saddam's face.

Thirdly - I don't see you acknowledging the fact that the US are responsible for putting Saddam there in the first place.

Cont'd

4. - If you study a bit of history, you find that pretty much every dictator the US has installed has either been toppled or wound up being as bad as the rest (i.e. Saddam). Given that the US clearly haven't had a plan for reconstruction, what likelihood is there that it will work this time, when all other attempts have failed?

5 - Why is it that Saddam is worth pursuing in violation of the UN, but on an issue like Darfur or Burma, where the only opponents are the Chinese and Russian governments and public support is entirely in favour of an intervention, the US does nothing? Why, if not oil?
I suppose you can argue Saddam was a threat, but those WMDs never existed in the first place.

6 - You didn't address the fact that Iran is now more of a threat, seeing as the Saddam counterweight is gone.

7 - As far as the terrorism angle goes, Al Qaeda now has access to Iraq when they never did before.

After looking at all of the above... how can you conclude this war was anything other than a dumb idea?

All your entire case boils down to is - "Saddam was bad, so we shoulda got him."

Yeah, well, there's worse ones out there which could have been removed without such catastrophic consequence.

Your arguments are totally lacking in substance or reasoning.

Foxy – We are not just training but also providing security! Our rolls have changed over the course of the deployment.

Bugsy – Its silly to say the GW invaded Iraq for the oil! Explain it to me ok! Saddam was quite happy to sell oil to the west! Today we pay for the oil from Iraq just like we did when Saddam was around! People say GW has money tied up in oil companies! So it would be in his best interest to keep Iraqi oil out of the market so that it drives oil prices up!

Its al hypothetical whether de-bathing Iraq was a good or bad thing. You get rid of one problem which causes another or you just leave it and watch it potentially fester!

Opinioned2 – Since you are all wise and all knowing what was the best course of action to take in Iraq then? You are full of stories of how bad things are but empty of any ideas to make it better.

TRTL In order

1. I believe in being proactive in this world! Sitting on your hands for too long has caused tens of millions of innocent people in this world to die! Look at the last 100 years and see what procrastination or lack action has done!
2. This point is totally wrong read this which I posted before http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/sanclook.htm if you go all the way from 1990 – 2000 they think that 350 000 children under 5 died. 350 000 does not include anybody over the age of 5!
3. Why acknowledge that? As I have said we had bigger fish to fry! The USSR was active in the region and at the time we needed somebody or anybody who would be “loyal” to the west and not the soviets. Didn’t Saddam get in through a coup?

4. I will give you that! When it comes to dictators its either bad or badest! I have never heard of a good dictator but there are bad and then there are very bad ones! They are commencing reconstruction now what are you expecting to see?
5. I feel I keep repeating myself when answering your questions! Remember us discussing triggers! We need a good trigger to go in there like a direct attack on the west! If this does not happen it will be next to impossible to get anybody to act because of the vile left who will rampage in the streets claiming those who are acting to help the Burmese/Sudanese are blood thirsty war mongers who should try more “talking” instead of military action! (while the talk fests goes on thousands more die)
6. This statement is like saying the Russians are more of threat now because the Nazis have been defeated! Lets tackle one problem at a time! Today Saddam tomorrow Iran.
7. What do you mean more access to Iraq? The funny thing with al qaeda is that now anybody setting off a bomb anywhere is from al qaeda. If they did not use al qaedas name they would use another. I doubt osama has much of a say from his cave with the running of the group now.

Now I have a question for you. If we had not gone into Iraq what action do you think we should have taken? Just left Saddam there to stew the Iraqi people some more?

No matter what way you went into Iraq I can hardly see Saddam and his henchmen stepping down quietly and handing power to a democratic government! Saddam and all his men have committed many crimes and thus made walking away from Iraqi impossible. So the only way to get rid of him would have been a bloody revolution which would probably dragged in many other nations in the middle east

You ask what we should have done?

Hokay, here's a few ideas.

1) Reverse the process of propping up the Saudi regime, which in turn diverts funding to Saudi madrassas which actually DO fund religious extremism in nations throughout the world, contributing far more to an unstable world situation. (Saddam, vile dictator as he was, qas quite secular. He was no supporter of Islamist terror, and this war has been a distraction).

That being said, military action in Saudi Arabia, particularly around Mecca, would be stupidity in the extreme, but then again, so was the Iraq invasion.

2) Keep our eyes on the ball. Afghanistan is quite probably the world's largest heroin provider as well as being a haven for actual Islamist militants - as it stands it is an unstable cocktail of warlords.
Instead of launching two half-arsed invasions, how about doing one thing at a time, and doing it right for a change?

3) Saddam was a dictator, but believe it or not there were much better things we could do. On the scale of violence and repression, Sudan tops Iraq and would have had far more enthusiastic support from all but Russia and China.

Saddam was put there by the US. Go back and study your history. Here's a primer. Rumsfeld looks awfully chummy with Saddam there.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Ultimately, regardless of what the US does they can't restructure these countries at whim.

You speak as if the US can 'fix' Iraq. Democracy cannot exist along tribal lines. When you have the Sunni/Shia division, coupled with some negative attitudes toward the US, how can you possibly create a government there? All that can happen is ongoing carnage. A constant war, and warlords vying for power.

Why is it, that there is so much emphasis on the mideast if not for oil? Surely the dictators throughout Africa and South America would be warranting attention otherwise? Why just the focus on the mideast?

I'm not saying it's all about the oil, but to deny it was one of the motivating factors, if not the foremost, is being rather naive.

Dear TRTL,

You argue so well! I fully agree - it has to be oil!
If it's human rights - why aren't we in North Korea, Burma, China, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, et cetera ... And where does it stop?

It is beyond all comprehension that there are STILL those who will slavishly follow the "Simon Says" rhetoric of the Bush Administration.

I agree totally with your last post TRTL.

Gism XX, I couldn’t help myself after reading your ‘I care little for what is levelled at me personally. If I dish it out; I take it.’ It really cracked me up that you were pretending that you could ‘take it’. That’ll be the day. So, what am I not going to do again?
Your previous contributions to this thread were ‘What an unintelligent little twerp you are!’ and ‘you ARE an unintelligent little twerp’. At least you’re consistent.
You whine about me posting an attack on you but I thought that you could ‘take it’. You certainly love to dish it out.

TurnRightThenLeft, my ‘typical leftie response’ comment is based on my own experiences. A few years ago, I was part of a movement that was in opposition to extreme Left groups. Any time a subject was able to be debated, we would come up with reasonable responses and arguments. Whenever the Leftists could not come back with an appropriate reply, they would resort to the tactics of name-calling and insults. It happens on TV debates too.
In Britain, anyone who opposes more power to the EEC is labelled a ‘Little Englander’. Here in Oz, anyone who is wary of more immigrants is a ‘racist’. Anyone who wants to maintain our culture is also a ‘racist’, ‘Islamophobe’ etc.
I suppose that it also comes about as the media is politically biased, not always pro-Left but invariably anti-Right.

Foxy, oil it is. When the Yanks reached peak oil, they had to find more sources. They were already geared up to invade Afghanistan (phase 1) before 9/11 ‘conveniently’ came along. Then they dreamed up the WMD scenario to enact phase 2, Iraq.

Know what I think is so great? Here we all are - arguing about the subject ... whatever our political persuasion - we obviously all CARE!
And that's what I think is terrific! WE CARE!

And if more people were able to discuss things (instead of going to war) perhaps we'd realize that - although we may think differently,
there's a common link - our humanity! Perhaps, if instead of focusing on our differences, we could focus on what we have in common.
i.e. not what separates us, but what unites us...

What organisation was that Jack? Australia New Nation or Stormfront perhaps? These types of organisations all claim to be "opposition to extreme left groups", but actually use arguments straight out of white power handbook and try to give an air of respectability to a fringe attitude.

And ET, I never believed that the Americans wanted to steal Iraqi oil, they cannot do that. They'll pay for it. But what the Americans needed was a reason, a pretext, to establish a near-permanent military presence in the Middle East and destabilisation of the region so as to keep oil prices at an affordable level for the US and to ensure a continuity of supply through the decline after peak oil. Once the oil runs out, the Americans will no longer need the Middle East. Jack is at least correct in this.

Continuity of supply is much more important than price. They also want to make sure that the US is a preferred customer over Europe.

And EasyTimes, if you think it's about democracy and removing dictatorships, tell me what do the Americans propose to do about Burma?

What did I mean JSP1488?

You have already been banned from this site. You will be again.

You are not 'dishing it out'. This is different. This is a personal vendetta.

You rejoined this forum 18 days? after being banned.

I disliked your Neo-Con views then, and I dislike them now. If people like you ridicule the views held by many, then I WILL call them and you, unintelligent little twerps.

YOU are also spineless.

I fear that the world has become so obsessed with the problems of hatred and aggression, that it will allow peace and love to be regarded as soft and weak. Yet our survival depends on their domiance.

Whether we choose to destroy our civilisation or save it is a
collective decision, and it is one that hopefully may well be made within our lifetime. My hope is that ways can be found to reverse the process of destruction and that our energy and resources are diverted to the real problems facing us, including poverty, disease, overpopulation, injustice, oppression, and the devastation of our natural environment.

When bombs are referred to as "little boys," missiles are
"peacemakers" and human beings are "soft targets" in our media, new ways of thinking and talking about these issues are desperately needed.

I feel that we are possibly living in the most destructive age in history. If we blow it up, we cannnot 'create' something out of nothing: even the greatest artist did not invent colour, nor the greatest musician sound, not the greatest writer - speech. If we
continue down our path of war (especially in an area that has no history of democracy - just as Vietnam did not), all we will be able to do is discover, imitate, rearrange-or-destroy. Our worst illusion is that we might return to the state of primitive man (i.e. after the inevitable - nuclear war that awaits us). But primitive man did not have polluted soil, poisoned streams, irradiated game and vegetable foods.

TRTL said: (Saddam, vile dictator as he was, qas quite secular. He was no supporter of Islamist terror, and this war has been a distraction).

Saddam was paying some of the families of those who were suicide bombers. When Palestinians killed Jews in Israel in this manner, the families were paid $25k.

That's supporting terrorism.

Fair point Ditch - I suppose he has supported it elsewhere when it suited his agenda of opposing the Israelis and the US, though not inside his own borders. That would have threatened his own power base.
The point still remains - he was an enemy of Al Qaeda, because their agenda conflicted with his desire to maintain power.

Jack The Lad - so you found one leftie group which debated poorly. So what? There's thousands of groups out there on both sides of the spectrum, many of which debate poorly. It's still a shoddy argument.
By your logic, if I can find any right wing groups that argue badly, I can call any bad argument a typical rightie response.
Like I said, it's poor form.

Hello Bugsy. If you are really interested, it was the Scottish National Party, back in the days before it was hijacked by the Left faction. Still, nice to see that you can post without using your stupid acronyms.

Gismy XX, go for it you misinformed cretin, you follow your delusions of who I am. You’re not worth a vendetta. As for ridiculing other views, you’re the expert at that. Spineless? I would say that you are the invertebrate here. Unless you want to explain how you arrived at that conclusion. What did I write about hurling insults when you can't come up with a sensible argument?

TRTL, I never wrote that it was ‘one leftie group’, but most were guilty as charged. I’ll agree that there are many groups of all types that debate badly. By my logic, you can call a typical ‘rightie’ response if most rightist groups debate badly, not one.

TRTL – 1. Propping up the Saudi’s? They have enough oil to keep themselves afloat they don’t need western financial aid. Yeah the Saudi’s do promote a form of extreme Islam which could be a potential threat but we are “talking” to them about it and I am sure we have 100% support of the people on this form to just keep talking to them about it for the next 1000 years! What do you want to do TRTL? Bomb them? How savage of you! You are no better then a dirty blood thirsty American!

2. Agree with you on Afghanistan the Europeans should be doing more there! Especially the French and Germans but I would not call it a half arse invasion.

3. I shake my head when I read this. TRTL you are such a hypocrite and let me explain why. You consider the invasion of Iraq an “illegal war” because it was not supported by the UN. You then say that we should be in Sudan and that only the Chinese and the Russians would be against this. So then they would veto it in the UN and thus your only option left would be to start an “illegal war” in Sudan. Yes I think that makes you a hypocrite! One rule for you and one rule for the rest of us!
O and while I think of it what is the trigger to go into Sudan then? Or will we just take the bloody thirsty war monger option and not worry any more about “chatting” with them?

Since you consider posting pictures of so called chums here is one I like! http://www.pursuingholiness.com/2006/05/07/the-more-things-change Its the lefts hero Chamberlin and his good mate Adolf!

How many people here think Chamberlin should have had a bit more chit chat with Adolf to stop ww2? Adolf invades Poland “lets just talk about it” Adolf invades France “more talking is required” Adolf invades England “more empty gibberish is needed’

Please expand on the grab for oil that you keep talking about! I think its more of a case of serendipity then anything else. And even if it was for oil it will be a win win situation the Iraqi get democracy and peace the west gets oil… which they already had… which Saddam was already selling them…

Foxy – We are not in Burma, North Korea and those other places because of people like you. All you want to do is talk! You can talk for a thousand years but if somebody does not want to budge no amount of talk will ever move them.

Foxy you see the world through rose colored glasses. It’s a nice thought you have but it’s a long way from reality

Bugsy – How did you come to this logic? Destabilizing the middle east to keep oil price low?
The Americans have good relations with Kuwait and Israel! Why do they need a permanent base in Iraq? I think they have a number of small bases through out the middle east.

BUGSY HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO REPEAT MYSELF! WE HAVE NOT MOVED AGAINT OTHER ROUGE STATES BECAUSE WE NEED A TRIGGER! WE NEED THE TRIGGER BECAUSE IF WE DONT HAVE ONE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILL WET YOUR PANTS AND BE BURNING AUSTRLIAN FLAGS IN A MATTER OF NO TIME TO SHOW HOW OUT RAGED YOU ARE ABOUT THE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THESE COUNTRIES! YOU WILL BE DEMANDING THAT WE TALK MORE TO THEM! Honestly its like talking to a brick wall!

Well, that's done it. I'm not going to talk on this subject anymore.
I'm packing it in.

"Gin XX gets all heated (could be the hormones)..."

"Gismy XX, go for it you misinformed cretin, you follow your delusions of who I am....."

This is bizarre!! THIS is NOT disagreement; this is sheer HATRED!

What in the hell have I said to you Jasper that has made you so obsessed with having a personal go at me?
It is exactly the same as last time. You became fixated. WHY?

I meant to add that I am sorry Foxy, I really am.

Easytimes - how amusing. Before you go calling me a hypocrite, perhaps you should actually check what I've said.

I've been making the point that the Iraq war was sheer stupidity. Where did I actually speak about the illegality of the invasion?
What I said was that an intervention in Sudan would have much more public support. In fact, I didn't actually mention the UN.
So before you go throwing insults like that around, I suggest you check first.

In relation to propping up the Saudis - are you actually going to try and argue we're not propping them up?
The US have a long and friendly relationship with the Saudi regime, which is among the most oppressive in the region.
If you're genuinely interested and actually want to get informed instead of spouting various bits of pro-US rhetoric, try this article for background, which points out why Saudi Arabia is at the core of this issue.
I repeat again, Iraq has been a distraction.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6107

Logically, speaking - how is it, you can think its better to be engaged in two unfinished wars with no end on the horizon, instead of of focusing our efforts on one?
Iraq hasn't been about the war on terror, so the question becomes, do you believe the actual war on terror warrants attention, if so, then how can you condone wasting resources on massive distractions such as Iraq?
Shouldn't we be more focused on the actual threats?

Hey, ET, take it easy on the caps lock big guy. I suppose we need to invent WMDs for Burma now, just to save the children. Having dictatorships and military regimes around the world killing their own citizens is a truly horrible phenomenon. I abhor it. However, do not for one minute think that the United States does anything that is not in their own self interest when they are dealing with them. Half-arsed invasions never seem to work properly, you need the support of the citizenry, and I don't see too much popular support for the president even in his own country.

And Jack, no vendetta? Really? I suppose you think that sock farming is quite clever don't you? Living in a world of denial as ever. You should get a decent hat this summer, I think the suns been shining a bit too long on that chrome-dome of yours.

TRTL - On what basis do you think an intervention in Sudan will get more public support? Because George Clooney says so? The Sudanese are far less civilised then the Arabs thus making it an even more difficult long term problem. You also have the Chinese there who care nothing for the people but everything for the oil there!

Iraq and Saudi Arabia are two different issues which should be tackled in two different ways! We are doing with the Saudi exactly what you champion TRTL.. talking to them!

What is it that you want done in Saudi Arabia?

Leaving hundreds of thousands fo children to die is sheer stupidity! Attempting to change things for the better is not!

The war on Terror is more of a war on an idea! Its next to impossible to destroy an idea but you can limit the financial support the idea has thus mitigating its potential threat.

I think the end is in sight! I also think that the term “war” is being loosely used in this sense seeing that the idea of a war involves battles not a little skirmish here and a little skirmish there! I think the “war” was won when Bagdad fell but the peace is still to be won!

Bugsy – I used the caps to emphasise the fact that the question you had asked had been asked 100 times before in this thread.
Burma will require a trigger nobody is going to do anything if only a few thoudsand people are killed. Its just a sad fact that!

Having world peace is in everybody’s self interest and I guess trying to install democracy in Iraq could be spun so that it is serving the interest of Australia and America!

I think a lot of the citizens in Iraq have a luke warm feeling towards the Americans! Not all do sure but it is a well known fact that most of the insurgency come from outside Iraq and are backed by the Iran’s.

Just finished watching SBS news... there's a BBC documentary screening soon, with testimony from many of the senior commanders in Iraq, including Britain's number one person on the ground.

They're all saying it was a total cockup with no planning. Even elements in the republican party are conceding it's been a badly handled.

The fact you're unable to see this ET, is rather amusing actually.

In relation to your points - yes I believe there'd be more public support for Darfur. Point me to western elements on the right or left who'd be opposed. The key difference was that at least Iraq was comparatively stable, even if Saddam was a dictator.
Central control in Sudan has collapsed, and villages are being destroyed on a genocidal scale. This has indeed happened under Saddam in the past, but in recent times (prior to Saddam's toppling) it hadn't been to the extent that is occurring in Darfur.

If you read the article linked above, it talks about how weak the US administration has been - they prefer direct military intervention against tangential targets instead of facing the problem head on. The piece is written by Reagan's emissary to the middle east, who was also served as an ambassador in South America.
I dare say he knows much more about the situation than you or I and his solutions are based on the complex nuances of the area, instead of some gung-ho invasion, - which as has been pointed out by the senior staff on the ground in Iraq, had no long term planning whatsoever.

His conclusions are longer than I can type here, but the core of it were as follows:

"US-Iranian engagement will greatly enhance American leverage over the Saudis, as well as check the threat of Sunni theofascist terrorism in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. Saudi officials have urged the Bush Administration not to talk with Iran because they know that a reduction in US-Iranian tensions will draw more attention to their unbridled export of Wahhabism."

He also speaks of the necessity of reducing American dependence on Saudi oil.

Dear Opinionated :)

re SANCHEZ... do you think there is a remote possibility as follows:

1/ He didnt do a good or effective job in Iraq.
2/ He was kicked out because of that.
3/ His pride is hurt.
4/ He wants his pound of administration flesh now.....
5/ It's also possible he did not do well there BECAUSE of the attitude we are now seeing on TV.....

There are many aspects to these things.
cheers.

David,

Of course find a conspiracy theory... They are free...

And yes all could be true but they also all your questions could be wrong!

So in the end it comes down to whether or not you believe this was a just war, declared for honest reasons, and you can live with the tremendous loss of life when we know the reasons for going for war were falsified and exaggerated.

Fairly UnChristian stuff I would say! George Bush calls himself Christian and yet he has helped create this? The USA call themselves Christian and yet Suddam & Bin Laden were an ally?

I think an honest General is hard to find.... Have our heads of armed forces and the ONA fallen for the three card trick?

Would an Australian General have the guts to stand up and say what this guy is saying? What did Howard do to the AFP commissioner when he said that our involvement in the war made us a greater target? Was his honest answer respected?

Politicians don't like the truth and especially when they made the mistake based on flawed and falsified evidence. Honesty...It's a funny word isn't it?

Ginx/Bugsy, if you think my post was ‘sheer HATRED’, you really need to get out more. When you ‘dish out’ insults, you should be prepared for a reply in kind. Anyway, you wrote that you could take it. It doesn’t look like it, does it? What was it about ‘if you can’t stand the heat’?
I don’t hate you, how can I hate someone I don’t know? I disagree with most of your views. I also disagree with your use of insulting behaviour in place of debate. Other posters that have opposing views are able to conduct their arguments in a reasonable manner. If you didn’t fly off the handle whenever someone had views that you didn’t like, you wouldn’t elicit negative responses.
Anyway, I don’t see this as a vendetta but, if I am insulted by you, I will be sure to reply.
Hopefully, we can all return to the subject of this thread.

I never thought it was sheer hatred that motivated you, Jack. Calling someone a cretin, is not just a disagreement with their views, it's just trolling. But you do hate "leftists" don't you Jack? And you don't like being exposed or eating crow either, thats for South Australians, not Scots, isn't it Jack?

But you are partially right about the oil.

ET, the invasion is not about increasing or lowering the price of oil, get it right. It's about ensuring supply in the short to medium term.

Bugsy/Ginx, I could never eat crows. They're black.

You should stay away from all that white stuff, it'll rot your brain and you'll lose all your hair. Whoops, too late!

LOLDONGS

TRTL – I think it is difficult to judge the success of Iraq mainly because we don’t have any comparisons to go against. If we judge it in a war sense it was a stunning success done with great ease. But if you look at it from a transformation sense its difficult to call because we have nothing to compare Iraq too.

With regards to the rest of post all I can say is “talk is cheap” sure I wish we could talk some sense into these people as it would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. But I hardly believe that people who rule through power and intimidation will be swayed by somebody asking them nicely

Diplomacy is much more than just asking people nicely, and there are many subtle grades between idle talk and all out war.

It's possibly to play enemies off one another, especially given the climate that existed between Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then there's the 'arm's length' approach that the US has taken in the past, which used proxies instead of direct military intervention.

Once upon a time I thought the methods of a proxy war were heinous, though now I've come to see it as the lesser of two evils when compared to direct military intervention, which simply results in death on a much larger scale and ultimately tends to result in a power vacuum.

And we do have examples to compare it to, it's just the wars like Vietnam and Korea didn't work out either, which says a lot in itself.

Well done Bugsy/Ginx. I knew you couldn't keep on posting without your silly, made-up acronym. Business as usual.

Was that a mental karate move Jack? You do like karate right? All the Pommie boneheads like karate (and guns of course).

This isn't the ANN forums Jack, most people around here are smarter than you.

Bugsy, I didn't think that you'd use the term 'Pommie'. Isn't that racist, just like 'coon', 'wog' and 'slope'? Or maybe you're a closet fascist and your true coloyrs are coming through.

Anyway, I can't be 'Pommie', I'm not English. Don't you know what the term refers to?

While you postulate that 'most people around here are smarter than' I am, you surely can't be one of those; not on your past posts. Not as a product of a 'dumbed-down education'.

Why the fishing expedition? What are you trying to find out? And what has this to do with Iraq?

I told you that you needed a better dictionary. An immigrant that corrects me in the use of Australian slang (and incorrectly I might add). Priceless!

I'm not fishing Jack, I just letting you know what I know.

But Iraq? Perhaps the Americans are just answering the clarion call to secure a future for their children? That's such a tortured sentence, but you get the idea.

Bugsy/Ginx, so where was I incorrect? Are you able to tell me? Is the dictionary that you refer to the one with 'LOLDONGS'?

You don't know much then do you? But we both knew that already.

As for Iraq, it's all about the oil.

Try Wikipedia Jack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pommie

You really need to brush up on your research skills. But then again I'm just a product of a dumbed down education system aren't I Jack?.

Iraq's not just about the oil, it's also about an offensive defence and destabilising any sort of cooperation.

Hey Bugsy, if I want to brush up on my research skills, I wouldn't use Wikipedia, that's for the 'dumbed-down syndromers'. Don't you know that anyone can edit entries there which remain in place until someone else edits those? I tried it anyway for 'LOLDONGS'. Wild goose chase, nothing there.

What cooperation was there to destabilise in Iraq?

YOU FAIL.