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.