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!