Cont'd.

I still don't think it was worth it - not only for the loss of life, but for the flow on effects this invasion has had on the international economy, as well as the flow on damage that has been done to American credibility. Saddam was many things, but a close friend to Al-Qaeda he was not - if indeed the 'War on Terror' is as serious a threat as we've been told, it seems to me that there were other priorities in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that could have benefited from the incredible resources that were poured into Iraq.

That being said, if Iraq does manage to become a stable democracy I may have to reconsider, however I really can't see it happening. Aside from Jordan perhaps, which is scarcely a power to be reckoned with, what are the stable governments in that region?
Pakistan, with its lawless northern borders, acting as havens for Al-Qaeda? Saudi Arabia, which outwardly supports the west but finances violent acts under the table and flouts human rights?
What, really, are we expecting from Iraq, and can it really be done?

Perhaps I'd be less skeptical if I could see a genuine example of what we have in mind for Iraq...

Whether Iraq becomes a democratic country or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Inevitably, conditions will improve in a war zone... DUH. None of the million Iraqis are going to come out of their mass graves in Iraq. Same with Afghanistan. I can't really believe Western countries and some people in them are seriously measuring themselves against Saddam Hussein's regime to claim they are better (the facts say otherwise btw). Really that is very repulsive to any honest person.

Don't forget TLTR, that playing the moderate and centrist is an often an apologists way out. The only question is what are the facts and what is the truth of the situation. It's not hard, just do some research before giving your opinion. http://www.google.com/search?q=1+million+dead+in+iraq

Hi, what was this all about?

Right, Iraq was said to have weapons of mass destruction. 100% guaranteed and proven by our best mate. And besides a Saddam, who for his last couple of years wasn’t in line with US interests. Very unfortunate, and on top of that a Muslim country as well. Hmm.

To my knowledge, after WW2 until this day Germany has paid over 200 Billion Euros to various nations not only for reparations, but aware of its undoubted guilt trying to restore trust and healing its consciousness over time.

I wonder, how much we (and our Allies) have to pay to the Iraqi people one day, and for how long?

Of course, that can only happen if we admit to have got it wrong. That would mean that John Howard would have to face a court, to justify his actions, why he made Australia a nation of invaders, co responsible for the death of tenth of thousands of people, if not in excess of 100.000 murdered with our help. And that without checking on our allies claim, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

But who would take him on in Australia? A judge, a lawyer, or someone with enough guts? Na, the truth or justice is not really what we are after in this context. We wouldn’t want him to stand trial, wouldn’t we? He is still our mate and we all cover for one each other. At the end we all did like him, and what was it all about? Ah, Iraq, where or when was that again?

But maybe one day, as justice is not our vocabulary, the World Court in The Hague might call for John H. extradition and what would we do then? Yes Kevin Rudd, ever thought about this? It would be very embarrassing that we are denying the truth and justice over so many years now and still no signs on the horizons to sort our ill fated alliance with our best friend out.

Have another beer mate…

Cheers m2catte

GrahamY
1. USA ignored the UN, the International law, used lies repeatedly, and opened the door for similar invadion in other parts of the World. THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
2. Hundrends of thousands Iraqis killed or suffered hard. Why USA brought so much pain in so many Iraqis ?
3. The total cost from Iraq war will be about 3 trillion dolars for American taxpayers, why american people have to pay all these money for Iraq and not for a better Health System for them?
4. They devided the country in three parts, shiites, Suni, Kurds. With the new system it will be very easy for their neighbors to involve in the internal affairs of Iraq and create huge problem to it.
5. In the new constitution the Sharia law play a major role, they converted a secular state to a theocratic one with bad consiquenses on women rights.
6. Iran was the ONLY country in the region, which benefited from the invandion and the real boss from Iraq, as the majority from Iraqis are Shiites and their leaders have closed ties with Iran, most of them was in Iran. The democracy from Iraq could not be better from the system in Iran. If Iran become a nuclear power, with huge risks for the region and our planet, this can happen ONLY because Americans have no way to press them without huge problems in their personel in Iraq.
7. Of cause the war in Iraq and USA's lies they have lost their credibility and their friends woldwide.
8. In Iraq war it have wasted huge resorces which could be used with more creative and usefull way, especially for American people. Do not forget what happened to people of New Orlean.
9. As the Iraq depends on Iran and Iran is in huge conflict with USA for its nuclear program, ANY TIME IN IRAQ CAN START A CIVIL WAR, OR A WAR AGAINST AMERICANS. FROM NOW AND ON THE IRAQ WILL BE A HUGE FROZEN PROBLEM and a permanent sourse of distabilation in the region.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

"Don't forget TLTR, that playing the moderate and centrist is an often an apologists way out."

I reject that utterly Steel, sure, sometimes it can be, but more often than not, that's the catchcry of those on the fringe.
I wasn't saying that anyone in particular here had exaggerated the information, I was saying it's difficult to determine what's accurate. As for the condescending 'research' remark, I don't know of the Lancet's assessment is correct, ultimately, we can'd be certain and we should all be aware that what we believe is likely to be coloured by our own preconceptions.

There are various definitions of centrism - some view it as an attempt to mimic the 'he said, she said' style of analysis and expression that defines much of modern journalism, instead of selecting an accurate outcome.

On the other hand, I see the situation differently. I don't embrace any of that postmodernist crap that there is no ultimate truth, because I think there is - I know that in any given controversial situation, there is truth hidden somewhere.

I also know, that it won't be at the very edge of either view. Regardless of what the truth is, there are those with such passionate views on both sides, who will latch on to the information that supports their case, regardless of its accuracy.

FTR, as I stated above, I've been firmly opposed to the war and still am, but I'd be willing to reassess that depending on the outcome, which I still believe is very questionable.

A question remains however, as to whether you'd condone the war if there had been fewer fatalities and Saddam had been successfully removed. At what point would you say it's an 'acceptable' number of fatalities? Can you answer that, or wouldn't you try?

Why wasn't Saddam removed after Kuwait? This war wasn't about removing a tyrant or bringing democracy to Iraq. If this was sole 'altruistic' motivation wouldn't allied forces be in North Korea and Zimbabwe?

The premise of invading Iraq was based on a falsehood.

Given the absence of any other possible motivation we are left with oil. Millions of Iraqi lives is a huge cost for greed and incompetent diplomacy.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/oil-not-reason-for-iraq-war-insists-howard/2007/07/05/1183351373135.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline