Steel-Fractelle-Pelican,

So, It was a terrible thing to go to Iraq and wage war.

But what would you have us do? Would you return Saddam to his throne if he was still alive?
http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2293569,00.html

Or turn it over to Uday or Qusay if they were?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegoldenberg

The Americans independence cost them as did their civil war, but what they achieved was important. Many other countries independence has come at similar cost. It is almost always the way that dictators must be forced from power.

Fractelle >> " Your head is still in the sand regarding the ... lives lost in pursuit of the almighty dollar."

I really don't understand how you can still cling to this idea that the war was for profit. The Americans haven't made a profit at all. In fact the conflict has had a role in pushing America into recession. You are the one with your head in the sand on this point.

The left does a lot of hand wringing to show how much it cares about the people living under brutal dictators, but when it comes to alleviating that suffering the left is ideologically bankrupt. All they have is crocodile tears. If it hadn’t been for the coalition Saddam would have died an old man in his bed and he would have passed Iraq on to his sons. Iraq would have remained a brutal dictatorship.

Pelican,

The difference between 2003 and 1991 was that George Bush snr built a coalition that included a number of Arab countries. Those countries would NEVER have OK’d the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam. The coalition would have split.

Your attempt to reduce the conflict to a single cause, OIL, is simplistic, inane, and intellectually dishonest. And the suggestion that if regime change was a motivating factor then the US would also invade North Korea is stunningly naïve. North Korea has nukes, remember.

There were undoubtedly a number of motivating factors which by themselves were insufficent, but when looked at together helped make the case for the Bush administration. To believe otherwise is simply unrealistic.

GrahamY>"What I find interesting about these posts is that many of you aren't prepared to deal with the world as it is - you want to go back to the world as you imagined it before the war. Well, that isn't going to happen, so you have to deal with reality, which is what I am trying to do. Neocon? I don't think so. Realistic? Absolutely."

What is this world? How about you describe it rather than make vague allusions? I'm guessing you mean that I am partly correct in my initial post, about the hollowness of western rhetoric? Terrorism has always existed. It's nothing new. So it can't be that. Are you saying that our governments have been lying to all of us about things like the Geneva Conventions and Habeus Corpus? That the West truly does not believe in them and that countries from now on can simply ignore the Western protestations? If I am "imagining" that post-German efforts to establish international law were for a reason (the "imagining" of which is a preposterous notion, but necessary for your "imagining" accusation to be correct), then why is everyone going into tailspins and crying about terrorism and adopting the moral highground? You have just admitted that you hold all these efforts to be meaningless in the face of an ever more sensitive (-ly defined) 'national security'. Why do you wonder that people in the middle east were pissed off enough to resort to terrorism: With the West saying one thing about 'peace and harmony' while deposing their democratic leaders and installing military bases on their lands. So you admit then that all western rhetoric is bull!@#$, do you not, and propaganda? I just want to hear you say it.

So you don't think ignoring the deaths of Iraqis entirely, not even mentioning them, is "Neocon"? I think that is a perfect description of neoconservatism or even worse, considering repressive regimes across the world never count or mention victims. You think Neoconservatism is "realistic"? I would call it criminal, foolish and 'asking for more' (and deserving it). It's a cowardly response. By compromising your 'professed' standards, you can "realistically" join a dicatorship for self-preservation, or "realistically" murder a village of people so that your life is spared.

Banjo>"The Iraqis don't appear to appreciate their freedom from oppression."

It's hard to appreciate it from the vantage point of a mass grave.

TLTR

I appreciate the thought with which you approach this issue.

I agree we have to deal with the situation as it is now - but I find Graham's justification completely disingenuous. To fail to acknowledge the lies that were used to invade Iraq, plus deliberately ignoring the high costs in death, is nothing less than reprehensible and more than a little hypocritical.

To be told I am unrealistic when I am, in fact, looking at the complete picture rather an idealised view is not cogent debate - just insulting.

Like you, I am uncertain as to how well Iraq will stand on its own two feet - whether true democracy will ever be established, it is too soon to tell. Even so, does that justify war?

Once it was believed that war was the final choice, when all others had been exhausted, now it is used preemptively. Kind of like sneaking up behind the school bully and beating the crap out of them before they even realise what is happening. Tempting, but solves nothing.

In addition had we weaned ourselves off the over-reliance on oil and had viable alternatives in place, Iraq would never have been invaded. Yes spilt milk now, but there is nothing preventing western democracy from still achieving sustainable sources of energy. All that is lacking is the will. While pieces of window-dressing like Graham's thread and Hitchens' article gloss over reality more effectively than any amount of wishfulness on my part.

"So you don't think ignoring the deaths of Iraqis entirely, not even mentioning them, is "Neocon"?"

Some 700,000 Iraqi corpses were unearthed by the Coalition - and all those murders were commited by an Islamic Regime, ascended via the cloak and dagger mode 22 years ago. What's more, all this occured under the UN watch, and while the EU was calling Sadaam a friend, and comitting the exposed oil scandal - the real reason many EU states stayed clear of taking the Iraqi Regime to task.

The far more relevent question becomes, rather than neocons, where were the so-called Jihadists and Freedom Fighters all that time - don't freedom fighters start at home - instead of schools and market places in non-Islamic countries around the world?

The answer becomes, that humanity cannot progress as long as such Regimes are allowed to stand. This syndrome has nothing to do with anyone or anything else. The Iraq war was legit and it was won - the terror seen there now is a generic global syndrome - and it won't go away as long as a single Islamist Regime stands and boasts against Democrasy and free multi-party elections. The rejection of democrasy is a front against 'LAW', hidden behind religion, to protect Regime Thrones.

Bush's error was he went to Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia - a regime far wrse than all the Bin Ladens, stained with the blood of millions of innocent folk around the world. Australia will do well to cease it obsession with the climate - no one can be impressed about fixing the environment via a nation which has 10% of the population it aught to have, and one which cannot even solve is water problems despite being surrounded with H2O. Better, Australians focus on the removing of murderous Regimes - that's where the marchers and protesters should be seen. Think about it - what's causing the worst pollution to humanity today - and there is no hope of expecting Europe to confront the regimes? Thus Australia is a fulcrum factor here.

Steel,

Steel >> “I'm guessing you mean that I am partly correct in my initial post, about the hollowness of western rhetoric? Terrorism has always existed. It's nothing new”

What?? Prolific and costly terrorism aimed at western gov’ts is NEW. Totally new to us. Among the 3000 people who died on 9/11 I doubt you would have found ANYONE who had serious fears of a catastrophic terrorist attack on the US mainland.

Steel >> “. Are you saying that our governments have been lying to all of us about things like the Geneva Conventions and Habeus Corpus?

Haebeus Corpus is a principal that applies to civilian matters. Soldiers on a battlefield have NO such rights. They NEVER have. In war, if you are captured you are held until the war is over. Just because many of these terrorists and insurgents aren’t wearing uniforms doesn’t mean they should receive the same rights as civilians. If anything, the precedent is for fighters who aren’t wearing uniforms to be shot if captured. That’s the historical punishment.

Those who have breached the Geneva conventions should be punished, but again, our breaches are fairly innocuous compared to our enemies. That’s not to say we should judge ourselves by lower standards, but lets not get carried away with self flagellation.

Steel >> “Why do you wonder that people in the middle east were pissed off enough to resort to terrorism: With the West saying one thing about 'peace and harmony' while deposing their democratic leaders and installing military bases on their lands”

Which democratic leaders are you referring to? The Shah was 40 years ago. The Arabs and the Persians are pissed off because the Israelis have refused to be ethnically cleansed once again. They’re pissed off because they can’t impose their religious fundamentalism on everyone. Theres a hundred other reasons but the deposing of democratic Arab leaders by the West is NOT one of them