Paul
"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."

Well I am a simplistic girl Paul. If it smells like oil and looks like oil it probably is oil. AND my point about North Korea and Zimbabwe was that a regime change for the sake of the Iraqi people was not the prime motivating factor but it was good self-serving spin. You can nitpick all you like and avoid the real issues that is up to you.

No-one is disputing that Saddam was a despot but obviously not enough of a despot post-Kuwait to result in his removal. I don't believe that the removal of Saddam would have fractured the alliance as you claim. The alliance was concerned about potential civil war in Iraq after Kuwait but you are missing the point. This concern did not suddenly vapourise to allow the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There were other factors at play.

Why do you think the war was necessary then Paul?

So what I am to make of this good news? Compared to a year or two ago, it is unbelievably good news of course. The best thing I have heard in ages, in fact. Up until now it appears the US was spending 100's of billions a year, immobilising 100,000 troops on a war with no end. Finally they have managed to pacify the Iraqi population. Thank God. Compared to what we had a while ago that is indeed a remarkable success.

GrahamY: "challenging to those who actively argued against the war"

If the war is to be a success, where we end up must be an improvement on not fighting it at all. A huge improvement, given the trillion dollars spent and the lives lost. It isn't obvious that will be the case. It isn't obvious the country won't descend into civil war once the US leaves. It isn't obvious the US hasn't just given Iraq to Iran. It isn't obvious that destroying Iraq's oil production capabilities will lead to greater production of oil in the long term. It isn't even obvious the US troops will be able to leave any time soon.

Perhaps I can put it the other way. Lets assume it all turns out for the best. The US leaves Iraq soon without completely bankrupting themselves, and Iraq manages to hold itself together without a blood bath. So what has been achieved over doing nothing? Looking ahead - Sadam's regime was rotting from the inside out, it would be gone soon enough with us doing nothing. As it turned out it was threat to no one. He was exporting his oil as quickly as he could. He was killing his populace slower than we have done, and he was keeping Iran in check.

So how will any outcome be an improvement on that? Let alone trillions of dollars better, and thousands of dead US troops better. It seems all the US got for their money was a childish pleasure in killing a man they despised. Unsurprisingly, it appears they now think it wasn't worth it.

"We're not interested in regime change. We don't want to get rid of Saddam - we just want to disarm him".

Sure.

That must be why the US vetoed UN actions against their buddy Saddam when he used poison gas on the Kurds and then ended up selling him even more of the same helicopters he used to deploy it.

This article is from September 2002, 6 months before the invasion when Bush started making the first noises about the possibility of military action -

http://www.fpif.org/cgaa/talkingpoints/0209oil.html

It was considered the most significant factor then and nothing has happened to change that opinion since.

The only war that has been won in Iraq is by the big oil companies,
such as Hunt Oil of the US. Irrespective of all the arguments over the purpose of the war, we all knew it was about oil in the long-term and the continued economic vandalism by the USA. How can these oil companies sign off agreements with the Kurds when they are not recognised as a nation state, nor recognised by the current Iraqi Government. The inherent nature of the conflict is now open for all to see: "BIG OIL WINS AGAIN"

Pelican,

I think the war was fought for a number of reasons

To ensure Saddam never restarted his programs the moment sanctions were abandoned
To remove Saddam’s regime which was a danger to the region
To demonstrate to other despots that the US and its allies had the strength of will to END them.
To demonstrate to “friends” the danger of being an enemy to the US and its allies
To install a democracy in the Middle East to challenge the dictators of that region.
To free the Iraqi people and give them democracy
To hem in Iran with military bases from both sides (Afghanistan and Iraq).
The 12 UN resolutions
Energy security
To ensure Saddam really had disarmed.
To avenge Saddams attempt on Bush snr’s life

None of these reasons was enough by themselves and I have little doubt there were other reasons as well that I have not listed. But together they made a cogent argument for action.

You say>> “ if it smells like oil and looks like oil it probably is oil.”

Yeah Pelican, real scientific.

You don’t believe that the alliance would have fractured by an invasion and occupation of Iraq in 1991? Really? On what do you base that assumption? The involvement of Syria, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Turkey, Oman, Pakistan and France was highly unlikely to have continued if the coalition had been tasked to overthrow Saddam.

Tell me what exactly you think made the difference between 1991 and 2003? What are these OTHER factors at play?

The last time I can recall a just reason for war was Australia's participation in WW2. Since then Australia’s contribution has been to shore up America’s pursuit of political and financial gains.

As has been pointed out – Saddam would’ve self imploded.

As a warning to other despots, I am not aware of Mugabe et al confessing to seeing the error of their ways and handing over their power to the people. Somehow I can’t see that happening ever, let alone soon.

The only gains have gone to the contractors and oil monopolies:
Consider:

“There are now almost 200,000 private "contractors" deployed in Iraq by Washington. This means that U.S. military forces in Iraq are now outsized by a coalition of billing corporations whose actions go largely unmonitored and whose crimes are virtually unpunished.
In essence, the Bush administration has created a shadow army that can be used to wage wars unpopular with the American public but extremely profitable for a few unaccountable private companies.

Since the launch of the "global war on terror," the administration has systematically funneled billions of dollars in public money to corporations like Blackwater USA , DynCorp, Triple Canopy, Erinys and ArmorGroup. They have in turn used their lucrative government pay-outs to build up the infrastructure and reach of private armies so powerful that they rival or outgun some nation's militaries”

From- http://littlurl.com/n45tq

The gulf in communication between Western democracy and Middle Eastern ogliarchy has widened further.

What I find particularly disturbing is the justification for all the death, the destruction of a nation - plundering museums, long term fragmentation of families to name just two. Lying to others is one thing, but lying to oneself?

Those who are in favour can try and dress it up anyway they like. The truth is that the invasion was NEVER for the betterment of the Iraqi people nor the advancement of humans as a decent and peaceful species.

Same as it ever was…. Money and Power.