So let me see now. The whole point of war is to keep everyone in line. We need to attack someone, anyone, no matter who, every now and then just for the sake of it. It's sort of like sending out a message that we're still top dog and you'd better not mess around with us. Then and only then can we sit down and lick our bits.

Just the fact that Saddam was put in power by the very people who ended up taking him out sinks to high heaven.

Oh, by the way... US, Britain and Australia weren't the only countries that sent troops to Iraq.

While I enjoyed the read, I think freethinker's words as opposed to his/her moniker show anything but freethinking. Looks pretty locked up in lefty ideology and US bashing to me. All been done before mate.

Two points - I am glad I am not relying on the edifice of the UN to defend my rights. Fantastic record there. I note that Saddam himself was in breach of UN resolutions, but nobody wanted to do too much about that. In the end was tried in a court of law and judged and sentenced by his own.

Where was free thinker when the Kurds and Shiites were being murdered. Tucked comfortably in bed or postulating on a web blog probably. Nobody can be proud of the world standing by when that happened. UN is a good forum for trying to resolve differences between otherwise reasonable states, but not very effective at dealing with the bad bastards of the world.

Secondly, whatever the faults of the US and they, like us, are far from perfect, they still get to choose their leaders and vote on their leader's policies. Even freethinkers get to pass their own judgements, and I note the outcome of the recent elections.

For my money I'd rather be mates with the US and UK with all our shared foibles,flaws and democratic values than line up with the crowds the UN so often seeks to protect or for that matter people like Bob Ellis and freethinker.

I'd like to ask, when are we going to invade China for their abuses of human rights? Or is China too valuable as a target market?
Also, whatever happened to Osama, the one who was actually responsible for 911 as well as other gobal acts of terrorism. Why has he not been given his just desserts? Why is he not mentioned in the "free" media. Perhaps it's always convenient to leave at least one boogie man out there. Good bedtime stories for when we start feeling too free.

Col Rouge's point:
"Oh so many “talk the talk”, yet seem to lack the metal to “walk the walk”."
Does this mean that you support the blasting of limbs with that remark? (lack the metal) as in limb,hip and knee replacements due to war related explosions?
As with the other opinions above: Saddam needed to be hanged or culled as he had to much info on his connections with worldwide industrialists.
He was supported in setting different races and peoples against one another and so is Osama.His time will run out too for the same reasons.
Cover-up,cover-up cover-up. If found out, the Delphi method will apply to protect the basterds.

Porphyrin “I'd like to ask, when are we going to invade China for their abuses of human rights? Or is China too valuable as a target market?”

That is an extremely useful question.

The point with China is, as a nation it is well populated and has an enormous military resources at its disposal.

The start of “Détente” with China was, of all people, Richard Nixon. Nixon's visit to China represented a major shift in strategy so significant that it has been marked by having an Opera based on it.

Whilst China is despicable in its human rights record, it used to be worse (hard to believe but true).
People were forced to read and recite the thoughts of Chairman Mao everyday or be sent off to some interment camp for “Re-Education” (concentration camp).

Slowly trade is allowing the Chinese to see how other systems of government work. This exposure trickles into the cracks of a rigid, dictatorial culture and like water on limestone, slowly opens up fissures through which meaningful changes can be implemented.

It has been 15 years since China started to open up through trade and technology transfer. That it is not as “liberal” as anyone with a sense of decency would wish is understandable. However, the pace of liberalizing change is likely to achieve in one or two generations more than what the communists destroyed with their abuses.

I always thought the Russians went at “democracy” it too fast (tearing down communism and replacing it with nothing results in anarchy) and have paid for it since. Hopefully China will do better. At least they are moving in the right direction, be thankful for that.

Another post from Col with which I agree substantially. However, the reason that nobody's invaded China (whether on the pretext of human rights abuses or whatever) since WW2 is that, as Col implis, there is no army - or coalition of armies - that would have a hope in hell of succeeding. Unlike, of course, Iraq - which was incorrectly asessed as being a soft target by the COW.