The Iraqi people have certainly lost the war; their country is in ruins and chaos, 650 000 Iraqis killed and two million Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria.

Civilisation has lost the war; I suspect we will never know how much damage has been done to archeological sites and how many rreplaceable relics have been lost in this land that was one of
the cradles of civilisation.

I've no doubt the environment has lost the war; when people are fighting wars the environment always gets little concern.

World peace has lost the war. The hatred created by this war will be coming back to haunt us for decades.

Of course the USA has lost the war. They have achieved nothing other than make millions of people throughout the Arab world and the Islamic world hate and mistrust them more than ever.

Even if the war in Iraq has been lost, has anything been achieved in "The War Against Terrorism"? Surely not. Terrorism is used by desperate people who feel they have no other way of getting what they see as justice. Of course terrorism is often counter-productive. But you can't win against terrorism by using guns and bombs, it's not that simple. The Iraq war has made most Arabs and most Muslims mistrust the USA more than ever; it has made a great many people hate the USA. It has created a new generation of terrorists.

Australia has lost the war. Prime Minister Howard never had any right to involve Australia in the Iraq war; the great majority of the Australian people were against it. Between this war and Howards pig-headed refusal to do anything about greenhouse I suspect he will go down in history as one of the most disastrous prime ministers, and this as one of the blackest periods, in my country's history.

Cheer up dave,
Things are not as bad as they seem we are in this war for a long time it is called jihad and we have to win it if you think that people won`t die you have to wake up to the reality of it.
have a look at http://www.jihadwatch.org/ and see what goes on every day around the world people die every day for not beliveing in islam .

Every cloud has a sliver lining:
The naysayers have won- that exclusive group of experts who can always tell you when you’ve gone wrong but never get around to doing anything themselves…
The Bush & Howard haters have won- that group of profound thinkers who will blame every bomb blast, every bullet fired, on Howard or Bush…
The air-headed journalists have won- plenty of sensationalism for their thoughtless headlines……

"Cheer up dave,
Things are not as bad as they seem we are in this war for a long time it is called jihad and we have to win it if you think that people won`t die you have to wake up to the reality of it.
have a look at http://www.jihadwatch.org/ and see what goes on every day around the world people die every day for not beliveing in islam .
Posted by aussiedave, Sunday, 22 April 2007 11:51:21 PM"

Dave, I think you are confusing Islam the religion with people using Islam to camouflage other activities (that is even a quote from your own link).

The problem in Iraq is that the US did not know what they wanted out of the conflict. To be more precise - the problem was a general lack of understanding of Iraq and its people, combined with an unclear goal. Now the country is predictably in chaos. The US cannot morally abandon the mess it has caused. If it does leave, it must accept any consequences are the result of its own actions. And that is the case whoever wins the US election next year.

Everyone is a loser at present. The only 'winner' may be Iran, because they will inevitably have greater influence in whatever government eventually rules a stable Iraq.

Dear Carsten, I note you said 'The religion of Islam' in contrast to the warlike activities, as though Islam itself is not warlike.

I was watching a DVD the other night called "The Presidents Man-Ground Zero" starring Chuck Norris. In it, one of the American lawyers acting for the government faces off with the terrorist leader they have captured, (he has placed a Nuclear device in New York) who seeks to justify his actions as Jihad/holy war, then the American quotes the Quran to him using a verse which is suggestive of Allah being tolerant of non Muslims etc "You have your religion and I have mine" ..that kind of thing. The director obviously gave the actor clear instructions to speak with strong conviction, to convey the idea that 'Islam' itself is good (probably considering an Islamic audience) but the terrorist is 'bad' and mis-applying the religion.

For your consideration I offer you this link to the Quran (4 translations) and ask you to look very carefully at how it describes Christians and Jews, and more importantly the 'reason' it so describes us.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.030

Look down to 009:030 and have a read. I'd value your feedback.
cheers

David,

The warlike sayings of the Quran are matched in vehemence by the Old Testament - a key part of the Christian Bible as well as being Judaic scripture. You cannot deny the Old Testament - it is part of christianity. The bible has been used to justify all manner of atrocities in history.

Therefore, when adhering strictly to scripture, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are equally warlike.

However, we expect well-meaning Christian and Muslim teachers to place these phrases in a historical context.

As far as I am concerned, this is all hypothetical - I am not a slave to any particular dogma. (Blind) Followers of any religion seem to be able to be justify any action by quoting historical passages out of context. I prefer to think for myself.

Dave,
What do you mean by war in Iraq?

The war only lasted a few weeks and Saddams regime was toppled. Remember the dancing in the streets?

The Iraqi people have been too stupid to take the opportunity available to them since that time.

The Sunnis, fearing being wiped out by the Shias, started to blow a few trhings up, to keep the Yanks there, and went too far by blowing up a Shia mosque. So the Shias started blowing things up as well.

The coalition troops there are not fighting a war. The Iraqi people are at war with each other, to establish their pecking order. Probably by the last one standing. If the Iraqis are too stupid to take advantage of the opportunity given them, we should leave them to it. Another dictator may take charge as obviously they do not have the intelligence to govern themselves.

i believe cheney, rumsfeld, perle, and bush had, and still have, a clear purpose in initiating the iraq war. it appears they have not succeeded in accomplishing their purpose, but still too soon to know.

it is clear that their stated purpose was a lie, and the lie might have been a cover for some kind of megalomaniac dream of map re-drawing.

they have made america much less safe. many more people despise americans now, and in this sea of contempt will swim many more people whose contempt has been transformed to raging hatred.

i have no sympathy for any american. it's true that many despise the bush regime, but chiefly for it's lack of success. there will be no push for submission to the international criminal court. and bush is no freak: kennedy, johnson, nixon, and reagan all presided over genocide in southeast asia or central america.

who is winning the iraq war? the carlyle group, for one. the bush family profits from it, so perhaps that is all the success they are looking for.

Banjo,

Your comments sadly display the same ignorance of Iraq that the pro-war regime in the US had/have before invading it. Iraq is not historically a single country and it was prefectly predictable that the disparate groups would fight when there was no longer a dictator to hold the country together.

Same happened to Yugoslavia after the death of Tito.

These consequences are so predictable, it is unbelievable that anyone is surprised. Like putting a match to a pile of firewood and being surprised when it catches alight. Which makes anyone (the US, UK, Australia) setting off such a conflict at least partially culpable.

Although it is not unlikely that predictable Haliburton, Carlyle Group etc profiteering was enough justification for the pro-war hawkes.

carsten,
Ignorant, be dammed! My summation of the events in Iraq since the invasion is pretty accurate. The whole populace rejoiced at the toppling of Saddams statue. But the Sonnis, who were top dogs, needed the yanks for protection as the Shia had about 30 years of vengence to catch up on. The lefties here were saying that the Sunnis wanted the occupiers to leave, but they were wrong, the Sunnis needed the yanks to stay.

I never did say whether I supported the idea of the invasion or not and that is irelavant. The object was to get rid of Saddam and that was acheived easily.

The only war there now is a civil war and I do not think we should loose any sleep over the iraqis stupidity.

Look on the bright side, the Sunnis and the Shia are doing more than most to reduce the worlds over population.

It should not be taken for granted saying America has lost the war comes from those who are anti American only.
As I have said here before I was in favor of the war at its start.
And as I have said I was very wrong.
America has been badly lead in this war, and lost the real battle, for hearts and minds within the first 6 months.
Britain and Australian troops have not yet lost respect of all sides.
Can anyone forget those pictures of torture?
They are a symptom of an America that Bush has created, and the world will never forget them.
The war against terrorism will continue to be fought and the world needs America to return to the country it once was.
Some leadership, such as Bush and Blair with Howard following along holding tightly to the shirt bottom is as much the wests enemy as terrorism.
Draft Al Gore.
America needs a leader who can count.
Count the body's and the costs count the benefits and the losses

Banjo,

Yes, you are generally correct in your summation. Getting rid of Saddam was an easy, if pointless, task. Saddam was a toothless tiger. But there is question of what comes after that is preditably the real problem. The US did not depose Saddam so that anarchy could reign in Iraq. So that the oil reserves could not be fully utilised. So that Iran's position in the region is strengthened. That the anarchy in Iraq could be used as a recruitment drive for further terrorism (from within or without Iraq). Almost everyone in Iraq is materially worse off today than they were under Saddam (possible exceptions being some Kurds in the north).

So - what was the point?

I'd suggest the corporations have won the war in Iraq. Every corporation from the weapons makers to the drug companies to the gun runners.

Carsten,
The point is that we do NOT have a war in Iraq. The war ended when Saddams statue came down.

Our troops are there now as peacekeepers. The civil factions of Sunnis and Shia don't really have a civil war either. They just let off a few bombs each day. This mainly damages each other, so what the hell! A few Yanks get hit now and then but apparently they are perpared to suffer that for the oil.

Iraq might make a good staging post from which to invade Iran. But I would rather knock Magarbe for a six. Zimbarwe people deserve better than him.

Dear Carsten
sorry if it seemed like I ducked off, it takes a while for people to fully enter one's radar, specially when they have a few very regular 'anti'-fans like Pericles and CJ Morgan.

You made a number of points, and I wish to engage you on one most important one. You claimed the Old Testament can be used just as the scriptures of Islam can.

Firstly..did you actually read the link to the Quran? Please divulge its primary content.

Using accepted principles of academic interpretation on the Quran and hadith, it becomes abundantly clear that it not only can but IS being used to justify horrific acts today. In the other thread you said I have an anti Islam bent.. you BET I do.. I absolutely do, and the verses like Quran 9:30 are one of the reasons for that anti bent. See what they say, and remember..I am Christian. (I'd feel the same if I'm Jewish) I feel so strongly about this I've taken to the streets about it.

Secondly, on the grounds of accepted academic methods of interpretation (context, who, what, where, when, etc) which are applied to any historical document, I feel quite confident in saying that the Old Testament canNOT be used to justify aggression against anyone at any time.

It can ONLY be used by the Jews, in regard to the Canaanites, and those who are their enemies during the period before the Messiah.

If you believe otherwise, please provide one good example which we can together grapple with in terms of those accepted principles of documentary interpretation. Please don't waste my or your time with any cut and paste from some '50,000 contradictions in the Bible' or the Skeptics Annotated Bible :)

Banjo,

Actually the stated reason for the war in Iraq was that Saddam had WMDs, and Saddam also had links to Al Qaeda. Iraq was supposedly an immanent threat because of these things, and the coalition of the willing came up with its doctrine of pre-emption which was, and is, illegal under international law.

Of course there were no WMDs and there were no links with Al Qaeda. The “intelligence” was fabricated by the perpetrators of the war to justify their invasion. Iraq was never an immanent threat.

Although “regime change” was ruled out as a justification for the invasion by our own PM, once it was obvious WMDs would not be found, “regime change” conveniently became the justification. The “object” of the invasion was never to get rid of Saddam. The real reason for the invasion was to get control of the oil, and it had been planned long before 9/11.

This fabrication, and the real reason for the invasion, was patently obvious to millions of people all over the world. Yet you seem to believe the bull fed to you, after the fact, about getting rid of Saddam.

cont...

...cont

As for your comments that we are not still fighting a war in Iraq, well you could have fooled GWB and little Johnny. The phony “war on terror” is apparently going to go on for decades according to our fearless leaders, and Iraq is a central part of it.

Further to your suggestion that the civil war in Iraq has nothing to do with the invasion, you are just plain wrong. The disaster in Iraq flows inexorably from the illegal and predatory invasion, and the actions of an aggressive occupying force. The US used classic imperialist divide and conquer tactics designed to foment division among the various groupings in order to subjugate the population to their aims. Iraq was once a secular country with the some of the highest living standards in the Middle East. After two US invasions, a decade of debilitating sanctions, and a violent and oppressive occupation, vital infrastructure has been destroyed – water, electricity, hospitals, education etc, hundreds of thousands have been killed and injured, and millions displaced, and there is extremely high unemployment. These things are a direct result of the invasion, as is the civil war now being carried out.

Face it, the US and its coalition warmongers did not invade Iraq to “spread democracy”, they went in there to get control of the oil. Their actions, and the disastrous consequences of them, flow directly from the original motive. They are all war criminals.

no, tao, they are not war criminals. war criminals are people in front of a court with power to punish, and a prosecutor with evidence of wrong doing.

these people are merely national leaders protecting national interests. (a 'national interest' is someone else's property that you intend to use.) so long as the american electorate continues it's habit of supporting regimes which supply cheap oil, there will be no 'war criminals' in america. no high level war criminals, anyway.

DEMOS

The Nuremberg Trials, to which the US made a major contribution, established the legal precedent that launching an agressive war (i.e. not in self defence) is a crime.

The US government launched an agressive war against Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of more than 655,000 people, displacement of millions, and the destruction of their society. It is nothing other than a massive war crime.

The “war of choice” launched by the Bush administration is in no legal sense fundamentally different from the decisions and actions for which the Nazi leaders were tried and hanged in October 1946. The US government knows this very well, and that is why it refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

The Nuremberg Trials also found that the atrocities of Nazi Germany flowed from the "aggressive war", and the Nazi leaders were responsible for them. Similarly, the atrocities of Iraq, including the current civil war, flow from the initial illegal invasion and occupation.

The US's government's doctrine of pre-emption means that it can attack any nation it "believes" to be a threat on the basis of what that nation MIGHT do in the future. The result is that it has justified the use of military force to pursue its aims. The current aims are control of the oil in the Middle East, which is needed to offset the decline of US capitalism. The actions of the US ruling elite have their own logic determined by the crisis of US capitalism. As Hitler didn't stop with Poland, the US can't stop with Iraq. Voting for the Democrats (who voted and continue to vote for the war) won't end the war.