pericles, i tried to reduce immediate emotional involvement by stripping away names and positions.

my points are these:

i believe john howard hired professional killers to go to iraq and afghanistan, and there kill anyone who did not submit to his will.

not his will, of course, dubya's- but that's another rotten story.

every dead iraqi is on his head, for he is a willing participant in the occupation and rule of the country.

america has been involved in this sort of murder since 1776. recent advances in transportation, communication, and education, and the widespread accessibilty of military methods and materials have made possible the 'strike back' of middle eastern 'c's 'against american ' a's '. and finally, the victims of american hegemony could do something that would get america's attention. that was the wtt attack, which has many characterizations. i call it karma.

meanwhile, as a loyal suckerfish of the american empire, ozzians can expect to be visited by ' c's ' and ' d's ' who find us an easier target than the yanks. don't be too self righteous about the incoming, in some measure, we got it coming.

I thought it might be something along those lines.

Unfortunately, the use of armies to pursue the objectives of governments by proxy has been sanctioned by the general populace for aeons. In fact, we even codified the parameters in the form of a convention, just to make sure.

So unfortunately your entry in the metaphor handicap stakes just fell at the first fence.

>>john howard hired professional killers to go to iraq and afghanistan<<

Wrong. He sent some members of our armed forces. While these are "professional killers" in the most literal sense of the words, this doesn't hold water in the sense that you want it to - i.e., that "soldier", "professional killer" and "murderer" are interchangeable terms.

The difference is that society has sanctioned governments' creation of armies, and their right to deploy them.

What is not sanctioned is action outside the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention, which is why you find American soldiers being tried for crimes committed outside these restrictions.

You do however skirt close to the reality of the issue when you point out that our activities may lead to reprisals, and that these reprisals may be in ways that are not even on nodding terms with the aforesaid convention.

But that's another story.

Until and unless we are beaten in battle, and are therefore liable to be tried in that wonderfully unjust category of "war crimes", we can be as self-righteous as we like.

we could argue longer pericles, but you're right about war crimes: they're only committed by the losers. yet america does not subscribe to the international criminal court, even though they are not likely to lose any time soon. i suppose they feel arrest warrants would be bad for tourism.

Demos I am not sure that this is helpful but surely you could argue that makes all Australians murderers. We elected the government (does not matter in this instance whether you voted for them or not) and the opposition did not oppose the deployment of troops very hard either. (Remember Kevin Rudd himself said there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.)
Or we could contract someone to take us to somewhere. On the way he drives recklessly and kills someone. Should we be held responsible? Remember we have a contract with him.
Oh and the other issue. Are we morally required to be "good Samaritans" and should we be legally required to be "good Samaritans". Is killing someone justified if it saves other lives...you know the sort of argument "I know he is going to drop an atomic bomb and kill several million people. I have seen him put the bomb on the plane. I know what his flight plans are etc etc."
I do know I am totally and utterly opposed to the death penalty...

As I have said before I thought we did the right thing for the right reasons in getting involved in the Iraq war.
And as I have said before I was wrong, it is extremely easy to look back and see that.
But at the time? yes lies and miss information helped deceive me, mad man Saddam playing lunatic confrontational games did too.
But was it wrong to stop the killing in the old Yugoslavia? some may well say yes it was given the hatred the west gets as payment for it.
Should we walk away from Africa, or continue the very half hearted concerns we show for every day murders?
While sickened yes that is right, by the dreadful America we have today I wonder how we would be without them?
Or if we stopped trying to help, maybe if America returns to a pre ww2 policy we can find out how we go on our own.
America has no way out of Iraq and no victory is possible what now?

Yes, Communicat, this is exactly what he is suggesting.

>>Demos I am not sure that this is helpful but surely you could argue that makes all Australians murderers.<<

And Belly, your list is a good summary of the reasons war starts.

>>lies and miss information helped deceive me, mad man Saddam playing lunatic confrontational games did too<<

Following 9/11 there was no chance that the US was going to miss the opportunity to invade Iraq, it was simply a matter of finding the right conjunction of events or excuses. In the end, they had to invent some of each in order to provide sufficient political cover.

>>But was it wrong to stop the killing in the old Yugoslavia?<<

Don't worry, it is only a temporary ceasefire. The underlying problems were not solved by intervention, merely deferred.

>>Should we walk away from Africa<<

Any absence will be filled in the coming years by China, which might have precipitated a form of East-West confrontation in the past, but due to the weakening of the US' international political capital, this may not occur.

>>America has no way out of Iraq and no victory is possible what now?<<

That leads to a position that says America will defend its weakening position (read: attack anything that is smaller than themselves) - with bluff, bluster and cluster bombs.

In summary, the causes of war are: a) warmongering politicians out for personal aggrandizement, b) political interference driven by ideology and/or religion, c) replacing one set of political influence on countries with potential economic benefit, with another and d) the final desperate thrashings of a country whose moral leadership and ethical influence is rapidly waning.