Do you consider invading other sovereign nations for their resources legitimate? Try to consider the various costs and consequences.

On Wmds:
- Fabricated evidence and sensationalist propositions.

On "The Bad Guy":
- in the 1990s, when the regime's crimes were being carried out, Western countries did not wage war in response to those crimes.
- Sanctions imposed on Iraq led to the deaths of approximately 500,000 children. M.Albright's response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
- The United States sold chemical weapons to the regime in the 1980s
- Australian AWB Oil-For-Food scandal with the regime

The Puppet Master: Project for a New American Century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#US_World_Dominance_.28.22Power_Americana.22.29

A lot of our money is being spent by Howard on the Iraq War and on the ADF. It's a little ironic for Nelson to be so pro-war at the taxpayers expense. Perpetual War is desirable for at least two powerful entities in the the USA: The Military Industrial complex and the Neoconservatives (PNAC). This is what Eisenhower said about the MIC and after you put the pieces together, you may find the implications for Australia are clear considering our uncritical support of the US and it's disregard for the rights of foreigners.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex#Origin_of_the_term

Dear Steel...
Eisenhower was quite right. There are always dangers from those of 'us' who will seek to gain advantage for their own little segment of the community. Now.. correct as this is, I'm rather reminded of every political party I know of.... they all do that.

But when it is the MUC... there are bigger dangers. I agree.

The main thing I wish to point out about the title, is that 'ensuring security of resources' does not neccessarily mean 'Invading a country for its resources'.

Why? If the invasion is to root out a despot AND install a democratic government which will be friendly to us, I don't see any major moral issue there.

BUT ..IF we were to invade a country in order to RUTHLESSLY EXPLOIT its resources for our benefit at no cost, then I see a moral issue there. For example, when the Japanese colonized Korea, they denuded the hills of Timber for the sake of Japan. 'moral issue'.

Please try to distinguish between the 'aggression/greed' based military action, and the 'noble' kind :)

Not that there is much nobility at the end of the day in such things, most of the dignity and nobility is lost in the horror and hell of what war usually ends up being.

I have no specific 'Christian' solution here except the usual one "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

If my country was ruled by Sadaam Hussein, and my sister had been taken as a sex toy by his son on a whim one day.. and the Americans came to install democracy, yep..I'd quite welcome that.

The Americans biggest weakness is that they don't totally dominate the country and stamp out ALL sectarian aggression. They won't because of the stupid notion of 'human rights' which is oblivious to tribal religious realities.

When a country is divided along sectarian lines there are only 3 viable possibilities for peace.
1/ Side A rules side B
2/ Side B rules side A
3/ Side OUTSIDER rules both of them.

Where are all our spin-doctors when we need them? Iraq and most of the Islamic world are perfect targets for denigration. Why don’t we broadcast footage to the Islamic world of the ridiculous half cooked doctor from Glasgow with his suicide note. How about the stupid Taliban mufti from the red mosque in Islamabad; running around under his burqha and hiding among the women.
We need to urgently source greenhouse friendly energy and move quickly away from dependence on Middle East oil. I feel if we commit enough resources alternatives will soon emerge.
We also must stop accepting so called refugees from Lebanon, Iraq, and Pakistan etc., as it has been an unpleasant and expensive experience.

Boaz,

"..and the Americans came to install democracy, yep..I'd quite welcome that. The Americans biggest weakness is that they don't totally dominate the country and stamp out ALL sectarian aggression. They won't because of the stupid notion of 'human rights' which is oblivious to tribal religious realities"

You made sound so romantic :-)

The US and intl community 's main motivation is control of energy sources Boaz and very few people can think differently. The same reason why Darfur is now in focus because of its natural gas reserves.

Many countries who advocated regime change in Iraq argued it could ben done internally through a peaceful and/ or military coup. The US forced its view of a full scale military action (including destruction of Iraqi infrastructure). The increasing number of US army personnel charged with rape, civilian murders and man slaughter flies in the face of your 'human rights efforts'.

Probably you meant Australian humanitarian efforts. Please don't confuse American and Australian efforts in Iraq.

We have been lucky so far we had no Aussie casualty, shouldn't we quit when we are ahead? or do you think the Italian way of pulling out after casualties was better?

Put the ego aside and think Boaz,

So what's new?
The USA only got involved in WW1 (and WW2) when it knew that they would miss out on the carve-up of the Middle East after it was over.

Every war is about resources or opening new markets.

Even Colin Powell said (in Australia) that he expected to have troops in Afghanistan by the end of the year - months before 911 - and that skirmish was more about Caspian Sea Oil pipelines than anything else.

"We just want to disarm him, we're not after regime change.." That's how the original argument went.

F-H, we know that Boaz has his own special form of rationality, as is frequently evidenced in this forum.

Oil was always the reason for invading Iraq; Saddam/WMDs were the pretext.

We always knew that, but it's interesting to see Nelson finally admitting it.