It's not an 'invasion' when you're just trying to stop a crazy man who might bomb your country. That's just 'securing the peace' and whatnot. Why, invasion is when you attack them AND go in and take over the country instead of liberating the people and to their leaders of choice.

Welcome to the new America/Rome. This is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. And it shows that Saddam is not the ultimate 'target'. If that were true, they'd help Iraq stabilise while they [Iraqis] build a government and then get the hell out like they said they would months ago (when you deny something in politics and then turn around later and do that thing, it's called 'changing your mind', not lying. although for this to work we must assume that all political decisions are made on the spur of the moment. right...). But, no, we're going to occupy Iraq. Plain and simple. We're going to invade and take control of the whole country. Oh, it's easy enough to say it in other ways that 'seem' harmless enough when glossed over, but in the end it's a manufactured government and they will certainly control the oil 'more to our liking'. Hell, they spell it out, "...General Tommy Franks, the head of the US Central Command, is to establish military control until a US administrator is appointed..." It will be a military state controlled by the US until such time as the US decides to install an Iraqi or Iraqi-appearing leader in office.

It's wrong and it cheapens what America stands for. God help us all. All Bush needs is that little "Nero" haircut... And Australia sure is paying for it politically. The only representative for Australia on the security council went as far as to say that Iraq has never been a threat to Australia (as was put forth by Howard and company) and that that the troop deployments 'are' a committment to war and that this deception by the government was "more serious than that of the 'children-overboard' affair".

And where the fuck is all this proof we were promised? Those blurry pics and docs cut and pasted from ther net were crap. Where's all this proof? The US keeps saying they have it and, ergo, know that Iraq hasn't dis-armed... yet they keep producing specious and/or circumstantial evidence. Or as one yokel was over-heard to say "they got satellites that can read a newspaper from space and these blurry photos of buildings are the best they can do?" I scoffed at him at first... now I'm starting to see his point. Those who expect, when the US forces 'liberate' Baghdad, to see some James Bond villain-like hi-tech lair of weaponry are going to be very fucking disappointed. Half the stuff they have is barely useable and Iran is way ahead of them as far as tech goes.

Saddam Hussein is a very fucking bad man. He is certainly evil. But for the 'world's remaining superpower' [Howard] to have to stoop to this to oust him? Right. Tell me another one. Merely 'ousting' Hussein does not give the US [read: Bush administration] all it wants. It merely removes the evil (which IS what the people want) and leaves the spoils of war behind. The Iraqi people don't want this war any more than thes rest of us 'peace-loving hippies' do. Logic dictates there has to be a better way.

Now... about getting these fuckwits out of office...