Very few bombs? Do you know how many were dropped? They were dropped in cities. I don't remember anything about tanks welcoming allied forces. If they did that they would have been lucky not to get blown up. And the violence was inevitable. Iraq is not the same as Germany or Japan. It was barely holding together under Saddam. To expect the same outcome as in Germany or Japan is just naive.

Foreign interference.

---

Rudd says Iraq is still a major blunder

http://news.smh.com.au/rudd-says-iraq-is-still-a-major-blunder/20080319-20di.html

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he hasn't changed his view that the invasion of Iraq almost five years ago was a major blunder.

But it was not the fault of troops, he said.

Mr Rudd, who visited Australian troops in Iraq while in opposition and as prime minister, said they were doing a first class job.

"So there is no criticism of them at all, in fact nothing but praise," he told reporters.

During the election campaign, Labor described Australian involvement in Iraq as the "greatest single failure of national security policy since Vietnam".

"On the overall wisdom of embarking upon this war in the first place, our position is well known," Mr Rudd said.

"If you are going to embark on a war like that, have it very clearly in mind from day one what your exit strategy is to be and what your mission statement is to be," he said.

"That has been one of the problems which the operation in Iraq has confronted from day one."

---

Kind of an empty promise, but it's the thought that counts, right?

Five years on, Bush vows victory in Iraq

http://news.smh.com.au/five-years-on-bush-vows-victory-in-iraq/20080320-20kh.html

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday defended the launch of the war against Iraq five years ago, vowing no retreat as he promised US forces would triumph over Iraqi insurgents.

"Five years into this battle, there's an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it. The answers are clear to me," Bush said at the Pentagon.

http://news.smh.com.au/bush-urges-patience-with-iraq/20080320-20la.html

http://news.smh.com.au/five-years-on-bush-says-iraq-war-will-end-in-victory/20080320-20k5.html

---

About 160 anti-war protesters held in US

http://news.smh.com.au/about-160-antiwar-protesters-held-in-us/20080320-20la.html

More than 160 people were arrested across the United States on Wednesday as protesters marked the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.

There were 32 arrests in Washington after demonstrators attempted to block entrances to the Internal Revenue Service, while 30 others were arrested outside a congressional office building, police said.

Protesters had hoped to shut down the IRS, the US tax collection agency, to highlight the cost of the war. Police cleared the building's entrances within an hour.

Thanks Oceans. This has come up in a few threads. Obviously the legality of a war always comes second to it's moral justification. For starters, to the extent that war is illegal, there is no-one to enforce the law, which makes it a bit pointless. However, since some people have gotten hung up on the technical legality, this is as close to a conclusive answer as you could hope to get:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/0916illegal.htm

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish." He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

---

When a soldier tries to stir up the emotions of local people by doing stupid stuff like this, he puts his mates lives in danger.

US soldier in Iraq shoots holes in Koran

http://news.smh.com.au/world/us-soldier-in-iraq-shoots-holes-in-koran-20080518-2fky.html

An American soldier has been sent home from Iraq after a copy of the Koran was found pocked with bullet holes at a shooting range near Baghdad, the US military said.

Such an act of desecration of the Muslim holy book could inflame anger against the US military presence in Iraq.

The US military said Iraqi police found the Koran on May 11 at a firing range in Radwaniyah village near Baghdad.

Colonel Bill Buckner, a US military spokesman, said the Koran was marked with bullet holes and also had graffiti scrawled inside the cover. It was not immediately clear if the Koran had been used for target practice.

"Coalition commanders have briefed local leaders on the results of the investigation and expressed their deep regret," Buckner said in a statement.

"They have also undertaken disciplinary action against the soldier who was involved and he has been removed from Iraq."

In his statement, Buckner stressed that the US military respected Islam and the Koran.

acid - many iraq civillians have died.
Other iraqs (muslims) are killing them.
Americans are not.

The usual pundits have been saying that Osama was barracking for Rudd and Obama. How about Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki instead?

Maliki backs Obama's exit plan

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24048846-2703,00.html

IRAQI Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki yesterday appeared to endorse Barack Obama's timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, siding with the Democrat presidential nominee on a key policy difference with Republican rival John McCain.

The endorsement from the Iraqi leader came as Senator Obama was in Afghanistan to kick off a tour of the Middle East and Europe in a week that is freighted with importance for American politics.
"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," Mr Maliki told Germany's Der Spiegel magazine. "That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

But Mr Maliki's spokesman in Baghdad last night tried to hose down the comments, saying the Prime Minister's comments were "not conveyed accurately" by Der Spiegel.

Spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Mr Maliki did not endorse a specific timetable but instead discussed a "an Iraqi vision" of US troop withdrawals based on talks with Washington and "in the light of the continuing positive developments on the ground".

Der Spiegel's article quoted Mr Maliki as giving apparent backing to the withdrawal plans discussed by Senator Obama. The Illinois senator has pledged to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he is elected.

Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," Mr Maliki said. "Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems."

Asked when US forces would leave Iraq, he responded: "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned."

In the interview, Mr Maliki said he was not seeking to endorse Senator Obama.

Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to Mr Maliki, said later that Iraqi officials did not intend to be "part of the electoral campaign in the United States". "We will deal with any administration that comes to power," he said.

It was the first time Mr Maliki has backed the withdrawal timetable proposed by Senator Obama, and coming on the eve of the Illinois senator's second visit to the country, the comments will carry heavy weight.

Senator McCain has portrayed withdrawal timetables as something akin to surrender as he attempts to paint Senator Obama as weak and inexperienced on foreign policy and the war.

Senator McCain's foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, said yesterday: "Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground.

"Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honour, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama," Mr Scheunemann said.

Mr Maliki pointedly said in the interview that "Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," he said.

Mr Maliki's endorsement of Senator Obama's position leaves little room for the Democrat's critics, since even US President George W. Bush has said Mr Maliki is the legitimate leader of a sovereign country.

Senator Obama has argued for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and wants to pull out troops within 16 months and instead add more US soldiers to Afghanistan.

Asked if he supported Senator Obama's ideas more than those of Senator McCain, Mr Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

But he added: "Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of US troops would cause problems."

Then, in an embarrassing gaffe, the Obama camp even had the White House trumpeting the news. President Bush has been trying to hose down talks of withdrawal timetables lest it play in the Democratic candidate's hands, but inadvertently the White House press office emailed journalists the news that Mr Maliki was supporting Senator Obama's timetable, distributing a Reuters story under the heading "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine". The email was meant for internal distribution.

Senator Obama's senior national security adviser, Susan Rice, emailed reporters saying Mr Maliki's comments "present an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan".

The news comes amid huge expectation for Senator Obama's first international foray as the Democratic Party's choice for president.

Until now, Senator Obama's most defining moment in the crucible of the US's drawn-out presidential campaign was arguably a race speech in Philadelphia in March. He had been forced to respond to incendiary comments of his former pastor. The speech came off as a political masterstroke and saved his campaign.

In that address, Senator Obama proved that for a majority of Americans he could overcome the political baggage of race that until then had shadowed his candidacy.