Is time to talk with loud voices for peace, not more people to die in the name that anyone can't feel is the true.
Our world is waiting for changes because the time before a catastorfic future is an insane reallity.
The money that is espend for today wars we need for research and development a new opportunities for a young generations, living in better world with dignity and happines.
Thank you.

"Iraq Implodes" - That's a boldfaced lie. How can a British newspaper be so shamelessly immoral?

And by the way, what have you Brits been doing in Basra all this time? This is the mess you leave behind after all that nationalistic crowing in Parliament about how you experts ought to teach us Yanks how to do things right?

I'm sure your troops really like serving as target practice with no permission to fight back. Real good for morale to make them bend over for it like that. Way to have an effective fighting force that commands respect.

Why stay one day longer? Your guys are good for nothing there. They aren't even mentioned in connection with the event over here. So I had to Google to find out if the UK was even still in the war.

Chris, it was your damn stupid idea to fight this war. So if you wanna be a cowboy, you saddle-up and ship-out to Iraq, John Bloody Wayne. It's YANKEE policies that have resulted in this bloodbath.

YOU broke it. YOU fix it. And don't come here pointing the finger when you're too GUTLESS to fight yourself.

In a rare moment of commonsense, Enoch Powell predicted the US wouldn't win in Vietnam because they didn't live there.

Fast forward 40 years and the same applies in Iraq, the difference being Blair dragged Britain into this mess whereas Wilson managed to keep us out of Vietnam.

There is no point in hanging on in Iraq to get shot at for our trouble. Time to go. We should not be there in the first place.

the socalled 'government' of Iraq doesn't launch an offensive of theis size without the co-operation of the United States, who really 'rules' Iraq. One has to remember that Iraq is an occupied country. The Americans want to destroy Sadr's powerbase and their grip over the South of Iraq, the regions oil and strategic importance cannot be overestimated. Bring the South to heel and the centre is strenghthed. Whether this is just a regional offensive or the start of a bloody and brutal national civil war is too early to tell.

***Why stay one day longer? Your guys are good for nothing there.***

The lesson there for you Chris is to stick to enemies that you can win against. Countries like Granada and Panama. Then Hollywood can make lots of films of how America saved the world.

This wasn't our fight, it was an illegal war against a country that posed no threat to us, based on lies and maintained by continuous lies. Bush wanted us involved for two reasons, one to give him a fig leaf of legitimacy and two to make it look as if it was a genuine international effort. When in truth it was only a grubby little colonial war to steal Iraqi resources and set up bases to control the Middle East oil reserves.

It is us who are the enemy here, not the Iraqis, we are the invaders destroying their country and stealing their oil. They tragically are now fighting each other, encouraged by America while it steals their country.

I want out troops out of there now and to hell with George Bush and America. You broke it, so you fix it!

'I'm sure your troops really like serving as target practice with no permission to fight back. Real good for morale to make them bend over for it like that. Way to have an effective fighting force that commands respect.'

Why is it that chicken hawks are so fond of the 'bend over' metaphor? Can it possibly say something about the psychology of those who love seeing men in uniform going out and committing brutal acts? I thought that it was your good hetero soldiers who liked getting men to bend over in your sordid Abu Ghraib prison.

And to answer your question, no I don't think that British soldiers like serving as target practice. Not for Iraqis who dislike the foreign occupation. And certainly not for bloody stupid American jet fighters who bomb British armoured vehicles.

We should just get out now.

@Chris from the US of A.....

"Boldfaced [sic] lie"? how do you figure that? Don't tell me - you're sitting in a internet cafe in central Baghdad sipping a coffee and watching the world go by....

Listen mate - don't try to make yourself feel better about you country's psychopathic military incompetence by blaming "the Brits" for you woes. Face it - you guys have lost - just like in Vietnam - and its YOUR fault.

It must be quite lonely for you - I don't reckon there are many people left who are as deluded as you are....

Boldfaced lie - hmmmm... Cheney claiming "phenomenal progress" in Iraq anyone?

Chris, sadly isn't in the minority amongst Americans, who are ready to point the finger at our troops in the South. The whole US psyche is based around supporting your troops come what may, and go in with all guns blazing. We only have to look at the Haditha massacres, Fallujah firestorm and the Abu Ghraib disgrace. We do not rally around our "Commander in Chief", because we do not have one. The C in C in the US is actually a proven coward with a dubious military past. None of the leaders in the coalition have served in the armed forces in war time, they are all chicken hawks.
It would suit the US to maintain a military presence in Iraq for years to come, because they are afraid of their old enemy from 1979, becoming a threat in the region. The Shia actually have a majority in Iraq, but the US continue to pay Sunni militiamen to "keep the peace". Why does nobody ever question the constant bombings in Karbala? Thousands of Shia have been killed at the hands of Sunni insurgents and Al Quaeda, but all we hear from the US (Cheney, Bush and McCain), is how Iran are responsible for all of the killings.
There is a lot of propaganda at the moment, and much of it is aimed at legitimising a US led conflict against Iran. There is a near civil war state in Iraq at the moment, but do not rule out the possibility that the US would try to shift the blame for this to another country, after all, some in the US are already blaming the UK for "faulty intelligence" which led to war in the first place.

From the song "If I Ever Lose My Faith", by Sting: "...when every military solution, turned out to be something worse."

Violence begets violence, full stop.

How many more will die before we, the People, remove from power those who use war and violence as an end for political supremacy?

One major problem is the complexity of the situation and the rapid changes which occur. Before people " Blog " with such certainty would it not be wiser to admit that no-one actually knows what is happening? Can anyone who contributes to this "Blog" actually define what are the intentions of the various groups involved? It would appear most contributors prefer returning to some emotional default rather than undertaking the tedious task of aquiring facts and trying to work out a solution.

Rules for Chickenhawks #1

Onomatopoeia is your best friend. If you use words like 'blah blah', 'boo hoo', then you do not have to use facts, imagination, intelligence or reason (which will lead to your being defeated in argument).

Of course peacenik oafs are so stupid and ideological that they will not appreciate your stunning cleverness, but that is because of their own shortcomings.

Well, well, well--as if our opinion mattered! The allied powers--especially the US, Israel and UK are in their element over this civil war--indeed, it is what they have orchestrated all along to relieve allied forces. It is not new--it is the process used to keep instability, when an enemy cannot be vanquished. The oil gushers are still bringing out the elixir, so there is no problem in the rest of Iraq haemorrhaging, as long as the fat cats get their oil. One thing is for sure--as long as oil is in Iraq--the Iraqis will not be left alone to sort out their affairs--that's not an option from the New World Order merchants.

Look - there's another one! Chris - I believe you have a friend...

@Richard Dean

I'd REALLY love to hear your version of events... Obviously you are privvy to information that the rest of us aren't aware of - so if it isn't Bush blah Cheney blah Oil blah... what is it? The Easter Bunny, a bunch of commies and Jello?

I suppose you'd deny that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of our invasion? In some countries, you can be arrested for denying that kind of thing...

"LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" was a popular slogan back in the 60s during the American invasion of Indochina. How many kids in Irak have been killed because of American and British meddling in the Middle East? Neither the American or British governments concern themselves with the death tolls of Iraqui civilians. It is the control of the oil resources that matter, long known before the end of the Second World War.

American and British forces must leave at once before further plans to attack Iran can be averted. Otherwise, the possibility of WWIII is very likely, with "God on the Bush gang´s side."

Sorry everyone, but its an inevitable fight required by any
country that wants to be ruled by one law or a government, and
is a typical feature of history. It should have been fought
by the UK and US but that could look like foreigners killing
Iraqis and provoke a backlash, so we have to wait in Arabic time.
The same idea is true in Afghanistan where it would be better
to integrate Afghan and NATO troops - if possible.

It also brings open one error in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein
- which 90% of Iraqis wanted - in that the oppression and horror
in Iraqi was not the fault of one man. There are thousands more
out there who declare the country, or its destiny, lies in their
hands and to hell with what the majority want - and the readers
of the Independent will support them so long as they hate
Americans - or the ones they love to hate.

You people can say what you like about the motives of Bush and
Blair in their rush to Iraq but your writing betrays little
concern for Iraqis, only for revenge on the people you hate
in your own closed little world. If the troops in Iraq were
Turkish or Iranian, with a bloodbath to boot, not one of you
would have a word to say - or perhaps even know where Iraq was.

George Bush is the freckle-faced kid on the other side of the
playground - the spoilt brat son of a millionaire - and you
just want to go over and slosh him. That is the limit of the
political conciousness of most of you and the main reason we
disregard nearly anything you say. You are part of the horror,
lost in a silly little "Famous Five" world where the villains
are not "smugglers" but the CIA, Cheney, Haliburton, "neocons"
and what ever else your pseudo-intellects can find - or "link".

Try reading history and about the real people in it and get real!

Gee thanks for clearing that up P.H. Connell - there was me thinking my concern for Iraq and its people was something to do with my having a degree in Middle Eastern studies, having visited Iran, Syria and Jordan and having a general interest in the history and culture of the region.

Thanks to your superior knowledge, I'm no longer labouring under that misconception - I'm clearly just a selfish git "getting revenge on the people I hate"... shucks.

Just out of interest, if you hate the Independent and its readers so much... err... what are you doing here, exactly?

This is nothing.

The surge is working perfectly.

This will be a 'cakewalk'.

Rules for Chickenhawks #2

If you fancy yourself an intellectual, you might try moving a step above onomatopoeia. But still, do not try using facts, reason or intelligence. Just be patronising and try telling the poor peaceniks that they don't understand what's happening. Of course don't be too specific just use lame irrelevant metaphors. We have a superb example by mr Connell:

George Bush is the freckle-faced kid on the other side of the playground - the spoilt brat son of a millionaire - and you just want to go over and slosh him. That is the limit of the political conciousness of most of you and the main reason we disregard nearly anything you say. You are part of the horror, lost in a silly little "Famous Five" world where the villains are not "smugglers" but the CIA, Cheney, Haliburton, "neocons" and what ever else your pseudo-intellects can find - or "link".

Note: do not argue why Halliburton/ Bush etc are forces for good. Just tell the peaceniks that they don't understand. It's better that way.

'That is the limit of the
political conciousness of most of you and the main reason we
disregard nearly anything you say'

BTW who are the 'we' in question? Tony Blair had a meeting with the country's leading middle east experts and they all advised him against invading Iraq. They pointed out that Iraq was a tribal nation and toppling the Baathists could result in mass violence (oddly enough, when was the last time anyone heard the BBC referred to as the Baathist Broadcasting society?) Still I'm sure that Tony had an adviser just like Mr Connell. 'You see, all these professor types, they're like something out of Enid Blyton. They want to bully George Bush and Halliburton, but don't really know anything'.
(Blair nods like a toy dog on the backseat of a car)

Al: You have very cleverly responded to the wrong post, the name is at the bottom not the top.

I notice that you have still not given me a source for your absurd claims about the Mehdi Army, which still sound to me more like the senile dribblings of John McCaine than an Iraqi. At least I told you why I thought that you were a lying American troll, puerile abuse is not really an answer is it? Put up or shut up. Oh and while we're about it how can I be racist against people of the same race? eh genius.

To Tom,

Just to note - I do not hate Independent Readers - I used to be
a interested reader of the Independent and The Guardian but have
become severely disaffected by the arrogant (and almost racist)
tone of anti-americanism, coupled with a kind of intellectual
posturing which has other flavours in the "media" in general.

(The medium is not the message any more - it is the messenger!)

The news these days is so opinionated that I read all the papers
- and that includes the vile adolescent trash that is The Mail -
including the Independent and Guardian just to be reminded of
viewpoints that might be different from mine.

What you don't understand is that some of us grew up wanting
to make the world a better place and supported all who rose
up, or tried to - and there were many, against their despots.
A life of disappointments as the world stands by and does little
or nothing but talk as an exercise in itself and not as a some
precursor to action. The aim in life is not to disturb the froth
on your caffe latte and to keep your hands cleaner than those
of Pontius Pilate - and somehow demonstrate how much you "know"
as if it is some kind of status symbol- a significant branch of
intellectuality in the UK.

In the end we were so desperate we even wished the Iranians might
have brought down Saddam after his 1979 war - heaven forbid, and
then came George - the one-term-President transformed into a
"born again commander-in-chief" by the crazed Osama. We couldn't
believe it - just hoped he would leave it to his military - but
he left it to Mr Rumsfield, with dire results.

What you don't get (and George also) is that the only justification
for the invasion is that most Iraqis wanted an army to bring down
Saddam. If it was American then please stay for a month or two
then go home - which it seems the Americans were happy to do.
Until the second invasion of Muslim adolescents lost in their
dreams of refighting the crusades. The fact that most Iraqis
wanted peace and quiet and a chance to work out their own future
meant nothing, just as it meant nothing in the psycho-killing we
heard about in Algeria.

Your logic is wrong - if the Americans create a power vacuum that
takes time to fill because of inertia and infighting amongst the
Iraqis you have no right to walk in and start a bloodbath and then
say "it is the fault of my enemy". That is adolescent logic.

The other point is that practically all dictatorships have their
origin and driving force in their own culture. They are not
caused by those that "support" them or sell them weapons.
You place far too much importance in American influence instead
of local power elites, rivalries and disaffections. In fact the
whole "puppet theory" of governing is based on an implicit racism
that Latin-Americans, Africans and Arabs are too stupid to
decide anything and are therefore manipulated by "their puppet masters" - read America.

What you fail to understand is that the calamity in Iraq is a
calamity of Arab society and especially in the way they have
brought up their sons to believe in the righteousness of revenge
and violence. Religious belief keeps you in a state of childhood
or adolescence (that includes Americans too) and the preaching of
Islam has contributed to a mind-bending hypocrisy in the Arab
world, even if it claims to be a religion of peace, wisdom and
justice. As with Christianity, it is meaningless!

A study claims that of women married or in a relationship with
a man in Middle Eastern countries (Turkey too) one half have
been beaten at some point. The violence is male and endemic and
for people like myself any change that can bring some sort of
democractic mechanism and participation of women will always
be supported - but hardly with a clear conscience given the
violence required.

I am afraid the Americans are not responsible for the murder
you see today in Iraq and the Arab world (or most of it) is lost
in complete denial of their role in what is really happening.

But if you want some satisfaction - torylite Tony Blair will not
go down in history as he hoped, but merely as a footnote.
Unfortunately, hapless George Bush just might - if Iraq stays
together and if it can hold down some sort of democratic mechanism
that is not corruptable. As Chou En-lai famously said - it is too
early to tell - and he was talking about the French Revolution!

By the way, one thing that makes your opinion disregarded is the
use of phrases like: "I reckon you should nuke us.." or "I guess
he's in the backyard blowing chickens apart with his Dad's
shotgun..." - its typical of the whole cavalier way you argue
even if you claim to be degreed in Middle Eastern Studies.

Could someone please explain to Mark Underwood what "onometapoeia" means? He thinks its the same as "alliteration".

Bravo for Sadr! Hopefully he can unite his militia and reach out to his Sunni brothers like he's done in the past (Remember in Fallujah they displayed his picture!) and toigether expel the invaders/occupiers and the collaborators.

As usual George Bush is using a ploy of 'divide and rule' instead of trying to unite this poor stricken country. It's ironic that the American (Iraqi) army are now fighting Saddam Hussein's enemies (and no doubt killing as many).