Of the five British hostages that was taken hostage last year has committed suicide. A video tape with a note identified the hostage as Jason and showed a picture of a hostage in a football t-shirt. He apparently died on May 25th, just a few days before the year anniversary of the abduction.

The video tape was apparently delivered in Baghdad last week according to a newspaper in London. The reports of the hostage’s death has not been confirmed by the British government. A foreign office spokeswoman said that verification could not be made of the man’s death. A humanitarian appeal for the release of the hostages was made again. However, the hostages have been in custody for a year now with no mention of being released.

The video that was received was titled “Intihar” which means suicide. The photograph that opens up the video is a picture of the hostage. A statement that was signed by “the Shiite Islamic Resistance in Iraq” was also shown on the screen. The statement that was put in the newspaper was placing blame on the British government for the hostage’s alleged death. The group said that the British government has caused the suicide because of their feet dragging. The hostage killed himself because of psychological deterioration due to the fact the British government has not met their demands.

It seems that the real reason why this hostage, Jason is dead is because the group was holding him hostage. If he was not in their custody odds are he would not be psychological deteriorating. Of course, the British government has refused to negotiate with the group. This too is a failure. These people are British citizens and it seems like their country owes them something. At least hear the demands of the group and see what they want.

The very weak Prime Minister of Britain said that there are many people working behind the scenes on this case. However, it seems that no contact has been made in terms of finding out what demands are being made. The prime minister really owes these people a little bit more than this. Being this stubborn and refusing the pay any attention to what this group wants, terrorist group or not, is not getting the situation resolved any faster.

Again, this is another instance of the war in Iraq being out of control. How many people re going to have to die before all of this is over. It is sickening to turn on the news and hear reports like this. A man ahs killed himself because he was being held captive. The people that were holding him captive were trying to get at the British government. It seems that without kidnapping someone from the British government, kidnapping would not make much of a difference.

What will become of this poor man’s body? Will his family not even get that to soothe their sorrows? This is another terrible situation brought to us by this idiotic war in Iraq.

At some point the United States will have to withdraw from Iraq. This has always been clear but the question of when is one that has largely been avoided. An Iraqi government officials, Ali Al-Dabbagh stated the other day that the agreement that there must be timetable to withdraw troops must be agreed upon. While conditions will play some part on when troops will withdraw from Iraq, the discussion of troop withdrawal is necessary. At some point Iraq must be Iraq again.

Al-Dabbagh said that 2011 or 2012 would be fine and that he did not have a specific date in mind but it must happen at some point. The withdrawal of troops from Iraq is something that the democrats have been pushing for. However, President Bush and the republicans are hesitant to talk about pulling out troops. I too don’t really see how troops can be removed soon but I know that this war can not go on forever. There must be some end to this madness.

Of course, with things in Afghanistan starting to overshadow things in Iraq, troops may just be shifted. The Iraq war is one that has it’s peaks and valleys but the Afghanistan war seems to be picking up momentum. Troops will be needed to fight the insurgents in that region.

Then there are all of those promises of making Iraq a better place that Bush put out there. Before the Untied States can leave Iraq, they must make is a better place. That means getting the electricity going on a steady basis, having clean running water and stopping the killing and raping of women that have increased since the new regime has been installed. These are all tall orders to fill.

The Prime Minister of Iraq, Nuri al-Maliki also seems to be in favor of coming up with some type of timetable for troop withdrawal. However, the State Department in Washington does not seem onboard with these notions. Instead they say that they are looking at the conditions opposed to calendars. So that sounds like the timetable is out for now. The conditions seem to vary and the sending over more and more troops is starting to wear very thin on the American public. At some point, people are going to demand when they will not have to watch their young loved ones die in Iraq. When will the danger of being called up for service in Iraq be over?

Of course, while Bush is still in office there is no competent leader to negotiate with. The Bush administration is not one for reason so it might be best for the Iraqi government to lay low and wait for the next president. No matter who it is, there is a better chance of talking about reasonable options with them. The authority of the U.S. over Iraq is something that Bush greatly desired from the very beginning, now that it is in place, he is very reluctant to give it up. Hopefully the next administration will be more flexible.

This story falls into the “Well, duh!” category. President Bush misrepresented secret intelligence information to create a case to invade Iraq. That is what the Senate Intelligence Committee has come up with. Of course, I didn’t have to be on any committee to know that this was the case.

It is obvious what happened, in fact, it isn’t even a good plan but for some reason it worked. Bush for whatever reasons, if you ask me, oil was the case, decided that attacking Iraq was thee thing to do. He decided this even though there was no reason to believe that the man he said the United States military was looking for, bin Laden was in Iraq. There was also no evidence to indicate that anyone in Iraq had anything to do with the September 11th attacks. So, my question, when I heard that the U.S. was going to invade Iraq, was why?

Five years later, with thousands of troops dead and an endless war raging, this report comes out. Of course, the lack of weapons of mass destruction was a clue. Then the fact that after the weapons of mass destruction were not discovered there was no war strategy or plan, was another hint that the war had been waged on false pretenses.

Bush preyed on the fears and misconceptions of his nation. A man that said things like “The Axis of Evil” was in charge of an entire country that was terrified after the first terrorist attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. No one felt safe and there was great fear in the air. An oil hungry man with a vice president eager for more business, as in the massive amount of contractors he is responsible for, decide to take a chance. He dangled a country full of non-Christian, darker skinned people in front of the United States and many people fell for it.

So, everyone lied to us but really, why did so many people believe the lies? The information that the United States government was giving did not make much sense. Taking the “War Against Terror” to a place in the world that had not played a part in the terrorism that the United States had faced was just plain strange. The fact that there was so much support for the war in the beginning was very interesting. It showed how much the general public was really paying attention to the rest of the world.

What does this report mean? Well, at this point it does not mean anything in terms of the war being over or finding a direction. However, it does show how careful we must be when listening to what government has to say. Over the past four years distrust for the government and disdain for the president of the United States has increased drastically. People that once trusted whatever decision the government made are now questioning every move. This report should be a reminder that average everyday people must take an interest in the world around them and know what is going on.

After five years of fighting along side American troops in Iraq, Australian soldiers will no longer be involved in the seemingly endless war. Australia committed troops to the war in Iraq five years ago and was one of the first countries to join the U.S in Iraq. Now the new prime minister Kevin Rudd has made good on his promise to have all of Australia’s 550 troops home by mid 2008.

This comes on the tail end of growing hostility around the world about the war in Iraq. Even former supporters are finding that they just don’t see an end point in sight and the goals of the offensive have been blurred. Every since the premise of the war has been rebuked it has been hard to keep up the initial rhetoric of the Iraq war. Without weapons of mass destruction being in the picture the reasons are few and far in-between. Many of the countries that joined forces with the United States are getting backlash from their citizens. No one wants to be a target for hostility and any country involved in the Iraq war is bound to be on someone’s least favorites list.

As time stretches on and the solutions of the Iraq war become less and less clear, there are more governments that have to pull their troops out. The reduction of troops by one country will require that more troops from another country be sent over. That is why things like stop-loss(the reassignment of troops that have already finished their tour of duty) are becoming more prevalent.

The pullout of troops in Iraq has been a good selling point for several different politicians. Countries that have troops in Iraq have seen representatives that promise to bring troops home being very successful. The interesting point about politicians that use the pullout of troops as a campaign promise are actually doing it. Kevin Rudd was elected in November and he has already made good on his promise to get troops out of Australia. The quick turn around shows that even though politicians are known for using issues as campaign strategies and not following through, having troops in Iraq is one of those things that politicians and everyday citizens both have strong views about.

Over the next few months a new president will be elected in the United States. If a democrat is elected, the offensive in Iraq may be in danger. However, since the United States was the country that began the offensive, it will be very difficult for them to pull troops out of the country. What type of future does Iraq have with or without the United States troops fighting a war that has no clearly defined lines? Now that the U.S. has interrupted the flow of things in Iraq, is pulling out troops realistic? It is hard to say at this point but if a candidate is elected that has promised to bring troops home, citizens of the U.S. will expect to see that happen.

This may come to a surprise to many of us but the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq says that Al Qaida is closer to defeat than ever before. Of course, we don’t know how close or far from defeat Al Qaida has been over the years. This news is an interesting but is it really encouraging? Will this lead to an end of the Iraqi War?

At this point it seems that Al Qaida is less of a concern than some of the other insurgents that are rising up. While Al Qaida may be sending messages through the streets of Iraq, it seems that they are not the sole proprietor of chaos and anti-western sentiment. The idea that democracy will always work is as silly as the idea that communism will always work. Different places require different governing tactics and now that this democracy has been installed in Iraq, the main question is can the U.S. really leave Iraq even after al Qaida is defeated?

The obvious answer is no. Iraq has a long way to go before it will be a fully functioning viable country again. The reports about the lack of electricity and the water that is not fit to drink are still coming out and suicide bombers are prone to pop up in various places. Al-Sadr City the so called safe and clear zone has been the subject of many attacks over the past few months. This was the portion of the country that was said to be secured but what we have seen lately looks like a false sense of security. Could this report from the U.S. Ambassador be the same thing?

After the defeat of Al Qaida will troops be able to leave Iraq? Will all of the promises that were made by the U.S. government be met? These are serious issues to consider when a country invades another one and uproots their government. Issues that it is obvious that George W. Bush did not take into account when he decided that oil rich Iraq would be a great place to attack based on false presumptions. The truth about the invasion of Iraq and the war that Bush has declared victory in several times over the past few years, is that it has a long way to go. The U.S. lead invasion of Iraq must finish what it began and that is easier said than done.

The green light to leave Iraq will not come with one event, even an event as monumental as the defeat of Al Qaida. There will have to be a number of things that occur before troops can withdraw and Iraq will be a country of its own will again. Winning the war is only half the battle. There is much more work to be done in Iraq and the majority of it can not be accomplished with guns. The solutions lie far beyond any bullet or military offensive. The changes that have occurred in the country will take a while to get used to and since Iraq is not in a stable position yet, the adjusting has not even begun.