Graham wrote: I'm very interested in just war principles, which were hardly touched on during the Iraq discussion. There are clearly outlined principles which were introduced by Augustine and expanded by later theologians and jurists, and came to be accepted by both established Protestant churches as well as the Catholics _ but not by the American Religious Right. They were outlined by Sydney Anglicans at the time of the invasion, and they found the Americans failing on just about the lot - a conservative church, but sticking to basic and long established principles.

I think Brad and Boffo clearly got the better of the debate, but the opposition could have been stronger. Dany used arguments which are common among lefties and peaceniks, but which cut little ice elsewhere.

I think also some attention should be given to realpolitik issues. It now looks increasingly as if the Americans attacked the wrong country. Iraq tried to do everything it could to avoid provoking the Americans. But Ahmadinejad and the Iranians - now they are being provocative - to say the least, and they do have the ability to be a threat to world peace. The idea of the Carter and Reagan administrations of using a Ba'athist Iraq as a counter to Iran was clearly the best policy in realpolitik terms. But being Americans, and knowing they're God's special country they got very self-righteous and arrogant, and began believing their own propaganda that they are the source of light amidst darkness. (John Chapter 1) The journalist Mike Dowd mentioned that, and Tim Costello of World Vision mentioned it last week.

I'd like to think we have a worthwhile exchange of ideas, rather than a debate which one side "gets the better of". Of course, it's for each individual to take home what they see in the meeting - but please don't let other people's assessments be a proxy for turning up yourself and making up your own mind !