The Iraq Thread

[E6Hotel 0]

You are either not getting what I'm saying or you are dancing around the issue.

Infuriating, isn't it?      

My question has been all the time: Does it not concern you that they said "We must attack Iraq because of its WMD". and now they are saying "Weapons of Mass Destructions weren't really the issue, it's just something we used to get support".?

I have yet to see where Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al have said that WMD's "aren't really an issue".

Quote[/b] ]Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials have expressed confidence such weapons will be found, although Rumsfeld this week conceded Iraq may have decided to destroy them ahead of the invasion.

 

Washington Post

Quote[/b] ]Picking weapons of mass destruction was "the one reason everyone could agree on", he says in the interview.

The other factor he describes as "huge" was that an attack would allow the US to pull its troops from Saudi Arabia, thereby resolving a major grievance held by al-Qaeda.

BBC again

Hmmm... "other factor he describes as 'huge'..."  Does this mean that Wolfowitz still considers WMD's as a "huge" factor?

For a nation that was so obsessed with Clinton lying about his personal affairs one would expect at least some form of reaction on this which is by any means orders of magnitude more serious.

Honestly, I don't think many people other than the Republicans in Congress cared very much about Clinton getting his winky wet.

Let me pose a question:  Do you consider the war morally justified?  I'm not talking about "legal in the UN's eyes," or some other technicality.  Knowing what we do about his regime, if you could undo the invasion and return Saddam to power, would you?

I'm mildly curious.

EDIT:  That question applies to the other guys, too.  I'd be interested to hear from those who think sticking with Saddam was Iraq's better option.    

Semper Fi

[Tovarish 0]

You need to change the OFP picture on the right to do something similar.

I thought of that...but two problems. First, you can't record tracks on OFP and slow them down to take frame by frame screenshots to turn into a Gif...and second, there's that 100kb limit. Oh well, maybe I'll figure something out

Quote[/b] ]Let me pose a question:  Do you consider the war morally justified?  I'm not talking about "legal in the UN's eyes," or some other technicality.  Knowing what we do about his regime, if you could undo the invasion and return Saddam to power, would you?

Knowing what I do about US foreign policy, no (to your first question). Not because I like Saddam, but because I know the US is no angel when it comes to dealing with countries that for whatever reason it does not like. It's simply a dangerous thing to ignore or excuse by saying "oh well, he was an asshole anyways and had it coming". It means that it can happen again and again whenever the folks in Washington start getting trigger happy...not that they do any of the shooting anyways. My post about the Tokin Gulf incident proves that point. The US simply has no right to be acting as the world's policeman.

Now let me ask YOU a question...given this transcript of a meeting between US ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein days before Kuwait was invaded, do you consider GW1 justified for that matter?

*edit* as for the disclaimer regarding the reliability of the source, anyone who questions it can do some research themselves, I think you'll find quite a few reliable sources dealing with this, but this happened to be the most compact version of what I wanted to point out.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Quote[/b] ]I cannot confirm the reliability of the source, a strange website called which I found via a meta-search engine, but here's their scoop on Glaspie and Saddam:

[Guest]

Infuriating, isn't it?      

No, not at all. It's your politicians that are screwing you, not me. I am neither Iraqi nor American so there are very little consequences to me

Quote[/b] ]I have yet to see where Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al have said that WMD's "aren't really an issue".

This is the closest you are going to get. It's amazing that they said so much. In politician talk this is a full confession.

I still find it very interesting that the British have reacted strongly against this (Several British newspapers had on the front page a picture of Blair and the caption "Liar!") while you don't seem to care. Perhaps BBC is right when they say:

Quote[/b] ]All opinion polls show most Americans are unconcerned about the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Let me pose a question: Do you consider the war morally justified? I'm not talking about "legal in the UN's eyes," or some other technicality. Knowing what we do about his regime, if you could undo the invasion and return Saddam to power, would you?

I'm mildly curious.

The answer is no: I don't think the war was morally justified. There is very little that indicates that the Iraqis will be better off now. It's good that Saddam's gone, but that's about it. There is a shitload of things that are bad.

I don't see things getting better either. If it does, I might change my mind. Not about the lying of the Bush and Blair administrations though, an issue you are still refusing to comment.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Anything that comes from a website called 'whatreallyhappened.com' and then begins an article with 'I cannot confirm the reliability of the source, a strange website called which I found via a meta-search engine, but here's their scoop on Glaspie and Saddam: ' has to be taken with a scoop of salt in my opinion (note the lack of a name after 'website called...')

but i think nonetheless your point is good

A little lie can be good for you. A big lie tends to regurgitate itself all over your friends when you least expect it. Lieing about wars and WMD is bad. Mmmmky?

Being a brutal middle eastern dictator and killing your kurds is also bad. Ii ?

Hatred Hatred!

bah

[E6Hotel 0]

Knowing what I do about US foreign policy, no (to your first question). Not because I like Saddam, but because I know the US is no angel when it comes to dealing with countries that for whatever reason it does not like. It's simply a dangerous thing to ignore or excuse by saying "oh well, he was an asshole anyways and had it coming". It means that it can happen again and again whenever the folks in Washington start getting trigger happy...not that they do any of the shooting anyways. My post about the Tokin Gulf incident proves that point. The US simply has no right to be acting as the world's policeman.

I'm looking at this war as an isolated case.  All other things being equal, do you think it would have been better for Saddam to stay in power?

Now let me ask YOU a question...given this transcript of a meeting between US ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein days before Kuwait was invaded, do you consider GW1 justified for that matter?

Yes.  If Saddam thought the U.S. was giving him a green light to invade Kuwait, he was rather obviously mistaken.  He also had a large window of opportunity he could have used to retreat before the Storm began.

Semper Fi

[Tovarish 0]

Quote[/b] ]I cannot confirm the reliability of the source, a strange website called which I found via a meta-search engine, but here's their scoop on Glaspie and Saddam:

Quote[/b] ]*edit* as for the disclaimer regarding the reliability of the source, anyone who questions it can do some research themselves, I think you'll find quite a few reliable sources dealing with this, but this happened to be the most compact version of what I wanted to point out.

Read the whole post much?

Christian Science Monitor

Stanford

CBC News

Truth In Politics

Fairness In Reporting

Quote[/b] ]I'm looking at this war as an isolated case.  All other things being equal, do you think it would have been better for Saddam to stay in power?

I can't do that, too much history out there for me to ignore, and a lot of it happens to hit close to home on a personal level with me. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it...so all things aren't equal, and the US had no right to remove Saddam.

Quote[/b] ]Yes.  If Saddam thought the U.S. was giving him a green light to invade Kuwait, he was rather obviously mistaken.  He also had a large window of opportunity he could have used to retreat before the Storm began.

Say again, no green light?? Then WTF is this?

Quote[/b] ])U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Damn Hit_Sqd_Maximus got there first! now it will look like im copying! Bah, bah humbug!

The hunt continues

200 of 900 sights searched (the most promising ones)according to this article..

Well something might turn up still but in my opinion its by far most likely now if anything does turn up to be more secondary and minor stuff as opposed to prime stashes of ready to use or fire WMD.

The CIA seem to be running late if theyre going to plant evidence as Denoir and others have previously suggested they may. (then again the second best time for that would be in a few months when things may have died down a bit- not that i think it likely, especially now)

[Guest]

I'm looking at this war as an isolated case.  All other things being equal, do you think it would have been better for Saddam to stay in power?

Are you sure about that? Do you really think that Bush's primary motive was saving the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator or was that just a PR bonus that came with the real agenda?

I don't think even you buy the humanitarian argument as there are places in the world where far worse atrocities on a larger scale are happening than in Saddam's Iraq.

The Bush administration sold the war on the pretext that Saddam was armed with WMD and that he could use them any time. That kind of fell short during the war since he didn't use them even at his final moment.

Now the Bush administration is admitting that perhaps there never were any weapons in the first place and that they really weren't the reason for going in.

Do you trust such a government? You justify the war by saying that a brutal dictator was removed. But was that the real agenad or just a nice side effect? Why do you think this would be the case next time? Obviously the Bush administration has lied to you and the rest of the world for the reason for war - and what you see as a justification for the war was in no way the main point of the war.

Quote[/b] ]The CIA seem to be running late if theyre going to plant evidence as Denoir and others have previously suggested they may.

It's not too late for that. If enough political pressure builds up - why not. They sold a whole war based on lies - including falsified intelligence reports (Nigerian Uranium anyone?). But right now it doesn't look like they have to. The US public certainly doesn't seem to care and the British... well, who cares about that. Not Bush, I'm certain. He's not going to plant evidence on behalf of Tony.

Quote[/b] ]

The hunt continues

Quote[/b] ]General Dayton said he would not necessarily send a team to search a site just because it was on a list but would be looking at more creative ways to gather information.

Hmmmmmmm

[E6Hotel 0]

I still find it very interesting that the British have reacted strongly against this (Several British newspapers had on the front page a picture of Blair and the caption "Liar!") while you don't seem to care.

Perhaps most Americans also think it's a question of the greater good being more important.  I'm not qualified to say.    

The answer is no: I don't think the war was morally justified. There is very little that indicates that the Iraqis will be better off now.

Is this another theoretical vote in favor of returning Saddam to power?

It's good that Saddam's gone, but that's about it.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

 

There is a shitload of things that are bad.

Yes, but again we're no longer dealing with attempted genocide, mass graves, building palaces with embezzled humanitarian assistance, etc.  There are degrees of bad, and the current situation will improve.

I don't see things getting better either. If it does, I might change my mind.

Fair enough.

Not about the lying of the Bush and Blair administrations though, an issue you are still refusing to comment.

Exactly how am I refusing to comment?  I just don't agree that what's been said constitutes lying.  You say they're lying about WMD's being an issue when they're not, I provide sources showing that while they are indeed hedging their bets (that's a surprise), they haven't said WMD's are no longer an issue.

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

Say again, no green light?? Then WTF is this?

The entire argument about Glaspie greenlighting the Kuwait invasion (and yes, I've heard it many times before) hinges on this sentence:

 

Quote[/b] ]We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.

That can be interpreted many ways -- "We don't care if you invade Kuwait" might be one, but "We don't care if you think you're entitled to annex Kuwait" might be another.  Coming after this statement regarding Iraqi troops massing at the Kuwait border

Quote[/b] ]Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned.

I fail to see how this would be considered as a green light.

In any case, I think Desert Storm provided sufficient evidence that we did not approve of Saddam's action.  

Semper Fi

[Guest]

You say they're lying about WMD's being an issue when they're not, I provide sources showing that while they are indeed hedging their bets (that's a surprise), they haven't said WMD's are no longer an issue.

Let me layer it up for you:

Claim:Saddam's WMD are a clear and present danger. He could use them any time or give them to terrorists.

Reality:Even in his final moment Saddam did not use nor authorize the usage of any alleged WMDs,

Claim:The UN inspections were a failure since they didn't come up with any WMD's. Part of this was blamed on the inspectors and part of Saddam "Lying and decieving"

Reality: The coalition forces have been no more succesfull while they have ten times more people on the case and no Saddam to interfere.

Claim:US and British intelligence have proof of Iraqi WMDs. (Remember the Powell presentation=)

Reality:  Eh.. yeah right.

Edit: You know what I really find hilarious: the people who made fun of the Iraqi information minister. The situation today kind of puts that into perspective.

[Tovarish 0]

The entire argument about Glaspie greenlighting the Kuwait invasion (and yes, I've heard it many times before) hinges on this sentence:

 

Quote[/b] ]We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.

That can be interpreted many ways -- "We don't care if you invade Kuwait" might be one, but "We don't care if you think you're entitled to annex Kuwait" might be another.  Coming after this statement regarding Iraqi troops massing at the Kuwait border

In the context it was said in, being even left open to such an interpretation must quailfy as one of the greatest fuckups in the history of diplomacy.

Quote[/b] ]In any case, I think Desert Storm provided sufficient evidence that we did not approve of Saddam's action.  

Harsh way to make a point, you left Saddam with no way to save face, what kind of reaction would you realistically expect?

I have to say though, all things considered, with all the evidence to suggest that each major war the US has participated in since and incluiding Vietnam - and with the exception of Afghanistan - was initiated by the States under false pretences, I'm puzzled as to how you can see this as an isolated incident.

I'm also puzzled as to how people seem to think this was justified even if the WMD's were a lie because Saddam was a murdering bastard - Quite amazing don't you think, that a few days before the invasion of Kuwait, when he was considered by the US to be a friendly murdering bastard like so many others, that he was treated as a leader who's primary concern was rebuilding his country, as Ms Glasipe put it?

[E6Hotel 0]

In the context it was said in, being even left open to such an interpretation must quailfy as one of the greatest fuckups in the history of diplomacy.

Possibly, though I'd say interpreting it as condoning the Kuwait invasion was an even bigger mistake.  In any case it's not the same thing as a green light.

Harsh way to make a point, you left Saddam with no way to save face, what kind of reaction would you realistically expect?

Who's "you," the U.S.?  Saddam had five and a half months after invading to back down.  In that timespan the United Nations passed resolutions, called for an Iraqi withdrawal, and imposed an embargo -- lesser means clearly didn't work.

I have to say though, all things considered, with all the evidence to suggest that each major war the US has participated in since and incluiding Vietnam - and with the exception of Afghanistan - was initiated by the States under false pretences, I'm puzzled as to how you can see this as an isolated incident.

I think I see the source of confusion.  When I said

Quote[/b] ]I'm looking at this war as an isolated case.  All other things being equal, do you think it would have been better for Saddam to stay in power?

I should have said something like "For the sake of my question I'm looking at this war as an isolated case."  My intention was to narrow the scope down to a simple yes/no question as to whether or not Iraq was better off with Saddam, independent of any other factors.  Sorry for garbling the question.

I'm also puzzled as to how people seem to think this was justified even if the WMD's were a lie because Saddam was a murdering bastard - Quite amazing don't you think, that a few days before the invasion of Kuwait, when he was considered by the US to be a friendly murdering bastard like so many others, that he was treated as a leader who's primary concern was rebuilding his country, as Ms Glasipe put it?

"War is how Americans learn geography" has a ring of truth to it.  In 1990 Iraqis were the guys who had been fighting the Iranians for a decade.  You can't really be surprised that between these two countries at that time we considered the Iraqis to be "the good guys."  

Semper Fi

[Tovarish 0]

I should have said something like "For the sake of my question I'm looking at this war as an isolated case."  My intention was to narrow the scope down to a simple yes/no question as to whether or not Iraq was better off with Saddam, independent of any other factors.  Sorry for garbling the question.

Ah I see. In that case the answer is no...but being so narrow a question I fail to see a point to it. I could ask wether Iraq would be better off with the US bombing and occupying them - independent of any other factors - and the answer would also be no

[Schoeler 0]

The entire argument about Glaspie greenlighting the Kuwait invasion (and yes, I've heard it many times before) hinges on this sentence:

 

Quote[/b] ]We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.

That can be interpreted many ways -- "We don't care if you invade Kuwait" might be one, but "We don't care if you think you're entitled to annex Kuwait" might be another.  Coming after this statement regarding Iraqi troops massing at the Kuwait border

In the context it was said in, being even left open to such an interpretation must quailfy as one of the greatest fuckups in the history of diplomacy.

Nah, I'd still give the prize to good ol' Neville Chamberlain for that one.

[Schoeler 0]

You say they're lying about WMD's being an issue when they're not, I provide sources showing that while they are indeed hedging their bets (that's a surprise), they haven't said WMD's are no longer an issue.

Let me layer it up for you:

Claim:Saddam's WMD are a clear and present danger. He could use them any time or give them to terrorists.

Reality:Even in his final moment Saddam did not use nor authorize the usage of any alleged WMDs,

Claim:The UN inspections were a failure since they didn't come up with any WMD's. Part of this was blamed on the inspectors and part of Saddam "Lying and decieving"

Reality: The coalition forces have been no more succesfull while they have ten times more people on the case and no Saddam to interfere.

Claim:US and British intelligence have proof of Iraqi WMDs. (Remember the Powell presentation=)

Reality:  Eh.. yeah right.

Edit: You know what I really find hilarious: the people who made fun of the Iraqi information minister. The situation today kind of puts that into perspective.

Denoir, you of all people have to acknowledge that a situation like this is not black and white, cut and dried (pick your metaphor), not static but fluid upon multiple levels. Consider for a moment the hypothesis that Saddam did in fact have WMD at the outset of the U.S. invasion. Saddam can't fire all of them off himself. In order for those weapons to be used he needs subordinates who maintain the absolute allegiance to him that is necessary for them to be willing to carry out any such order. Now consider that up until the ground forces rolled across the border of Kuwait he had such men. Is it not fair to say that once the ball got rolling so to speak, the men who would carry out the order lost the absolute faith in victory and the assurance that there would be no disastrous consequences for them in using those weapons that they would require before doing so?

Men with the authority to use such weapons aren't stupid. In fact there is credible evidence to suggest that once the war began, they knew their cause was lost and a great many of them began lining their chips up in a row in a game of brinksmanship to see just who could best jockey his way out of hot water by, if not fully cooperating with the Americans, at least not trying too hard to fight them. These guys obviously were concerned with saving their own hides first and foremost and remaining loyal to Saddam was probably pretty far down on their priority list. The crumbling of Baghdad supports this. They could have turned Baghdad into a nightmare, instead they ran off with as much loot as they could, to secure locations where they could negotiate a safe surrender to the Coalition forces. No general in his right mind is going to carry out such a suicidal order when it was obvious the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of their total military defeat, and that military tribunals loomed amidst that foreground. The only man really willing to do so might have been Chemical Ali as he knew he was sure to be screwed no matter what. I don't find it too coincidental that he of all Iraqi military leaders was successfully bombed into dust at a key point in the war.

Now put yourself in the same position as those Iraqi generals at the close of the war. You have been defeated, it is only a matter of days before the regime totally collapses. Saddam and his top leaders are out of the picture. You thank Allah that you managed to avoid firing any WMD at advancing Coalition forces while simultaneously avoiding summary execution by Baath party loyalists for disobeying the order to do so. You know that you will be on trial soon and that capture is inevitable. The people are going to turn against you. You'll be ferreted out wherever you choose to hide. Let's see you say to yourself. I have two options: 1) I can hold on to my WMD stockpiles and take the heat for having them and/or having helped develop them, during my upcoming trial. Or, 2) I can get rid of the fucking things, destroy any evidence they ever existed and walk into my tribunal with a cleanly wiped ass so that no one can complain that I stink.

I don't know about you, but from my point of view, the smart money lies in option 2.

[Blaegis 0]

E6Hotel, you're still in the service, right? Without getting into that argument again (it has been mulled over at least 10 times earlier in this thread), I just want to know if you're saying those things because you truly believe in them or because you're in the Corps and are expected to stick with the "party line"? At least I would imagine that having an anti-war stance would be rather detrimental to your prospects and/or relations with your colleagues...

[Guest]

Denoir, you of all people have to acknowledge that a situation like this is not black and white, cut and dried (pick your metaphor), not static but fluid upon multiple levels.  Consider for a moment the hypothesis that Saddam did in fact have WMD at the outset of the U.S. invasion.

The problem is that there is absolutely nothing to support that hypothesis. On the contrary, those that used it as a reason to wage a war on Iraq are now backing down from the claim.

Where do you think those weapons could have gone? Do you think you destroy chemical agents by throwing a grenade in the barrel or by torching it? Not very likely. These things have to be disposed by specialists.

This is absurd me telling you these things. A five year old could figure them out. I just don't get it. Do you like your politicains to screw you over and lie to you? What kind of self-denial is this? What's going on?

Bush pre-war story of WMDs and the Bush post-war story of WMDs does not match. Rumsfeld is saying that it's possible that Iraq had destroyed its weapons before the outbreak of the war. Wolfowitz is downplaying the WMD argument saying that it was basically just an excuse for invading.

What the hell is wrong with you people that you can't see that this stinks? I don't get it. I really don't. They invaded another country under false pretext. They lied to both the US people and to the world - not to mention your political institutions as the Congress and the Senate who approved the war because of the WMD issue.

I'm telling you if our PM had pulled something like this he wouldn't last two days. He would be forced to resign and be impeached.

Where are the demands for impeachment of Bush? Why is America silent? You have been fucked and now you just roll over?  

The only conclusion one can draw is that the American democracy is just a sham. What good are your principles if you can't be bothered to uphold them?

[Renagade 0]

Maybe they majority wanted it,im sure it would of gone better if they just said they want to blow up iraq for fun.

maybe we go get france next its about the same size of iraq too and if the germans could do it quickly so could we

[Tovarish 0]

The entire argument about Glaspie greenlighting the Kuwait invasion (and yes, I've heard it many times before) hinges on this sentence:

 

Quote[/b] ]We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.

That can be interpreted many ways -- "We don't care if you invade Kuwait" might be one, but "We don't care if you think you're entitled to annex Kuwait" might be another.  Coming after this statement regarding Iraqi troops massing at the Kuwait border

In the context it was said in, being even left open to such an interpretation must quailfy as one of the greatest fuckups in the history of diplomacy.

Nah, I'd still give the prize to good ol' Neville Chamberlain for that one.

Notice I said "one of" and not "the" On Chamberlain you might be right

[Badgerboy 0]

Denoir, you of all people have to acknowledge that a situation like this is not black and white, cut and dried (pick your metaphor), not static but fluid upon multiple levels.  Consider for a moment the hypothesis that Saddam did in fact have WMD at the outset of the U.S. invasion.

The problem is that there is absolutely nothing to support that hypothesis. On the contrary, those that used it as a reason to wage a war on Iraq are now backing down from the claim.

Where do you think those weapons could have gone? Do you think you destroy chemical agents by throwing a grenade in the barrel or by torching it? Not very likely. These things have to be disposed by specialists.

This is absurd me telling you these things. A five year old could figure them out. I just don't get it. Do you like your politicains to screw you over and lie to you? What kind of self-denial is this? What's going on?

Bush pre-war story of WMDs and the Bush post-war story of WMDs does not match. Rumsfeld is saying that it's possible that Iraq had destroyed its weapons before the outbreak of the war. Wolfowitz is downplaying the WMD argument saying that it was basically just an excuse for invading.

What the hell is wrong with you people that you can't see that this stinks? I don't get it. I really don't. They invaded another country under false pretext. They lied to both the US people and to the world - not to mention your political institutions as the Congress and the Senate who approved the war because of the WMD issue.

I'm telling you if our PM had pulled something like this he wouldn't last two days. He would be forced to resign and be  impeached.

Where are the demands for impeachment of Bush? Why is America silent? You have been fucked and now you just roll over?  

The only conclusion one can draw is that the American democracy is just a sham. What good are your principles if you can't be bothered to uphold them?

From what I've read in the US media, it seems that no-one cares. There will be hell to pay over here if its found Blair was lying.

Its not a metter of if the ends were right or wrong, its about your elected leaders lying to you. Blair got a roasting over here, when his wife bought a flat at a 'knockdown' price. Bush and Co, are admitting they lied about starting a war, and no-one cares!

USA USA USA!

[Longinius 1]

"Its not a metter of if the ends were right or wrong, its about your elected leaders lying to you. Blair got a roasting over here, when his wife bought a flat at a 'knockdown' price. Bush and Co, are admitting they lied about starting a war, and no-one cares!

USA USA USA!"

However, when Clinton lied about a fairly trivial thing such as his relationship with his wife and if he had a lover or not, people got extremely upset.

Trying to keep your privacy to yourself, very bad.

Starting a bogus war, totally OK.

[Kued de Yar 0]

Maybe going into Iraq was not the best thing ever, maybe it was, only time will tell. Still, going into Iraq is better tahn doing nothing, you cannot trust that part of the world, except for Israel, the USA has no friends. If Saddam had wepons, which I believe he did, I know with out a doubt he would give them to terrorist if he could get away with it, but Saddam may be crazy, but he wasnt(isnt) stupid. Now Iraq did have ties to terrorist, the troops found the camps, so Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Anybody who trains terrorist to attack our country, is a threat and should be delt with accordingly. You might say, "well it was all about oil", maybe thats right, but I truly doubt it. I still think we should take over the oil fields to pay for the cost of the war and then give it to the people of Iarq, I mean we did liberate them and all, so it will no hurt for us to pay for our war with the oil. Also I think America should break of all ties with France, that county is about as trust worthy as the devil. You cant trust France, they will stab you in the back, and they are extremly unappreciative for what the U.S. has done. Im not saying this just becuase they did not support the war, but becuase they will not help us out after we have saved their country in two different wars, infact the U.S. saved Europe from defeat at the hands of the Germans twice! Most of Furope does not care, but for the countries that do, I say thanks very much. am I rabling? I guess so, man I got off topic, its just I have nothing else to do. Anyways back to Iraq, unless I hear some hard evidence that the Bush administartion was lying about Iraqm, I am going to trust that our President, made the right decision, and IMO Mr.Bush is the best leader in the world right now.

P.S.- Sorry if I just ramled and made no sense, and spelt bad.

Another P.S.- Tovarish, do you play nationstates? It seems like I have done buissness with a leader named Tovarish in the game, my nation is El_Grande_Hombre.

[Schoeler 0]

Denoir, there will be serious repercussions for Bush and the Republican Party in general if it is found that they lied about the pretexts for the war.  Right now I think Americans are being pragmatic and waiting for serious evidence pointing to that.  As of yet, we haven't exactly seen it.  Remember, the average schmoe is a total moron, so he probably isn't even aware of this issue right now, and won't be until he gets it covered by the major networks for him.  For those who are informed, most will wait for a smoking gun and then demand justice.  Also, I hate to say it but the majority of Americans disagree with you European folk about the benefits of the invasion to the Iraqi people.  I can't quite figure out why it is that you guys can come up with all of these logical and rational arguments against a war, and then be totally irrational and unrealistic in your expectations about the aftermath of such an action.  Did you really think Iraq was going to instantly transform into a viable western style democracy a month or two after the fighting stopped?  Give it 5-6 years.  If things are still shitty, then you can say we fucked over the Iraqi people.

As far as my hypothesis went, I did present some credible evidence to support it.  Look at the actions of the Iraqi leadership in the waning days of the war.  Those weapons might have been in a pre-assembly stage and could have been destroyed, hidden, sold, god only knows what.  If no evidence of their existence at all comes to the surface, then things might get real bad over here for Georgie boy.