Sorry, I meant to say the US gave the most kickbacks to Saddam in return for oil, it didn't receive them.

Simple point:
Iraq could not defeat Iran in years of war. Why was the US afraid that Iraq posed such a threat if this 3rd world country couldn’t defeat another 3rd world country? Perhaps because greed and convenience won out over diplomacy and efforts to change the economics of power? Threats of WMD? We have found that to be baseless, as was suspected all along.

I won’t bother with any religious implications as we all know the twain shall never meet – at least from the other side of the floor…

BD,

The war in Iraq might have some good intent but a lot more self interest:

- Historically, most countries under the British flag had monarchies, degree of democracy and multiple party systems. When the US ‘inherited’ the region as the new superpower, they went back to a single party/single leader with no alternative or shadow government. Until a decade ago, the US wouldn’t even communicate with local politicians and leaders in the exile. The ‘stability over liberty’ was the US norm for the Middle East until Sep 11. Remember the first gulf war? Ask the Iraqis to rise only to turn and leave? Name one dictator in the region who was not appointed by the US.
- Iraq war wasn’t about terrorism because it actually made it worse. Iraq, among other authoritarian regimes was on the terrorists’ hit list as well. Lots of analysts today would argue that dictators’ regimes kept terrorists out.
- As per one of my previous postings: look at the priority of coming to rescue people from oppression/ discrimination/ genocide. What is the ‘top priority now”: Darfur. Their recently discovered natural gas reserves put them on the priority list of those who ‘deserve’ to be liberated. What is happening to all other sorts of oppressive regimes? Saudi? Libya? Yemen? Providing a home for the Palestinians? What sets the priorities and agenda is interest BD.
- Living in the Middle East as a citizen: you get fed garbage by the media for blaming the West for the economical mismanagement and oppression. But here is the question: you put a dictator in there at least have the decency to have a plan B of planning a coup or take him out alone without a million killed, wounded and homeless. It is like charging me for putting a snake in my house and taking my kids life to rid me of the snake.
- Finally, it is hypocritical to dwell on the ‘evil’ dictator stories when it was NATO who watched him killing kurds or assisting with his chemical weapon against Iranians
AK

The Bush Government started to secretly plan to go to war with Iraq in the first month of the Bush administration. It should further be stipulated that the Bush Government was not planning political pressure on Saddam’s Iraq until after 9/11 just war. War was clearly an idea that was part of the Bush agenda before he was even elected as President. So if Saddam had WMD from the end of Gulf War I all the way to September 10th 2001, on September 11th Iraq and WMD became an excuse not a reason to go to war.

Also, there was not 14 years of diplomacy. The first Gulf War ended in 1991 and the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 or ”a final opportunity to comply with it’s disarmament obligation” was passed on November 2002. How do you get 14 years? And actually it seemed diplomacy (although you can’t call demanding something from someone very diplomatic) backed with strong resolution was working. The inspectors were in they were seeing the WMD sites and were given the documents again to state that Iraq had got rid of all there WMD years previously. The UN can work when everybody gets serious.

In Bush’s speech to the UN he does mention Iraq’s support for terrorist groups, it’s human rights record, “Oil For Food” program problems, WMD and not allowing weapons inspectors. But Saddam was only documented as supporting Hamas terrorists not al Qaeda. The human rights violations of gassing and mass killings had taken place a decade or more previously and there had been since many worse and continuing human rights violation in other countries with no such similar action from the US. And regarding WMD how long can you allow people into your country looking for something you don’t have?

Fellow Human/Ash

yes, a lot of your points are VERY true and valid. The sins of the West are uncountable, without question.

It boils down to a lesser of 2 evils I suppose. When I look at the early history of Islam and the pre-Islamic history of Bosnia (to name just 2 places) I find it is an endles saga of 'alliance and counter alliance' and 'Suzereign/Vassal' relationships.

Nothing has changed. We perceive our survival in terms of perceived threats and all 'tribes', groups and nations, act according to the balance of all these issues, including resources, their own ethnic/tribal balance, external threats.

In the end, we have to have the wisdom to recognize the virtue of a King Cyrus of Persia, compared to the cruelty a Nebadchudnezzer of Babylon.

So, when I look at the USA, and am fully aware of the horrific things done in the name of 'freedom' by both government and corporate intities, they still seem more like a 'Cyrus' than a Nebadchadnezzer :)

The dictators installed/supported/assisted by the West, and the notable opposition on the SAME grounds as stated above by the French/Germans, (i.e. vested interest) are just the 'same old/same old' of history since pretty much day 1.

I draw comfort from the fact that in the USA one can express such opinions, and criticize the establishment, u can even say "Jews control the Media" :) The only kind of things you can't say are 'I have a bomb' at an airport.

P.S. please don't freak out at the post I'll be making in the 'nutbags' thread. Nothing personal but very passionate.
As a Christian I would embrace you in Gods love, no matter what I say about 'Islam' :) ok... never forget that.

"So does the fact WMDs were not found in Iraq paint the war unjust? No more than the police are to be considered unjust for arresting a driver who refuses to take a breathalyser when required, even if it happens to be he is not actually drunk." -SW

The fact is that Saddam didn't refuse to take a breathalyser, inspections were allowed, no doubt for his vested interest in keeping an iron grip on power, to be sure. But still, they were allowed. Scott Ritter declared Iraq essentially free of WMD back in 1998, just before the US-UK ordered the UN inspectors to leave ahead of 'operation desert fox'. Inspections were proceeding well prior to the US-UK invasion, just ask Blix. In what respect was diplomacy not working?

The fact is that diplomacy was leading away from war, exactly what the US-UK didn't want (we now know plans to invade were on the agenda since 12th sept '01). The language used in UN resolution 1441 was designed as too far-reaching for saddam to accept in order to provide a justification for war, no matter how well inspections went. This process was fast-tracked when it became apparent that UN inspectors were finding nothing.

This talk surrounding the 'liberation' of Iraq fails to take into account Iraqis themselves. Estimates range up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead as a result of the war, and many more deaths due to years of sanctions, mostly children. Add to this the fact that public services are no better off, and in some cases worse. Take into account also the almost complete selling-off of Iraq's assets to foreign corporations and the daily humiliation and suffering dished out by the occupying forces, and you begin to get an idea of the price paid for 'liberation'. It's easy to boast of 'liberation' and 'freedom' when you're detached from Bush's particular interpretation of it. Labelling Iraq a "terrorist nation" (surely it is more so now?) implies that Saddam was the only resident of Iraq. Such language that hides the human cost is commonplace among supporters of the war.