Themistocles,
I agree!
____________________
Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction he had previously used them, so it was not a lie. Intelligence believed he hid them in Iraq. It was just that they were not found post the occupation. UN photographic reports show they were dimantelled about two months before the occupation. I have copies of these UN reports with sattelite photographic evidence showing the dismantling of the many buildings that housed them. This was given to me by persons working in RAAF Radar and intelligence gathering.

George Hormis visited Australia recently and verified they certainly had them and they were shipped to Syria.

Georges Hormis Sada graduated from Iraq's Air Academy in 1959 and was trained by elite forces in Great Britain, Russia and the U.S. An ace fighter pilot who trained other pilots, he went on to become air vice marshal in Saddam Hussein's military. His acts of bravery, including saving the lives of forty downed coalition pilots in the Gulf War, have earned him hero status.

John Hickman.Good article it is good to see someone bring back some sanity, to the unmittigated disaster called "Iraq Freedom".

As you are well aware(and you don't need any info from me)This war was hatched by George Bush and his coterie of rabid right wing evangelical
head cases, years before the actual invasion took place.There is not a sentient being on the planet that now believes this war was about W.M.D.

I find it interesting that after the other unmittigated disaster Viet Nam,that this war even got off the ground.Of course as we all know now it was the Gulf of Tonkin incident.The reporting of claims as absolute truths,and a pattern of lies took hold and a plient press fed this horse sh@t to the masses.This opened the floodgates for the bloody Viet Nam war.Of course then it was the domino theory.This war fought over thirty years ago,still has an impact on family's today.American prisons and mental hospitals are full of Viet Nam Vets.As an aside my brother is one of them.I asked him once "what possess you to volunteer for that debacle"He responded"I was young and niave,and I didn't think my goverment would lie to me.Of course then as now most of the morons who hatched the Iraq war have never fired a shot in anger.

What really annoys me is the supposed influence of George Bush in this disaster.For mine,I don't believe this man knows where Iraq is.I would truly beleieve,he thinks,a Sunni Islamist is some kind of T.V. dinner.

The Gulf war columnist Sydney Shanberg warned journalists, not to forget the unquestioning chorus of agreeability,when Lydon Johnson bamboozled us with the fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident,and blamed not only the press but also the apparent amnesia of the wider American public.

Thank God in a couple of years Bush will be gone,and come November the republican party will be swept from government.I pray that some one in the future can undo the damage this man has brought apon America and indeed the human race.

AMSADL

Your comments lack historical perspective and logic.

Read the posts from Philo, plerdsus and Themistocles etc. You’ll learn something.

Its not surprising that the US wants the kind of democracies that serve its national interests. That’s human nature at work.

Or do you think the US has ever been an even-handed godlike world policeman. Read a bit more history mate.

Why should Saddam have the right to:
- have enormous oil power;
- attack Iran in 1980
- keep fighting Iran for 8 years until 1988 for no gain (vastly worse in terms of lives lost than the US occupation);
- widely use chemical weapons, including mustard gas in the above war
- invade Kuwait in 1990 (blame that on the West)
- all the time killing his own people (many of whom wanted democracy)
- while building more palaces with the oil profits?

Do you think Saddam was a force for democracy and should have stayed in power?

Yes the invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam was just. It was also for OIL (not WMDs or counterterrorism).

Far fewer Iraqis are dying now than during Saddam’s wars in 1980-88 against Iran or during Gulf War One. Now its mainly Iraqi's killing Iraqi's. Before it was Iranian and Iraqi Muslims killing each other. But I'm sure you'll blame it all on the West.

You are more aware of the occupation of Iraq because America is involved – therefore the Western press are there.

The Press hardly covered the vastly worse Iran Iraq War. Therefore you know little about it.

Here’s an account of the Saddam’s Iran Iraq war AMSADL (you'll be thinking Iran-Contra affair as the reason - West-centric but...).

“...perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded- and millions were made refugees. The Iraqis suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties. Another 60,000 were taken prisoner by the Iranians. The war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives and injured more than 500,000, out of a total population which by the war's end was nearly 60 million.” http://www.iranchamber.com/history/iran_iraq_war/iran_iraq_war3.php

Read some history then reply.

Good point Kipp but I suspect that'll go strait over most people's heads and be branded as rhetoric. Most people are unaware of the shady double-dealings of the 2000 elections in the US (and the 2004 elections to a lesser extent).

I find it strange that the one person who is the most damaging to democracy in the US is trying to claim he wants to spread it to other countries. But before anyone goes too hard on poor ol' Bushy, remember, he's just the puppet. It is the likes of Karl Rove who are pulling the strings.

But there is one more motive that most seem to forget about and that is that governments always need a bad guy to scare the public with, and hence the reason Bin Laden will never be caught. The communists, the soviets and now the terrorists - one can only guess what the next will be.

Having an evil to defeat is essential for governments and their agendas. Without it, the people will have the time to concentrate on the scandals that they and their donating corporate partners are involved in. Speaking of which has anyone else noticed that every time the Bush administration is involved in a scandal, or is in some sort of trouble, Bin Laden releases an new video - even if it's not really him in the video? Who could forget the chubby, right-handed, gold ring wearing Bin Laden admitting to 9/11.

Philo,

While were on the topic of military personnel, what about the Republican's request to General Wesley Clark that he pin 9/11 on Saddam? When he requested evidence he heard nothing more. They may both be telling the truth but no prizes for guessing which one would come with the largest cash incentive.

Planetagent,

I wouldn't go too hard on AMSADL about researching history. Your post shows an equal lack of knowledge. Although I must say, at least you have some idea of what it is that you're supporting, rather than some who'll rant on about how God-like Bush is. I respect you more for that.

Themistocles.

You've done it again. Well said. Nothing needs to be added.

Thermocles- 'The goal of establishing democracy in the Mideast will bring economic prosperity and freedom from fear for its people. It will also deliver security to Western nations by defeating terrorism.'

How anyone can make a statement like this with a straight face in the aftermath of Hamas' election victory is beyond me. Democracy in the middle east will not bring freedom from fear or an end to terrorism. Democracy will bring theocracy. Not saying that's any worse than what is currently there, but let's be a bit realistic shall we?

As for the whys and wherefores of the war, the main objection to Bush's misbegotten Iraqi adventure is that it tied up the 'coalition of the willing' fighting a neverending insurgency, while allowing more severe threats to global security (Iran, pakistan and north Korea) to run rampant. Bush will never attack Iran. He has squandered his political capital and fundamentally weakened his military. Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, and Bush will be to blame. History will remember him as an incompetent moron.