Yes, Saddam was a bad man - one of many in the world, but he was the USA's man - they helped him into power and kept him there for as log as he was useful.

They gave him all the WMDs he needed to fight Iran on their behalf and was still their buddy while he was committing those atrocities against his people.

When he was slipping out of their control (like Noriega before him), the USA conned him into invading Kuwait and after Desert Storm, when it became apparent that there was not going to be the MILITARY overthrow they wanted, the US helped the Republican Guard put down the POPULAR uprising that was starting. All Facts!

The ongoing sanctions also cost many lives, and now people are actually surpised when the Iraqis don't completely trust their "liberators".

The West has a long history of broken promises and betrayal in the Middle East and this is what fuels terrorism.

I also remember Israel's part in arranging for the bombing of Libya and how they shipped weapons to Iran on America's behalf so they can't play the part of the innocent oppressed bystander.

I challenge doubters to look up "PNAC" and check the timetable for the planned Iraqi invasion and their plans for the Middle East. Then look at the USA's plans for their military and economic domination of the world in the same documents.

We went along for the ride so we could be in line for the scraps from their post-war table and to sign them up to a Free Trade Agreement.
The "alliance" argument was meaningless and irrelevant in this circumstance.

It was supposed to be "months, not years" and "we're not after regime change, we just want to disarm Saddam".

Morality and democracy has absolutely nothing to do with it - never has, never will.

It's simply about money, oil and power.

As long as the dominant Western Media remains an accomplice rather than a spectator, I believe that hundreds of thousands of civilians have died and there will be many more yet to die.

March 20, 2003 the 2nd Iraqi war began. On May 1, 2003 on board the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, Pres. George Bush stated "Mission Accomplished" and effectively the war in Iraq was at an end. The continued presents of Coalition forces in Iraq was to maintain local security for the new government while they were in their infancy rebuilding and manning their own institutions, and secondly to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq. Most of the coalitions wounded and dead are a result of security patrols meeting with insurgent rebels. While their have been friendly fire incidents and civilian casualties the greatest number of Iraqi deaths is down to religious and tribal infighting. To say Iraq would be better off if the coalition forces had stayed at home is to advocate isolationism over world involvement and to turn a blind eye to human misery regardless of it's geography or nature.
Those who are hyper-critical of American foreign policy and "know how it should be done", might want to consider the state of the world if the U.S. decided not to be involved or to contribute to world affairs.
Many Iraqis in the U.S. and Iraq were communicating with the U.S. government to do something. Another different power wants unrest and bloodshed in Iraq. Not the coalition of democracies.

the Iraq survey group used the same methodology as was used in Africa, to determine the genocide there a few years ago. No-one disputed the method then. In addition they're the only group to go out & actually ask people; everyone else finds it simiply too dangerous.

100 000 deaths or ten times that many, the coalition's gonna lose. All that's left is finding an acceptable way to do it.

Do I belive Ted and his cheer squad or

Professor James A Angus
Professor Bruce Armstrong AM
Dr Jim Black,
Professor Peter Brooks
Professor Jonathan Carapetis
Dr Ben Coghlan
Professor Mike Daube
Associate Professor Peter Deutschmann
Associate Professor Trevor Duke
Professor Adele Green AC,
Associate Professor Heath Kelly
Professor Stephen Leeder AO
Professor Alan Lopez
Professor John Mathews AM
Professor A. J. McMichael
Dr Cathy Mead PSM
Professor Rob Moodie
Professor Kim Mulholland
Professor Terry Nolan,
Associate Professor Tilman Ruff
Associate Professor Peter Sainsbury
Dr Tony Stewart
Professor Richard Taylor
Associate Professor Mike Toole
Associate Professor Paul J. Torzillo AM
Dr Sue Wareham OAM
Professor Anthony Zwi

"The Iraq deaths study was valid and correct"
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2006/10/20/1160851135985.html

Sorry Ted I believe those who know what they are talking about.

You people make me sick.

Instead of being divisive with your self-biased nitpicking of each other here is what intelligent-minded individuals can agree upon.

1. A cruel dictator imposed harsh punishment, including torture and death, on people he was entrusted to protect. Depite this being Wrong! - he was helped into his position, supported throughout many years of dictatorship and even armed - BY THE US and Europe! (with the help of Israel, and kickbacks by Australian business)

2. The only WMD's Iraq was ever confirmed to possess were thanks to - THE US and Europe! (courtesy the 80's Iran-Iraq war)

3. Despite my PM assuring me by letter that the war was to disarm Saddam and not about regime change, GW did confirm after 6 weeks of war with Saddam (not Iraq) that America's 'mission' was accomplished.

4 There is no such thing as 'an Iraqi' in the same sense that there is 'an Australian'. What there is are 3 distinct groups (Shia, Sunni, Kurds) who share a country and little else and who have long-held reasons to hate the others to the extent that they are willing to kill them at any war-lord's pretext.

5. People in Iraq were being murdered before the war and still are - arguably in greater numbers than under Saddam who needed to 'keep the peace' far more than the US does or is capable of enforcing with the world watching so 'carefully'. Either way this is wrong! Before 2003 it was an 'evil' man who was responsible now it is the 'good guys' who are to blame (for not controlling the country as 'effectively' as Saddam could).

6. Clearly, contolling peace in such a population requires the threat of deadly force, so was Saddam so 'bad' after all given the hostility between the Iraqi's (who just want peace?) Are we any better because we had 'pure' motives for 'our' action?

Where were our motives in N Korea? in Rawanda? in Darfour? in Lebanon when US jets and tanks were used to blow up civilian apartment blocks and UN command posts (what 'investigation'?)

Here is more verification of the validity of the report published in the Lancet http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php
Of course those who don't want to believe still won't accept that this report represents reality in Iraq today.