Never forget that Saddam was America's own man in the Middle East.

He was helped into power by them and kept in power for as long as they needed him to do their will, particularly with regard to Iran.

His problem - like that of all long term despots - is that he eventually believed he was bullet-proof and could stand alone. He was suckered into taking the bait on Kuwait and that marked the beginning of his end.

Also recall that it was Bush Senior that wanted a military overthrow of Saddam so he could be replaced with another more compliant accomplice and thus helped prevent the popular uprising that followed the first Gulf War.

These two factors alone make all the traditional media representations no more than fanciful claptrap. You may as well as add the notions that invading Iraq makes you lose weight and improves your sex life.

Fractelle,

You say >> “As has been pointed out – Saddam would’ve self imploded.”

OH according to who? There is NO evidence to suggest that Saddam would have imploded. And he had been grooming Uday and Qusay for the leadership after he died. There are a myriad of examples of dictatorships not imploding.

This is typical loony left apologism. No one needed to act because the problem would have gone away by itself, all very convenient. Rubbish.

Just look at Cuba, North Korea, China, Burma to name a few. They aren’t in any danger of imploding; at least not before they squeeze a few more decades of suffering out of their people. What evidence do you have for this blanket assertion? ANY AT ALL?

Fractelle >> “The last time I can recall a just reason for war was Australia's participation in WW2”

Did you forget that the UN authorized the defence of South Korea and the attempt to reunify the country under the leadership of the south? Are you really suggesting that the North Koreans are better off? Should the South Koreans have been left to the fate of their northern relations?

What about our humanitarian intervention in Somalia and East Timor?

How about the first gulf war, which had almost universal support, including the participation of a half dozen Arab nations and full UN support?

You say >> “In essence, the Bush administration has created a shadow army that can be used to wage wars unpopular with the American”

This is utter garbage. It is clear you have no understanding of the jobs undertaken by the contractors. Warfighting is definitely NOT one of those jobs. Private contractors in the main have been tasked to protect people who work in Iraq who are targets of the insurgents. They are basically bodyguards. Other contractors drive trucks ferrying supplies. But there is NO WAY that this is a shadow army that could operate independently of the US military.

>> “The gulf in communication between Western democracy and Middle Eastern ogliarchy”

Oligarchy? Can’t even bring yourself to say dictatorship?

Steel sounds like a closeted Sunni Muslim, who's tribe has lost the privilege of being on top.. and now is blaming the Liberator and calling him a liar... sour grapes Steel....

Don't worry.. at least Uncle Ahmad will not have to worry about his childrens eyes being gouged out in front of him by Saddaams secret police when his neighbour suggests in an anonymous phone call that your dear Uncle has 'said things' which threaten the regime.

Confess.. ur a disgruntled Sunni.. who just wants to see oppression of the Shia continue...right?

Too late mate... ur out of luck.

Fractelle.. she can do MUCH better than simply throwing emotive numbers around.. after all..she damn well knows that most of the deaths were and are still, being caused by Insurgents murdering and bombing the place to bits.

Those killed by the Americans.. include many insurgents..and it's patently rediculous to throw 'total' numbers around like skittles without discecting it into the various categories.

Naughty Fractelle...naugggghty

"Never forget that Saddam was America's own man in the Middle East."

This is a common premise held, as with the US assisting Afganistan. Fact is, the US should be applauded for confronting communism, which was its prime reasoning. The terrorism which resulted has no bearing with the US, which is also the case with the Iraq war. Terrorism is a global syndrome stalking all countries today, and vested in enritrely different premises than America's commercial interest with oil.

It would have been a grotesque crime against freedoms if America did not confront communism, and Europe should be ashamed for not entering these wars, even in Vietnam: both communism and Nazism emerged in Europe's backyards, with the prime onus being on Europe, not America, to confront these issues. The world owes America here, and presenting only terrorism as being an American result ignores the truth.

Paul I think you should read the link Fractelle posted a little more slowly and carefully. And don't twist things by including peacekeeping roles. Fractelle's comment was probably exagerrated but generally correct. Your comments might be more technically accurate, but you ignore and omit a lot or the critical parts because of your bias which makes your overall position weakest.

PolyBOAZ, as you are a Christian I am surprised you do not care about the hundreds of thousands of people of all ages and genders who have been killed in this war. The Pope spoke against the Iraq war. I wonder if you read the violent, murderous parts of the Old Testament, or are simply a bad Christian who is destined for a long stay in Hell.

IamJoseph the world owes America nothing. your servitude to them reveals your bias and untrustworthiness. We are all trading and peacefully with a Communist country right now which is hosting the Olympics. When the USA lost in Vietnam, did Communism spread as they screamed it would? Not at all. Even now, many companies are doing business in Vietnam and tourists are visiting this Communist nation. It's definitely hypocritical that you think invading other nations is acceptable for political systems you approve of, but an opposing political system is "unacceptable" when it has similar aims.