Search for WMD officially over
 

Well, in the light of what we now know, I don't think this should come as a surprise to anyone. Indeed, it's not much different from the Interim Report released last September.

Mr Mephisto

So. There was no connection between 9/11 and the al-Qaeda (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...232311,00.html, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...sp?story=94438). There was no connection bewteen the al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html). There were no WMDs in Iraq (see above).

Sounds like it IS the right war! :hmm:

Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but I don't see how you leap from those articles to the statement that al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11.

The 9/11 Comission, the official invesigation of 9/11, ruled that those people died on the planes. If that information is faulty, the other evidence (which was never realeased) may be faulty as well.

Remember Panama? The givernment investigation ruled that 45 people died. An Oscar-winning documentary later revealed a death toll of 4,000.

I guess I have trust issues with the government, but this (the article above) is a good example of how it is not irrational not to trust the government's word.

Is anyone surprised?

Go figure. I think now's a good time to stop sodomizing the middle east and worry about what's going on at the home front.

No surprise here. Can't wait to see how they try to spin it now. Or if they'll even bother.

I bet they're in iran. ;)

:thumbsup:

A study in comparison:
Gulf of Tonkin (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tonkin-g.htm) and the truth brought fourth later (http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html).
vs.
The CIA report on WMDs in iraq (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...q_Oct_2002.htm) and the truth in the article above.

I'm not.
I'm sure the supporters of this invasion will sweep this under the rug and pull out "we're freeing them" or "we're protecting our freedom".

Remember guys....this is now a war of liberation. We don't do WMD's anymore, We do Freedom from Tyranny.

Geez....get with the program.

At the going rate, i think it is only a matter of time before we "liberate" as many people from this mortal coil as did saddam.

Remember when the War with Iraq was based on the young lady, later learned to be employed by the Hill & Knowlton ad agency, who came to Washington to tell the world that babies were being ripped from their incubators by Iraqi soldiers in a campaign to convince Americans that we should start bombing Iraq? That now-disproved bit of theater happened almost 15 years ago, yet we have not stopped bombing Iraq ever since. I wonder what reason we will be fed after the liberation bs is seen through.

If only there was a ring we could throw in a volcano to get rid of Bush. That might finally end his war. :lol:

why should anyone be surprised at this?
it was obvious from before the war started.
it was obvious the whole of the intervening period.
it is obvious now.

Coppertop, that's freaking swell. :thumbsup:

just another brick in the wall...

i wish i could say i was in the least bit surprised.

OKAY! So no one is surprised. What does this mean? This means the War on Terror, the reason we invaded Iraq, had no connection to Iraq. Have we freed them from tyrany? Ask the nice people of Fallujah. I'll bet they're stoked that America is here to save them from the murders of innocent people.

WHY IS IT STILL GOING!? There isn't anything to support that's going on over there. Now that we've admited there are no WMDs, that means we are out of reasons for being there. What will happen now? America will read it's newspapers, say "tsk tsk, what a shame" then finish it's collective coffees and go to work not to think about it again. American apathy is responsible for the 10,000 Iraqi civilians deaths. Just as American apathy is responsible for the 4,000 people in Panama. Just as American apathy will be the deaths of future peoples in future wars that we have no moral reason for starting.

Apathy is worse than evil.

first off, here is another article on the same topic as mr mephisto posted--couldnt find the exact headline, but there we are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

adding to willravel's point, here is a long book review--by andrew sullivan of all people--about two new books that just came out documenting extensive abuse of prisoners by the americans in iraq. if these charges are true, bush really should be impeached.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/bo...rtner=homepage

i'd have copied it, but its 6 pages long. i don tknow if there is a limit on quotation lengths, but i figured 6 pages would be over it. a subscription to the nytimes website is free.

The word "officially" is......fully noted.
No word on the "unofficial" search. ;)

excerpted from here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...729479,00.html

it's over.
there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq.
there were none before bushwar started.
hang your hat where you like, powerclown, but the facts remain as they are and have been.
there was, in fact no justification for the invasion.

So, now it's time to bring the boys (and girls) home.

I'd like to know what the loved ones of the ones already lost saying about this news?

Assuming this is all on the up and up, and no WMD tied to the Hussein regime are ever again found - or are being looked for away from the eye of the media - what is the point of saying, in effect, that justification for this war is 'officially' faulty?

"Oops, we gave you the lobotomy McMurphy, but you really didn't need it after all? Sorry 'bout that..."

Why announce this after 2 years of bloody warfare, after thousands from both sides have died? Why say this just as the wheels of progress are beginning to turn? Why does this need to be hammered home now, 3 weeks before elections, and in light of the massive reconstruction effort in the country?? So, Iraq will now possibly go ahead and be rebuilt, but only in spite of the reasons for rebuilding it? Maybe nothing positive deserves to happen in Iraq, the way this has been handled by the media, with it's Abu Ghraib's and it's killings of unarmed 'insurgents' in warzones.

So now, what does this all mean then? Isn't it a moot irrelevance at this point? We've swam halfway across the Atlantic Ocean in snorkeling gear, now we just turn around and swim back, having accomplished nothing?

Live by the media, die by the media...

The "wheels of progress" are killing American soldiers and Iraqi freedom fighters and civilians. There is nothing wrong with admitting to a mistake. It is better to admit to a mistake then continue it. If we were honest for once with the Iraqi people, they might be more likely to vote. They might see that a democracy could help them, not turn them into satan.

BTW our massive reconstruction is helping some people make a lot of money. 3 guesses as to who those people are. The money we're giving to Iraq, that $200 billion, is not going to the people of Iraq.

"Is anyone surprised?"

Does anyone care? This is the same old argument. There were no definitive answers before any of this started.... Links to al quida/WMD/etc etc. That's why we went to war. 10 years of sanctions and inspections couldn't produce any answers, now, thanks to Mr. Bush you have the answer to one. But ya know what....thanks to 10 years of liberal pussyfooting, as much as this was meant to be a joke

"I bet they're in iran. "

it certainly is possible. As long as you keep living in your world, we'll keep winning elections, and hey...no harm done. I'm comfortable with that.

when in trouble over a problem that has persisted for a long time, act jaded.
conservatives have a packaged response for everything, it seems.
somehow they are turning the confirmation of what everyone who thought about it knew the whole time about this misbgotten war into a reason to be smug.
just amazing.
they are the richard bey show of political discourse.

Does anyone care? Do you care that we lost 3000 people on 9/11? Well we have to be patriotic, so we do care. Do you care about the estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed? What's the difference?! Who are you or I to say one life is worth more than another? Is it okay to trade 10,000 civilian lives for an answer to a question that everyone in the world but us already knew? Did you already forget that the US gave Saddam the thumbs up for the invasion of Kuwait, then we went there and bombed the crap out of him for it?

Honest about what, exactly?
Seriously, so what?
Companies are supplying services, they deserve to get paid, no?
What's more important: A few companies getting paid, or a country being rebuilt?
(Note that these companies also provide jobs and benefits to many, many familes, which in turn helps drive the economy, etc.)
No disrepect, but how on earth do you know what the Iraqi people are or aren't receiving? :confused:

Oh really? Do you have a source for this?

What's the point? Well, justifying people's opposition to it. Petty minded politics. Truth. There's lots of reasons.

I think I understand where you're coming from powerclown, and I actually agree with you. We can all argue about whether the invasion was right or wrong; well, it was obviously wrong. But the US (and Poland!) are there now, so it's time to get the job done as quickly and smoothly as possible. It's almost like "No point in crying over spilt milk".

The problem with Iraq is that it's turning out to be a real quagmire. When anyone warned about the lack of any strategy or compared it to Vietnam, they were ridiculed by the right-wing media and Bush supporters. I don't think anyone would laugh at that comparision again.

Do I think the US will be defeated in Iraq as it was in Vietnam? No. But I do think it will be forced to withdraw, leaving a ramshackle, besieged puppet regime tottering on the brink of collapse and descent into bloody civil war. To quote another proverb, "Better the Devil you know". Perhaps it would have been better with Hussein left in power, kept in check like a cages animal. Because, if the election is successful (or even semi-successful), you're almost guaranteed to see the Shi'te majority elect a religious government. And surely America can't object to the exercise of freedom, and democracy and self-determination, can it.

Can it?...


It's a real difficult situation powerclown. And I feel for you having to support the Bush position, as any good man should support his leader. I'll finish with another quip. "You're damned if you do and damned if you don't."

So there's not much America can do but soldier on (excuse the pun), and try to get the hell out of there as soon as possible. No point in hanging around and dealing with your own mess, as it's going to be next to impossible to clean up properly. Hopefully this will discredit the chickenhawks in the Bush camp and dissuade any ridiculous plans or strategy with regards to military action in Syria, Iran or North Korea.

Funny how we don't hear much about the "axis of evil" anymore. I suspect they wish that speech had never been written...


Mr Mephisto

OMG are you serious? Hahaha. Maybe if we were honest about why we are there. "We are here to liberate you! Love us! We got rid of Saddam, who murdered lots of your people!" We are not there to 'liberate' them. We are there because we could not buy Saddam like we bought the Saudi royal family. We liberated 100,000 civilians from their lives (http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/toll.html). Those people don't need to worry about elections or jobs. They don't need to worry about propoganda or freedom fighting. They are dead. You, personally (among many others) are responsible for their deaths, as you support the actions of the empire that murdered them.

Name one Iraqi company who is reconstructing Iraq. The companies that are there are all available from the IIRTF. You find the source yourself.

I know what's being recieved because some of my friends in Iraq actually survived.

As for the thumbs up from the US for Kuwaity invasion, this requires a more detailed response.

In 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski proposed to Saddam Hussein that he invade Iran and annex Khuzistan, thereby providing Iraq access to the Gulf through the narrow waterway, Shatt-al Arab. The U.S. hoped to use Iraq to counter the radicalism of the Khomeini regime in Iran from spreading to oppressed peoples of the Emirates and to Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein was guaranteed financial backing in the form of loans from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other nations.

About half a million Iranians and Iraqis were killed in the Iran Iraq war, and unbeknownst to Hussein, the U.S. and Israel also secretly armed the Iranians so as to weaken both Iran and Iraq. President Ronald Reagan's special envoy, Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam Hussein once in late December 1983 and again in March 1984. These visits paved the way for the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Iraq at a time when Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons in his war against Iran. Iraq had been removed from the U.S. State Department's list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982, and Iraq went on a buying spree to purchase weapons from U.S. and German companies. These weapons were used in 1988 for attacks against the Kurds.(http://commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm and the Democracy Now! piece at: http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/de...n20021114.html)

The war with Iran left Iraq in ruins. When Saddam Hussein launched his eight year war against Iran, Iraq had $40 billion in hard currency reserves. But by the end of the war, his nation was $80 billion in debt. Iraq was pressed to repay the $80 billion to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with interest. While Iraq was distracted by its war, Kuwait had accumulated 900 square miles of Iraqi territory by advancing its border with Iraq northward. This was presented to Iraq as a fait accompli and it gave Kuwait access to the Rumaila oil field. The Kuwaiti Sheik had purchased the Santa Fe Drilling Corporation of Alhambra, California, for $2.3 billion and proceeded to use its slant drilling equipment to gain access to the Iraqi oil field.

The main source of earnings for Iraq was petroleum whose price fluctuated depending on international production levels. By 1990, Kuwait, under U.S. tutelage had increased its oil production to undermine OPEC quotas thereby driving the price of Iraqi oil down from $28 per barrel to $11 per barrel and further ruining the Iraqi economy. Appeals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other countries to the Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to stick to OPEC production levels were met with increased naval activity in the Persian Gulf by the United States. In February 1990, Saddam Hussein spoke at the Amman summit on the relationship between oil production and the U.S. navy buildup and warned that the Gulf people and the rest of the Arabs faced subordination to American interests.

Following this speech the Western press carried stories of Saddam's missiles, chemical weapons and nuclear potential. The Israeli press speculated about pre-emptive strikes such as the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear power plant in 1981. In spite of Iraqi diplomatic appeals, Kuwait and the Emirates increased oil production, harming their own economic interests, but damaging Iraq's even more so. Kuwait refused to relinquish Iraqi territory it had acquired during the Iran Iraq war which Kuwait had helped finance. Kuwait also rejected production quotas and rejected appeals to cease pumping oil from Iraq's Rumaila oil reserve. It refused to forgo any of Iraq's debt.

On September 18, 1990, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry published verbatim the transcripts of meetings between Saddam Hussein and high level U.S. officials. Knight-Ridder columnist James McCartney acknowledged that the transcripts were not disputed by the U.S. State Department. U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie informed Hussein that, "We have no opinion on...conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She reiterated this position several times, and added, "Secretary of State James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction." A week before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Baker's spokesperson, Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly both stated publicly that "the United States was not obligated to come to Kuwait's aid if it were attacked." (Santa Barbara News-Press September 24, 1990).

Two days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee that the United States has no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country." The New York Daily News editorialized on September 29, 1990, "Small wonder Saddam concluded he could overrun Kuwait. Bush and Co. gave him no reason to believe otherwise."

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait and quickly gained control of the country. The United States, along with the United Nations, demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces. Attempts by Iraq to negotiate withdrawal were rebuffed by the United States. U.S. military forces in the region had already rehearsed battle plans to repel an Iraqi invasion.

We all know what happened next. On January 16, 1991, U.S. and other allied forces launched a devastating attack of Iraq and its armed forces in Kuwait. The Allied bombing was intended to damage Iraq's infrastructure so as to hinder its ability to prosecute war by lowering both civilian and military morale.

I hope that cleared it up.

Somewhere in the world Hans Blix has a smile on his face resembling a Chelshire cat and is negotiating a book deal.

Somewhere in the world Saddam Hussein is looking at a no contest plea and maybe filing a civil suit against the U.S for billions.

Somewhere in the world is George Bush, steep in denial, thinking he is King of the world as his castles all crumble around him.

The bright side is that he has a year and a half to go before he is officially a lame duck president.

I just did a search of the tfp politics thread about WMDs in Iraq. I looked at all our old discussions about this topic. So many Bush supporters were sure there were WMDs in Iraq. Now that the search is over, my question is, are Bush supporters at all angry about the information they were led to believe? How exactly do you feel?

This is going in my top 10 posts list. Very well thought out and written. :thumbsup:

Do you have so much faith in the U.S. gov't, in regards to competence and integrity, that you feel the need to consistently argue against the freedom of the press?

Abu Ghraib is not the fault of the press. Killing of unarmed people in Iraq by the U.S. is not the fault of the press.

Most certainly not. The relevance is that the people that promoted the war based on the WMD aspect (and that would be everyone who promoted the war) are officially incorrect. This is knowledge that should (but won't) be used in future decision making. For example, the neo-con's in the White House should no longer be trusted to make good judgements. You should not trust them, I certainly do not trust them. This is the relevancy of this information. The relevancy of this information has little or nothing to do with whether the U.S. should cut and run, it is strictly related to adding information to yours and my stock which can be used to judge the people who have been providing us with "information" and making decisions for 3+ years.

If Bush were a Democrat he'd be roasted by now. It's time that someone in the House of Representatives grows some cajones and starts impeachment proceedings against him.

Does it sound like sour grapes? Yep. But to qoute a bumper sticker I saw "No one died when Clinton lied." Someone's gotta hold leaders accountable. It's just not right that they can bald face lie to the public. Besides, a new leader might be able to get more done in Iraq.

If Bush is impeached, so also will be a slew of others including Cheny and Rice. I wonder how far down the chain we'll have to go for the nex president if they're impeached.

Is it safe for me to move the 9/11 stuff over from paranoia yet? No? Okay, I'll keep waiting.

Ironic isn't it that the very right winged, pro-capitalist Bush fans will claim we are in Iraq for liberation and spending billions to help them better themselves, while here in the US they want to cut and get rid of every social program, believing "people should help themselves" and "it is promoting laziness to give financial help, instead people should work harder and take what is given, even if it is subpar wages."

The irony of the right is surpassed only by their hypocracies.

I don't believe in impeachment against Bush.

By most accounts, he believed what he was told by the likes of Tenet and Rumsfeld. Maybe he wanted to believe, but that's a different matter.

To bring your nation into a illegal, disreputable, and dangerous war is a poor decision. Not an impeachable one, but simply one of bad judgement. I won't even accuse Bush of poor leadership (as many have), because I don't believe he's a poor leader. In fact, I think he's generally a good leader.

But I think he's a bad President. He would have made a good cabinet member.

Mr Mephisto

Impeachment against Bush..... that leaves Cheney in power...... THAT SCARES ME FAR MORE THAN BUSH STAYING IN POWER.

Couldn't agree more with that. I would be suprised that Bush wasn't bumped off by him yet if i didnt know what a puppetmaster he (Dick) is.

Come on.

Let's be honest here.

Does Bush deserve to be impeached? Absolutely not. A poor decision was made, and many lives have been lost as a result. But what is needed now is leadership (something I actually believe Bush is fully capable of providing), and a clear exiit stratgey from Iraq.

I believe the "chickenhawks" in the Bush camp have been discredited. I lament the fact that Powell has decided to retire (or has been "retired"), but at the same time I think the current Administration has shown some common sense recently. The invitation to Abbass has been invited to the White House is (hopefully) a sign of "softening" in the US position towards the Middle East.

Who knows what will happen. We can argue for years over what has happened, but I believe we should concentrate now over what could happen; indeed, over what should happen.

This most recent report from the White House over WMDs is simply a reaffirmation of what we knew (or were told) from the interim report in September 2004. I'm not apologizing for the past mistakes, but I'm concentrating on what we should all hoping for. And that is a firm, consistent and clear strategy with how to deal with the current situation in Iraq.

Mr Mephisto

i do not see the logic here, mr. mephisto.

there are, it seems to me, two problems: the one (dissolutions of responsibility for this war) is linkable (but not necessarily so) to the other (question of impeachment).

when i used the word impeachment earlier, i did so with specific reference to the emergence of new, extensive documentation about this administrations policies of torture, its extent, its administrative reach, etc...ther eshould be political hell to pay for this administration on the second. there should be political hell to pay for this administration on the first as well, but it is more complicated.

to back up:
how does the fact that the fabricated-ness of the wmd claims have been revealed repeatedly since the period before bushwar got underway function to make these problems ok?

how is this not simply repeating one of the administrations main claims to legitimate its own conduct? "ah well, poo poo, we have known about this for a while now"--does that not seem a bit surreal to you?

this kind of move is purest damage control. i am surprised to read/hear folk recapitulate it as if it reflected upon questions of substance. i imagine there was serious political hardball played to prevent this from coming out too officially before the election.

conservative ideology has sold itself on the basis of personal responsibility, whatever that means (it is a code term that as often means let the poor die as it does anything ethical)....now you have the spectacle of the bush administration, which has used this trope of personal responsibility to construct something of a Leader cult for television purposes, trying to evade responsibility by any means necessary. the problem is not cowboy goerge and his band of mayberry machiavellians--it is faulty intelligence---the problem is not the particular agenda of the neocons within this administration, but universal. "everyone," they are now saying, was fooled by the same data. that is empirically false. what is its function? to dissolve blame. nothing more, nothing less.

on the other, you have a politics of the individual, of the Leader, within which the Leader's subjective relations to the world operate as structuring of politics (the discourse of resoluteness and other, lovely, resonant terms drawn from the late 1930s in europe)...how do you square the two? how are you to trust the "leadership" that might be possible for the bush administration given the debacle that is this war? why would you do it? what possible basis would you have?

it is almost as if the karlrove machinery is making arguments that would dissolve the question of impeachment as part of thier public strategy. the defense you would get is that you are seeing now.

it seems that the matter of sanctioning torture is different, in that it is a crime against humanity. that can, and should, be an impeachable offense. god knows it is far far more serious than a blowjob. i do not think that the matter of impeachment should be eliminated by calculations like the above, that you would end up with cheney. i think it is a matter of holding bush to account for his actions.

it would be a shame indeed to have this administration, which talks ad nauseum about the question of democracy, demonstrate what it really means--that the people are free one day every four years and then in a mediated manner--and that apart from that one day, anything goes--unless of course you are not a conservative.

I personally, would consider impeachment hearings worth the effort/disruption considering the extent of evidence condemning this administration. I have always believed in "the buck stops here" mentality of the presidency. If indeed Mr. Bush was unaware of the goings on (on whichever front you decide to investigate, and there are many) then he would be relatively incompetent, and deserving of impeachment. If by chance, he WAS aware and allowed or condoned these actions, he needs to be removed from office along with the guilty members of his cabinet.

I am not suprised by this latest shift in direction, it is almost refreshing.
But I am disgusted.

See, and here's the thing: From what I've seen, George Bush doesn't have the leadership qualities to get us out of Iraq.

Going into Iraq was on this Administrations agenda since before they took office (Paul O'Neill was saying that they were openly talking about it), and they set up an office in the Pentagon to deal with Iraqi intelligence, ignoring the intelligence that the Administration didn't like. Furthermore, the State Department was working on plans for post-Saddam Iraq, but those plans were shelved in favor of the Pentagon's plans (remember it - it's the one where the Iraqis welcome us with flowers). The WMD was a red herring, and GWB knew it. He lied to us, the world, and probably himself to justifiy this invasion.

As John Kerry said: "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". Wrong war? For the moment, yes. We should have been hunting Al-Qaeda. Wrong place? Again, same reason. Some with wrong time. We could have dealt with Hussein after Al-Qaeda. Instead, we've gotten ourselves into a bit of a pickle. Yes, we won the intial combat, but who knows what kind of blowback this war is going to cause (especially since we went in with very few allies.)

Doesn't seem like very good leadership, from where I stand.

Completely disregarding the fact that he voted in favor of the war earlier.

Completely glossing over the question of whether it was indeed the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Completely disregarding the fact that this thread has nothing to do with John Kerry.

Completly disragarding....I've got nothing.

Bush was either incompetent, negligent, or guilty. None of those are particularly good to be, espically for a president of the United States. That's the bottom line.

He won't be impeached, though. He has survived so much so far, and no one seems to be willing to put his feet to the fire. The idea of an untouchable president should scare the bejesus out of all of us, but it doesn't. That's the scariest thing of all.

Evidence of a bald-faced lie from the president, please. It's really odd, the ratio of times I've seen this accusation to times it's been supported.

Also rather interesting that many on the left that agreed with the peacekeeping efforts in other areas of the world suddenly found liberation to be an insufficient justification when used by a republican president. But I suppose that's a bit of a tangent.

Generalized language aside, you're right. Many conservatives became inconsistent in their beliefs during the Bush administration. Some resolved the dissonance by changing their views altogether, towards this 'neocon' mindset. It's hard to tell who genuinely had a change of heart and who changed merely to fit the conservative mainstream.

I believe that going to war was the right decision at the time, given the information known (and the information 'known') by the U.S. and others.

In retrospect? First off, it's a leap to claim that the ending of the search demonstrates that Iraq never had WMD. To ask a question already asked in this thread, a question I asked my TV screen last night while watching the Daily Show, exactly why is it unreasonable to suspect we can't find the WMDs in Iraq because they've been moved to Iran? Secondly, monetary ties to terrorism might be enough of a justification in my mind, depending on which terrorist groups.

If there really were no WMD and no U.S.-threatening terrorist ties?

I still wouldn't be considering it a completely wasteful venture. I'd still be expecting some good out of it. I'd still currently see some good in it. I'd still reject any relevance of alleged oil motives. I still wouldn't see the validity of Vietnam comparisons.

But I wouldn't have supported it.

And I wouldn't have supported it with the sketchy evidence we have right now. Unless there's some very damning evidence of a Saddam-terrorism link I've missed.

I think you miss the point of 'many on the left'. My opinion is not that a war of liberation is a bad thing. My point is that that is not how the administration justified the war. THAT was WMD - back to the thread starter. The shifting justifications for war is what makes me crazy.

If it had been about liberation, there might have been a plan for how to actually do that without destroying the country/infrastructure.

If it had been about liberation, and Iraq were put on a list of other places that need liberation, and prioritized accordingly, I would have been all for it. But it wasn't. It was about WMD, remember?

But no one cares about that now. Somehow the American people have bought the notion of liberation.

See, I don't get that mindset. "The war has a good justification, but it's not the one being used officially. The one being used officially isn't true. Therefore, I'm against the war." That doesn't make sense to me.

That second paragraph I quoted is the first semblance of an explanation for that mindset I've heard. But it's my understanding that liberation WAS an objective from the start, even if it wasn't always a justification in their minds. I imagine that they did have a plan. Perhaps it wasn't the best they could've come up with.

Off the top of my head i could probably point to the claim that Iraq had attemped to purchase nuclear material from Africa. However this one is open to speculation due to the deniability and apparent "ignorance" of the president on this issue. Even though various agencies knew either that the information was worng or probably wrong they still signed off on it and it made it into the speach anyway. It is my belief that if you are going to mak a case to go to war, the evidence you produce had better be 100% undeniably TRUE beyond all reasonable doubt. The use of this HIGHLY suspect, if not blatantly false, information is distasteful to say the least.


There is a difference between a peace-keeping force and an invasion/occupation of an entire country and complete removal of it's government.

Americans were told by President Bush and his administration that the U.S. was going to war with Iraq because of the imminent threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism.

"Saddam was a known and a visible threat, and we kept deferring dealing with him. The previous administration had, and even the incoming Bush administration was conducting a rather leisurely review of Iraq. Sept. 11 said, "Be careful. You don't have unlimited time to deal with these threats." So naturally attention focused on a threat that we had known and understood, but hadn't acted on." Quoted from Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defence Policy Board.

He went on to say "Weapons of mass destruction were, of course, an important part of the rationale. We knew that Saddam had them. The U.N. had determined that he had chemical and biological weapons, that he had a nuclear program that was discovered in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. He refused to account for those weapons.

"The inspectors had been constructively dismissed from Iraq in 1998. We knew there was activity hiding things. We knew the organization responsible for hiding them. So the picture was reasonably clear, although incomplete. He had weapons, he was moving them around, he had an organization to hide them and he wouldn't account for them. So it was an obvious concern. Sept. 11 had focused everyone's attention on what terrorists could do if they were to employ weapons of mass destruction. …"

This is a quote from Rishard Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations; director of policy planning at the State Department, March 2001 - June 2003:
"I think the first thing to say about this war is that it was an elective war. It was a war of choice. We didn't have to go to war against Iraq; certainly not when we did, certainly not how we did it. I think the principal reason we did, from my point of view, was weapons of mass destruction. We knew that the Iraqis had chemical and biological weapons. They had a history of using chemical weapons. We obviously also knew their history of trying to acquire nuclear weapons. For many of us, a powerful argument was simply that we did not want to live with that uncertainty about what the Iraqis might do with it, whether they'd use them directly, whether they'd hand them off to terrorists. So war, if you will, was a policy choice to essentially interrupt the possibility that the Iraqis would either use or hand off weapons of mass destruction."

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...necessary.html

Yeah. Ratio remains the same.

Certainly. What's the relevant difference(s), in your view?

How do you NOT see a difference?

10,000 civilian deaths? If only it were that low (as if that's not enough). Don't believe what the US media spews about how many civilian deaths have occured in Iraq as it is utter non-sense.

That 10k number has been floating around for quite some time now. I'm sure its higher than that by now.

10k has been floating around since few months into the war. Imagine what that number could be now. Sad.

I don't know what everyone here is even arguing about. The fact is this:

Bush lied about WMD and ties to terrorism
Stupid citizens believed him
Bush illegally invaded Iraq killing thousands of innocent people
Stupid citizens re-elected him
Bush now states there are no WMD's
Stupid citizens will move on with their lives

I still find it hilarious that so many people STILL believed that Iraq had ties to 9/11 at election time (and probably still do.) Even the president himself came out and said that Iraq had no ties to 9/11 at all whatsoever before the war with Iraq even began. Stupid citizens indeed.

Link, please.

That wasn't what I asked. Of course I see differences. Which ones are relevant to the context?

Look at the opposite of this. I guess the people in Iraq, accourding to you, can go die and be oppressed as long as you get free government money.

The New Yorker seems to think that the President mentioned the "yellow cake" purchase in his State of the Union, and that it didn't happen.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

That's the first link I could find...There's more regarding that.

Ohp, and the Washington Post didn't seem to agree with the Al-Qaeda links, either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

From the article:

and

Do a search for the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Bush has stated repeatedly that Iraq was a central front in the War on Terror. This at the very best was misleading, as many Americans make the connection between "War on Terror" and "Al-Qaeda".

I thought it was common knowledge that Bush lied to justify war. Either way, if you do a simple search, you will get a good 30,000 pages that explain his lies in detail. For example, the one below is nice and comprehensive.
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/

The relevent difference is that this war was not needed. Usually when America sends in a peace-keeping force there is usually an actual fight that needs someone to step between. I liken a peace-keeping force to a principal or teacher stepping in between two fighting students and sending them each to their respective corner. This war however was more like the teacher walking up to a student doodling on his desk and punching him in the face.

This has nothing to do with (D) vs. (R). This has everything to do with RIGHT AND WRONG. This has everything to do with bringing death to tens of thousands of INNOCENT people in Iraq in my name, in your name, in your neighbor's name, in you mother's name, in my mother's name.. in the name of every single citizen of the United States of America. That blood is now on OUR hands. I for one don't like having blood on my hands over false information and lies.

There was doubt about almost every single piece of information posed to justify this war. As i said above, if you are going to take your country to war you had DAMN well better be sure you KNOW what you're doing it for.

And for the number of deaths - Right now there are no real reliable numbers on civilian deaths, but estimates are between 17,000-100,000. Depends on who you ask, I guess.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...16_3?hub=World

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in660728.shtml

I'm not sure which logic (or argument) you are referring to.

I have no "logical" reason to defend Bush or state that impeachment is inappropriate. That's just my opinion. Everyone here should know I'm no fan of the current Administration, and/or Bush in particular!

You know, I think the Republicans devalued the American political system in their hate-campaign against Clinton. Calling for his impeachment because he lied over a blow-job was just ridiculous. It set a dangerous precendent. Now, impeachment is tossed around willy-nilly by political pundits.

- He lied? Impeach him!
- He was wrong, and should have known better? Impeach him!
- I don't like the current President. Impeach him!
- You tried it with our guy. Impeach him!

It gets tiresome.

Impeachment should only be used in extreme cases. In the face of a clear and consistent, pre-meditated and cynical attempt to lie to the People (capital P) or the Senate/Congress, with a view to hiding, promoting or undertaking illegal activity. I'm not convinced Bush is guilty of this. Why? Not because I don't think he lied, but because there's still debate on whether (as far as the US is concerned) the war was illegal in the first place. Furthermore, impeaching Bush because there were no WMDs found is just plain silly. I believe he believed there were. Hell, even I believed there were. In fact, and let's not forget this, there were WMDs. We know this because Hussein used them.

What really bugs me is the changing of the goal-posts. Now we continue to hear that Iraq was linked to 9/11, that Iraq was sponsoring anti-American international terrorism, that the war was to protect America. This is all nonesense. That's why I don't like Bush. At least, that's one reason. But even I don't see the value in impeaching him. Why descend to the Republican levels of political cynicism and pettiness?

He lied to justify the war. Well, so what? He should not have been reelected. But he was, so the American people (or at least 50.1% of them) don't care. Let's move on and chalk this one up to experience. Next time you want to run against a popular President, make sure to choose a candidate with charm and one that appeals to the Southern states. Not that difficult really.

Do you think Bush personally approved torture? I do not. I think Rumsfeld did and should be sacked. But not the President.

Yes it does. And that's the [raison d'etre of a democracy. If you don't like what an Administration does, vote it out. The American people had their chance and, depending upon your opinion, either stuffed up or supported his policies regardless. But impeachment over this? I don't believe so.

Honestly, I don't think it would have made much difference. You know why? Because, whilst foreign policy and US actions in Iraq may mean a lot to Democrats. But guess what? The majority of Republicans just don't care. The election was won (again) on domestic issues and, most people agree, on "moral issues". The Democrats failed to take the high moral ground. They let themselves be defined by the Republicans. They reacted to smears and innuendo. They didn't act or seize the initiative. They were seen to be wishy-washy. For shame!! The DNC should all be sacked and someone who knows what they are doing should handle the next election.

This information would have made no difference to the election. In fact, this information is just a repeat of the Interim Report from September 2004. Didn't make much difference then, won't make much difference now.


I agree. And I don't believe Bush would have been involved in sanctioning the actions in Abu Ghraib or Guatanamo Bay. As far as I know, it has been proven that this was Tenet, Rumsfeld and new AG designate (Rodriugez?).

Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached.

- He hasn't done anything impeachable
- Impeaching him would limit the freedom of subsequent Presidents
- Impeachment would set a dangerous precedent
and most importantly
- Bush is not WORTH using such a powerful tool

Just don't re-elect one of his cronies in four years time.


Mr Mephisto

EXACTLY!!!!

Use the tools at your disposal and elect a Democrat. Stop whining about the fact that Bush was re-elected even though he didn't deserve it. Most of us know that, but that's the flip-side of living in a democracy!

Keep impeachment for criminals like Nixon.


Mr Mephisto

Thank you for an excellent post, Mr. Mephisto.

Yes, we could continue to argue this issue and yes, I could bring up the reasons why the invasion was still justified yet again, but honestly, what would be the purpose?

Those who insist Bush should be impeached will not change their mind (as they did not change their mind the other 99 times the arguments were presented), so I think that the best thing to do is move on and find what common ground we can, as well as to learn from our mistakes, as I think the current administration is doing.

“With the might of God on our side we will triumph over Iraq. God will watch over our troops and grant us a victory over the threat of Saddam’s army. God will bless us and keep us safe in the coming battle.” GWB - State of the Union Address

“God told me to strike at al Qa’ida and I struck them."
and
"And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." - GWB - quoted July 1, 2003 issue of Haaretz, one of Israel's leading newspapers

Bush condemned Osama Bin Laden for declaring a Holy Jihad on America and the West, but he does the very same thing in defending his reasons for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. If God is going to tell us to attack people, maybe He can show us where the WMDs are and maybe He can link Saddam with the al Qaeda. Just a reminder.

Bush's reasons for going to war with Iraq were:
1. Possible connections with al Qaeda
2. WMDs
3. Liberation

We've already seen that 1 and 2 were wrong. If #3 turnes out to be a lie, will that finally convince people this was the wrong war? Nope. Some people are stuck in their dissonsnce. The cognative dissonence pandemic will not be undone by news reports. This may take years and generations to undo.

I don't want to impeach Bush, I just want to remind him that he is responsible for the lives of ever American and the lives of people in countries we invade as well. He is responsible for the 17,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives lost in the second Gulf War, just as Saddam is responsbile for the million lives he took from his own people when he was in power. As the head of the executive branch and commander in cheif of the armed forces, the ultimate responsibility of the Iraq war is his. Going in to Iraq without a well planned exit strategy and basing the invasion on poor intelligence is his responsibility.

Well said.

Indeed, not only remind him, but remind everyone who voted for him.


Mr Mephisto

Indeed, perhaps the use of impeachment is strong. But, at the very least, I do think he needs a censure. Can the Congress do that? I don't see why not.

I'd imagine that impeaching him would just turn him into a martyr...something I'd rather not see.

That said, I still think he's a very poor leader. (And I'm sticking to the lying accusation, I do think he willfully mislead the American people, and tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the U.N.)

perhaps there are two young hobbits scurrying up a mountain currently!!!

i'm not surprised by the information (as noted by mr mephisto, this is just a reiteration of information already provided)... but it just saddens me that people still don't see the light. i fear that this too will be glossed over, as many of the things that have occurred during bush's reign over america, have been glossed over.

That's the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

\\Pats Rdr4evr on the head

I feel confident you'll move on with your life as well, a little less drama might speed the process along.

my plan is to track down some of the books cited in the nytimes review above to see about the extent of sanctioning of torture (by which i mean the admnistrative levels that sanctioned it---we know already the ag, rumsfeld, the highest levels of the military command. but it is, after all, bush's responsibility, and you will not convince me that he did not condone these practices. but i have not seen a smoking gun, so to speak. my interest in the word impeachment is, again, directly tied to this matter.

as for the question of the war, in general i actually agree with you, mr mephisto, in your last post. i do however have trouble maintaining sang froid about it. maybe because i have to live here. and i do not find it a good thing at all, for anyone, that any administration is allowed (explicitly or implicitly) to lie to the public about the reasons for war. i would have said the same thing about johnson had he run for, then been elected to, a second term as a function of the tonkin gulf fantasy.

except on one point: i am not sure i buy the idea that lying to the public about war is or should be part of the presidents "freedom" to exercize power. i am not sure of the precedent. but the bottom line is that i would consider torture to be the issue around which a cogent argument for impeachment could be elaborated.

given the appalling way in which this administration has carried out damage control, i think that the counter argument would be that impeachment would be tantamount to a judicial coup d'etat. well, so be it.

Well ignoring the petty minded insulting tone of your post, why do you think it's stupid?

Mr Mephisto

It's stupid to you for obvious reasons, which are better left unsaid. I also find your comment amusing because you can throw out insults, but you can't prove me wrong. The truth hurts doesn't it?

I didn't exactly mean it like that.

I meant that if Bush is impeached for invading a country, with the support of Congress and key Democratic party members, and it turns out later that the invasion was wrong and/or based upon faulty intelligence, then later Presidents are less likely to engage in interventionist engagements.

Perhaps that's a good thing.


Mr Mephisto

Congratulations, that's twice you've ignored a petty minded insulting tone of a post.

Bush lied, Bush illegally invaded iraq killing thousands of innocent people, blah blah blah blah blah. Weren't you just arguing how Bush shouldn't be impeached. Why do i think it's stupid? I thought for sure you'd be the last person i'd have to explain that too.

In the interest redundancy, i'm giving you my short answer.

Actually, i'm sorry - you're response to the first insulting post was "EXACTLY".

It wouldn't be "blah blah" had it been your loved ones that were killed because some cowboy in fatigues thinks he has a God given right to murder whomever he please because of the position he was put in. I know it's hard to put yourself in the shoes of the feeble and insignificant Iraqis considering you probably have such a great life in the the states without fret that a bomb might land on your home at any given moment, but just try putting yourself in their shoes if only once, it might (and that's a gigantic might in your case) just make you think twice before supporting it.

Matthew330, don't brake the rules of TFP. They were nice not to correct you. I'm not so nice to people who choose to be dissrespectful. Besides, you didn't adress what was said. You quoted the person and simply said "that's stupid".

Have you tried putting yourself in the place of the "feeble, insignificant" Iraqis who were tortured, raped, and thrown into mass graves by their tyrant ruler? It might just make you think twice before completely dismissing the justifications for this war. (and that's a gigantic might in your case).

Isn't it funny how we torture and murder people to show that torturing and murdering people is wrong?

The justifications were that of WMD's and 9/11, which were both proven to be incorrect. The public was taken advantage of by the administration because it was in a time where they were in fear of their lives built by the propaganda that the administration spewed to justify the war after the trade center attacks, therefore, they went right along and supported it.

Don't you find it interesting that we attack Afghanistan to hunt down the supposed mastermind of 9/11 with only a couple thousand troops and immediately afterwards, once the false propaganda has been spewed, we deploy 50 times that in Iraq? Doesn't it make you question why we went after someone who had nothing to do with 9/11 and wasn't a threat to the US in any way shape or form while we abandon and set free Osama?

If you truly believe that the intention of the war was to liberate the Iraqis because Bush felt genuinely heart broken by the oppression that Saddam brought upon them, you have been heavily misguided.

Monitoring
 

Nope, not quite.

Okay, that's something

That's gonna take several sittings.

I understand not considering it an adequate justification for other reasons, but surely Saddam could be considered the schoolyard bully?

I'm having a little trouble imagining a scenario under which #3 would turn out to be a lie. I could see it turning out to be an unsuccessful venture, but not a lie.

Liberation was a justification since the beginning, even if it wasn't used by the administration until later.

I think it's rather presumptuous of you to claim that Bush absolutely did not care about the liberation of the Iraqis. I also think it's entirely irrelevant how Bush felt about the liberation. What's relevant is whether he's working well enough to secure the liberation (and that's certainly up for debate).

I argued against his impeachment.
I didn't argue that he lied. He did lie.

How did the word "Exactly" insult you?

Mr Mephisto

PS - Are you going to answer the question and tell us why someone else's post was the most stupid thing you've ever heard?

PPS - Actually don't bother. I don't really want to know why you think that.

Huh?

How can it be a justification for the war if it wasn't used until later?

Maybe I'm missing something.


Mr Mephisto

I wholeheartedly agree with your post.

How can we say we are there for "liberation" when we have pictures of soldiers torturing, have stories of our troops murdering prisoners and acting with no honor or dignity at all?

What's worse is when we try these sadists, they recieve slaps on the wrists and seemingly the citizenry is not appalled by any of this for there are few outcries (such as the Sgt. that made 2 swim until they drowned, when tried he got 6 months and no loss of rank).

It is quite amazing how the administration truly does nothing.

YOU WANT ME TO SUPPORT THIS WAR, THEN PUT OUR WAR CRIMINALS ON TRIAL AND DON'T JUST GIVE THEM A SLAP ON THE WRIST!!!!! IF I SEE THAT THEN MAYBE I CAN BUY INTO THE WHOLE "LIBERATION" STORY.

DISCLAIMER: NOWHERE DO I ACCUSE ALL OF OUR TROOPS OF THIS BEHAVIOUR AND NOONE SHOULD EVER IMPLY THAT I DID. I AM SINGLING OUT THE FEW BAD EGGS THAT HAVE GIVEN THE REST OF OUR BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN A BAD NAME. I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS BUT WILL NEVER SUPPORT NOR FORGIVE THOSE WHO ABUSE THEIR POWER, FROM THE PRESIDENT DOWN.

It is also hypocrisy that we can send 100's maybe 1000's to prisons for life with no trial and no justification. Where's the "liberation and promotion of the American way of life" there?

I posted this another thread already, but it seems to be relevant to this discussion as well. Attached is a link to the Joint Resolution for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. In it you will find several reasons for the justification for the use of military force. Liberation of the Iraq's is mentioned, it's right there in black and white.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20021002-2.html

Here are just a few selected passages:

Quote:
....... Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;......

.......Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;.......

........ Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

I'll lend you my imagination. Let's say that the elections go smoothly. The newly elected leader does well for a while, despite many threats from terrorist groups. Let's say that the person who is elected is exposed as being trained by the CIA (like Ossama, and a multitude of others). Aparently, he was allowing several large American and British oil companies to purchase oil at a much lower price than everyone else. It is also found out that he has been accepting large bribes since before he was elected. Crazy? That's up to you. Plausable? Maybe. Possible? Yes.

I'll give you another. Let's say that a new leader is elected in Iraq. The problem? He's christian and exit poles had him dead last. It turns out that the ballot boxes were stuffed by several FBI agents that have been living in Iraq for several years. Crazy? That's up to you. Plausable? Maybe. Possible? Yes.

despite the fact that these are highly unlikely, they are possible. Would you really be surprised if either of those happened? Honestly?

rdr: "Stupid Citizens did this, stupid citizens did that, etc etc"

Mr. Mephisto: "EXACTLY"

i wasn't insulted, just obligated to respond. And willravel, they were correct in not correcting me, they were wrong in not correcting rdr. I didn't directly address what was said in that post, because it's been said a million times - goes in one ear and out the other.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

on the civilian casualty levels in iraq, based on media reports.
there is a link somewhere on the page to a short critique of projections that resulted in estimates on the order of 100K. and to those projections as well.

this obviously apart from the question of torture, its use and extent.
and we have not talked about the american use of napalm in fallujah, have we.

The administration isn't the only group of people able to attempt a justification for the war. I knew of quite a few that supported the war right from the start primarily because they wanted the Iraqi people liberated. (As an aside, some of these few still didn't vote for Bush in either '00 or '04 due to the domestic situation.) It didn't seem to bother them too badly that the administration might be waging the war on false pretenses, or based on shaky intel, or secretly for oil.

Why? Because in their minds, there was sufficient justification for the war. Even if the administration wasn't using it in making its case to the public.

A good thing done for the wrong reason is still a good thing done. It's petty and a sign of warped priorities to stop a good deed because you aren't fond of the doer.

(This is not to say that it's undebateable that the Iraq war was a good deed.)

Your link is dead. "Promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime" does not mean liberate. All that means is that we want a democracy there. It has nothing to do with the possible good intentions.

...and Pan, how dare you imply all of our troops are war criminals :lol:

Really? Where are the Military Resolutions to attack other, more brutal, repressive nations?????

Such as Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Columbia, Chile, Iran, Zimbabwe, and so on and so on and so on?

I mean if we are using "liberation" as such a big thing where are the rest of the countries that need liberated..... and are in far worse shape with far worse dictators?

I don't believe "liberation" is a reason for invasion into a sovereign country. If that were the case, I'm sure there are a few countries that could listen to the far left and decide our country needs "liberating".

NO COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO DICTATE HOW ANOTHER IS RUN.

We can embargo, sending only food, clothing and medicines to their people through non-biased organizations such as the Red Cross, but there is no reasoning to go to war to "liberate" a sovereign country, that is not threatening nor has the ability to threaten us.

Wanna use Hitler for an example? Ok.... noone went to war with him UNTIL HE INVADED Poland and Czechloslavakia.

Napolean??? Noone touched him until he started invading others.

Korea and Vietnam and the whole "Domino Theory" set this policing theory. And even then it is sad that we chose those 2 (neither of which asked us for help, and both were bad wars), while Czech BEGGED US for help when the USSR tanks rolled in and we turned deaf ears.

I really don't see the second situation happening. It'd be far too see-through, and I wouldn't see a purpose to it for any side, let alone the U.S.

I'll accept that first scenario. But it wouldn't be proof that liberation was a lie. I *think* I see your thought process there, correct me if I am wrong:

If (War for Oil)
Then NOT (War for Freedom)

That's not true. People are capable of multiple motives.

so if i understand this "liberation" it seems in line with the american's "liberation" of
guatemala in 1953--no wait, that was overthrowing a government for united fruit
iran --ok no, that was to install the shah
chile 1972--no wait, that was to overthrow allenda and install a military dictatorship that "liberated" tens of thousands of chileans thereafter

the list is really quite long

somewhere in there is also

iraq, when the americans backed saddam hussein's ascension to power--no wait that was....as i see it, the americans already "liberated" iraq once, in their great and unique style.

please. the "liberation" argument is complete bullshit. the war in iraq was directed at the international community, at insufficiently nationalist institutions like the un that were appearing to gain power via globalization, etc etc etc--a long list of motives--none of them pertained to the iraqi people--of course making reference for them made for good boilerplate. and so it is.