European Tribune - Why US invaded Iraq

Why US invaded Iraq

by rdf
Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 10:14:44 AM EST

There has been lots of discussion on the reasons the US invaded Iraq. The publicly offered ones by the current administration have been widely dismissed. However, the neo-cons running foreign policy are not stupid, so there must have been some other motivations which have not been revealed.

My speculations below.

The standard arguments given by the administration have been:

To eliminate Weapons of Mass Destruction (and imminent threat of use).

To overthrow a dictator and bring democracy to Iraq.

To sever the alliance between Saddam and Al Qaeda as part of the world-wide war on terrorism.

I've always assumed a different set:

To install a friendly government which will oversee a customer oriented oil policy which will help keep world oil prices moderate.

To establish a new military base of operations to replace the lost capability in Saudi Arabia.

To use this new base to intimidate other Arab states in the region.

The score card on my assumptions:

Friendly oil production is still a work in progress. Recent news points to sweetheart deals with Exxon and Shell being prepared for release after the upcoming elections.

Somewhere between 17 and 19 permanent bases have been built in Iraq or are in final stages. Recent discussions such as those by Rep. Murtha on "withdrawal" have been misunderstood. He, and others, are not talking about leaving Iraq, just about moving to the permanent military installations.

Intimidation has been working. Syria, Libyia, Lebanon and Jordan are much more pliable since the invasion. Changing Iran's behavior is still a failure, however.

Recently I've thought there might be another reason for the invasion.
As we have seen from the recent disruptions in the energy market, the US is especially sensitive to this. Much of the population lives in cold regions and needs fuel for heating. In addition distances traveled average much more than in Europe and Japan. The public implicitly supports an administration which promises to keep the oil flowing. It's like making sausage, people want the results they just don't want to see it made.

The rise of China is seen as a potential economic (and perhaps military) threat in the upcoming decades. So, we wish to have the benefits of cheap manufacturing, but we don't want their economy to become too robust.

Putting these two factors together leads me to wonder if the invasion was not so much to secure the source of oil for the west as to prevent China from making a deal for it. Notice the upset over the agreements China has been making with several South American countries. After all the US didn't need to invade to have access to the Iraq oil, it just had to buy it on the open market like everyone else. So the "War for Oil" idea doesn't hold up. But, preventing competition from China is something that would have to be done by bilateral agreements as a way to thwart the operation of a free market.

The goals are met. Cheaper energy for the west and limitations on the growth of Chinese economic competition.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Poll

Votes: 10
Results	\|	Other Polls

Why US invaded Iraq | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (3.80 / 5)

Your poll misses the psychopathological reason for invading Iraq.

Bush needed to prove to himself and the world that he could do better than his daddy.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 11:44:56 AM EST

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 0)

the psychopathological reason for invading Iraq

absolutely agreed.

Although the geostrategical goals cannot be left aside, there is also an important psychological factor. After the shock of the WTC-destruction, the Bush admin must have been under extreme mass psychological pressure to to something that is supposed to look like some sort of retaliation and that has a visibly bigger scale than the 9/11 terror acts. I believe that without the war in Iraq, Bush would not have been re-elected.

(But that is only a remote diagnosis by someone who has never been in the US)

by Saturday (geckes(at)gmx.net) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 01:52:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 1)

You left out the gastrointestinal causes as well.

These neocons are full of shit!

Frames exist within larger frames. Draw a larger frame around your opponent's frame; he will appear wrong or insufficient. This is how wizards play.

by Antifa (antifa@bellsouth.net) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 03:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The other psycho reason (none / 0)

to kick some Ay-rab ass to fight off the humiliation of being hit on 9/11. And Saddam was the easiest ass to kick - a real bad guy, already weakened, with vaguely plausible reasons to go for him.

Motherfuckers hurt us? We're gonna hurt "them" 100 time more.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 02:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 1)

Intimidation has been working. Syria, Libyia, Lebanon and Jordan are much more pliable since the invasion.

Or so the neocons would like to spin it.

However, in truth:

I see no change at all in Syria's line, at least not since 9/11;
Lybia was trying to return on the world stage for a long time now, flying out the elements of its nuclear programme came at the end of a long negotiating round (starting during Lockerbie trial days) for which he got something in return;
events in Lebanon had their own internal dynamic, no US role here;
Jordan was pliant before.

I drew exactly the opposed conclusion from your line of arguments: the war for oil idea does hold up. But you have to add in Peak Oil into the picture: you want the control of oil sources on a market where demand will soon outstrip supply. You don't want to compete on such a market. You also forget about expressed US concerns about suppliers manipulating prices by reducing their production levels.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 12:01:39 PM EST

Israel-China Weapons Technology Transfer (none / 0)

≈ Cross-posted from my diary --
Israeli Airport Security System SPOT ¶ Who Is Rafi Ron? ≈

China's Missile Imports and Assistance From Israel

Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) -- In addition to the alleged Patriot technology transfer, Israel has allegedly supplied China with cruise missile technology, including sensitive US technology. Specifically, Israel is allegedly assisting China with the development of its YF-12A, YJ-62, and YJ-92 cruise missiles.

In September 1992, responding to US accusations that Israel sold China Patriot missile secrets, Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen denied "that there had been any kind of military cooperation between Israel and China prior to the establishment of diplomatic relations."

Under U.S. pressure, Israel backed out of a deal with China, potentially valued at $1 billion, in July of 2000. Under the deal, Israel would have outfitted three Chinese Il-76 planes with Phalcon radars. In the spring of 2002, Israel agreed to pay a reported $300 million to put an end to the dispute over the order cancellation.

Since the cancellation of the Phalcon radar deal, Israel has assisted China in other areas including the development of the HQ-9/FT-2000, a surface-to-air missile, which would possibly use U.S. seeker technology. It has also assisted China in the area of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). In July 2002, China deployed Israeli "Harpy" anti-radar drones in military exercises in Fujian Province.

Jane's Intelligence & Insight

China Deploys Israeli Weapons Against Taiwan

In another case of China-Israel military cooperation, a classified Defense Intelligence Agency report stated in 1999 that Israel was suspected of sharing restricted US weapons technology with China related to a battlefield laser gun. Israeli agents attempted to obtain embargoed weapons know-how from US defense contractors on the Tactical High-Energy Laser, known as THEL, the report said. The DIA also stated Israeli officials, from the government-run Rafael arms company, obtained restricted technology from US defense contractor TRW in 1996.

See also next comment in my diary -
TRW link to Marco Greenberg at Burson-Marsteller.

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY

by Oui on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 02:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq - oil (4.00 / 2)

No, the war for oil does not hold up, at least not as a way to get cheaper oil. But the idea to deny it to others (China or otherwise) makes a lot more sense. And indeed, if there was a worry about peak oil amongst Cheney & co (possible, but I still have my doubts), it would make sense to "call" (or freeze) the Iraqi reserves, even if they are not immediately exploitable.

That's the most rational theory for oil, because all others simply do not make sense. No oil company is going to invest a cent in Iraq for as long as the Americans are there, because any contract will be renegotiated with whoever will capture power once they're gone - and because it won't be safe until they're gone.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 02:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq - oil (none / 0)

If I remember correctly, Peak Oil, as a future concern (one to prepare for) is directly spelled out in the Baker report that was prepared prior to 9/11. Maybe that or another report - I have to look it up, but I clearly remember discussing the issue just prior the start of the war.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 06:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq - oil (4.00 / 2)

I have always seen it as a failure of the Iraq war that the Iraqi oil production after the war has been smaller than the exports were under the Oil for Food program, mostly due to sabotage by insurgents.

In other words, if soft political control of oil producers is not possible, the US would move to direct political pressure and, failing that, military control, but populer resuistance and the fragility of oil infrastructure would result in not being able to gain control of the resources anyway.

But if the goal is not so much to gain control of more oil but to deny access to others, then the Iraq war is not so much of a failure.

What it is is a criminal scorched-earth approach to managing the global economy and resources.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 06:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why I think the US invaded Iraq (none / 1)

To answer the basic question: I think there were multiple motivations, all playing a role in the heads of at least some people in charge. These include all that you mentioned (by variing frequency and weight), and some you haven't mentioned:

a theatrical military power demonstration against an easy enemy (to impress countries in the region, potential later opponents further away, and allies; this is what Emmanuel Todd famously predicted)
a test of new weapons and military strategies (main motivation for Rumsfeld)
Israel's security (for the Likudniks among the neocons)
render the UN irrelevant (legal-diplomatic part of full-spectrum dominance)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 12:09:34 PM EST

Scapegoating (none / 1)

By the way, I watched with disdain as parts of the anti-war Americans accepted one scapegoat after another. So some reasons that I don't think are to blame:

* America didn't invade because Chalabi fed fabrications to them.

Had the intel process worked right (see thread on Blix interview), the forgeries should have been exposed long ago.

* America didn't invade because of failed intelligence services.

The intel services were pushed into it by people with pre-existing agenda. And when the UN/IAEA exposed the stream of forgeries, the US/UK still pushed ahead as if nothing happened.

* America didn't invade because Saddam wanted to appear dangerous, and kept the world in the dark about his disarmament.

One part of this harkens back to Clintonite spin around the Desert Fox bombing, and the overlaid Bush-era Orwellian lie about Saddam 'throwing out the inspectors'. So on one hand, Iraq told much more of what it had than even Blix wants to believe, on the other hand, after the real events back in 1998, and expecting war, Saddam had plenty of reasons to distrust the UN and draw his feet beyond wanting to appear dangerous to Iran.

Another part is that WMD don't explain why the US invaded: there was another, much more sensible choice, namely letting UNMOVIC do its job, at least for another year. But they wanted a war, regardless. And a further part is that they wanted war so badly that they repeatedly moved the goalpost, didn't accept Saddam's final confidential offer (made with intermediaries to Perle) on the eve of the war that would have allowed the CIA to scroll Iraq freely and US control of oil flows, and IIRC Bush said even Saddam stepping down won't stop the invasion.

* America didn't invade to create democracy, a noble goal only squandered by feeble execution.

The closest to a pro-democracy policy was General Garner's organising of local councils, like he did in the Kurdish autonomous region a decade earlier. Now, even what exists in Kurdistan is a joke of democracy, with councils controlled by the parties of the respective of the two Kurdish warlords; and Garder's 2003 all-Iraq policies were overlaid by not-at-all democratic deals with local sheikhs and mullahs and expat parties (empowering each). Nice State Department way of nation building. But even Garner proved too much for the neocons, who pushed him out, the local councils were dissolved, Viceroy Bremer came in, and created the puppets of the IGC as a front - and the parties empowered in the IGC of course came to dominate the 'democracy' engineered later as more convincing front.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 12:32:19 PM EST

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 0)

I think the reason(s) for invading Iraq include all of the above, though some to a lesser extent than others -- e.g., I think terrorism and democracy both played roles, in that democracy might help to bring change to aregion dominated by totalitarian governments, but that role was clearly to a lesser extent than military bases and oil. I agree that the "Likudniks" in the Department of Defense and various think-tanks -- they have enormous pull in Washington -- wanted this war as a way of providing more strength and protection to Israel. I also think Israel helped push the decision-makers into going and helped to manipulate the information.

I have no trust, whatsoever, in the Israeli government. Sharon is probably the best we can hope for right now, but I've been disappointed so far, in that I thought Abbas and Sharon would be able to make more progress. That said, I'm not militantly pro-Palestinian, either. Palestinians deserve their own state, as all people do, but Israel has a right to exist and defend itself against Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Fighting for your cause by using terrorist tactics will win you no points with me.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 02:48:22 PM EST

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 0)

Sharon is probably the best we can hope for right now

Huh. Huh. You should read up on the 60-year blood trail of the man. What's your problem with Labour's new leader, if we are here?

Fighting for your cause by using terrorist tactics will win you no points with me.

That goes both ways. What you call 'defend itself' I call terrorist tactics. Then again, the media in your country doesn't like to report much about stuff like the story of the second missile in Nuseirat. And of course, building settlements on occupied territory, especially now in 'Greater Jerusalem', and walls across arable land in occupied territory, has nothing at all to do with defense.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 06:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 0)

You're bordering on setting up a straw man in your response to the second quote by automatically translating my statement into one of support for Israeli tactics. What I'm saying is that Israel has the right to arrest and/or fight terrorist organizations in defense of its citizens. I am not saying it has the right to take other people's land and terrorize Palestinian civilians. You're putting words in my mouth. My statement was a general one -- not directed toward any particular tactic used by Israel.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 08:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 1)

You're bordering on setting up a straw man in your response to the second quote by automatically translating my statement into one of support for Israeli tactics.

That would be a legit critique of my reply, had it just been about tactics. But I contend those tactics are part of an entirely different strategy, one not primarily aimed against terror. I contend the right for self-defense is not the issue here, because Israel's actions aren't self-defense.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sun Dec 11th, 2005 at 06:12:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 0)

Perhaps so. I would argue that it's only partly in the interest of self-defense. But, again, I'm not speaking to anything specific in the original post.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Dec 11th, 2005 at 03:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (4.00 / 2)

The reason I didn't mention 9/11 is because that was not an objective of the Iraqi invasion. It was just a useful event with which to (further) obscure the real motivations.

Most people think that there was a neo-con plan in place much before Bush was elected. The most common source of this is the Project for a New American Century thank tank established in 1997.

A paper stating their objectives came out in 2000, but is based upon work that was done by members of the group as early as 1993.

If you want to read their manifesto (before it disappears again) here is a link:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

The list of participants reads like a who's who of the neo-con intelligentsia (see last page of document).

Most wars can ultimately be traced back to resource control, there is no reason to think that this one is any different.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 04:07:06 PM EST

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 1)

Actually, I think Cheney and Wolfowitz were working on such plans as early as 1992. Recall Rumsfeld wantingto bomb Iraq, instead of Afghanistan, after 9/11, too, as Richard Clarke wrote of in Against All Enemies.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 05:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 1)

I think there's another reason which I don't think I've seen posted here.

Simply a great connection between the decision makers and the (cliche alert!) military-industrial complex.

The Bush administration is surrounded and contains those who make a business out of war supply (Cheney, Rumsfeld.) This has profound psychological effects on their attitude to war.

I have no evidence to suggest that they went to war with dollar signs in their eyes, but I would say it is easy to see that if many of your friends and colleagues benefit from war then you will be less wary of it and less considerate of the downsides?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 04:13:17 PM EST

Re: Not a single reason Why US invaded Iraq (4.00 / 3)

That's always the problem with this type of question. There's no single answer, just an overlapping confluence of bad choices, poor saps and real crooks. Let me offer my own incomplete breakdown:

Fight terrorism: Joe American Average
Cheap oil: Dick Cheney and pals
Bring democracy to the middle east : GW Bush, Paul Wolfowitz
Thwart China : Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld
Eliminate WMD : Judith Miller
Eliminate Saddam : Joe American Average, GW Bush ('cause he tried to hurt my Poppy)
Divine intervention: GW Bush (God told me to...
Line my pockets: Richard Perle (lightweight), Dick Cheney and pals (heavyweight)
Election stategery: Karl Rove, all those !@!*#&^ Democratic reps and senators who voted for this crap
Ego trip : GW Bush, Don Rumsfeld

Regarding the "ego trip" category, I remember reading somewhere that Bush was musing about being a "Wartime President" before he was even elected, "because all great Presidents had been Wartime Presidents". Is it real or or a figment of my delirious and hatred-filled imagination? If anybody has a pointer to that... I believe it was one of his campaign advisers or big time donor/family friends who reported that but I can't find it on the Internets.

We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies.
Our interests are perpetual and eternal...
Lord Palmerston, 1848

by Francois in Paris on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 06:16:23 PM EST

Re: Not a single reason Why US invaded Iraq (none / 1)

Right on. Historical events are usually overdetermined and the proximate cause is often not the main cause, just the excuse that gets the ball rolling.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 06:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why US invaded Iraq (none / 0)

bush wanted to 'right' the list of screw-ups his life was, by doing something big and badass, and pulling off something historical like a 'successful' war.

to him there is no point to being president except for the bragadoccio value.

so he was child's play to manipulate by cheney and rumsfeld, who are still living in the 50's, psychologically.

very sadly there was a confluence between bush's personality of dimestore cowboy and the distorted mass projections of many, many frustrated, apolitical people who are bred to believe that america rules -no matter how or why - and that violence brings satisfactory conclusions.

millions of action movies can't be wrong, especially if they consist of a high proportion of ones cultural diet, (along with porn).

garbage in, garbage out...

saruration-mediated lives, junk food and medication have produced a nation of moral dwarf zombies who slaver at wwf, drool at nascar, cheer rambo and schwarzenegger movies, and have had the lines blurred so long between reality and fiction, that they are actually heartened by having a dysfunctional leader, thinking this makes it a more open field for any old moron, as long as he masters a fake drawl, a studly swagger, talks tuff and acts like a petulant megalomaniac, and to top it all, whose purblind faith in his own messianic virtue marries perfectly with their own similarly blind faith in american exceptionalism.

what the hell is the point of all that military hardware if you don't drag it out, use it, and make room for more?

good for the gdp, not just the gop.

as long as there is no draft, it seems americans will write off their poverty- or patriotism-struck kids dying as a kind of an unfortunate price for an 'un-negotiable way of life', a nightmarish abrahamic figlicide, a twisted natural selection, or an initiation into a better life - if you survive.

the neocons thought once the iraqis got a taste for madonna dvds and worse, they'd come around to seeing the advantages of our 'way of life'; even though they were taking propaganda to new levels, they still had not managed to out-do the mad mullahs when it came to convincing young, personable, educated men and women to strap on a bomb and explode for a cause.

maybe because the inspiration for our side came from the 'prince of peace', though you'd surely never know it from the foaming hatred that's spewed in his name.

plus ca change...

"Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting." - Leibniz .

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 09:49:58 PM EST

The reasons are numerous for the Iraqi invasion, (none / 0)

as a number have said above. And that is true, but IMHO, the American leadership, led by Bush, saw a significant threat after 9/11, and they saw an enemy with potential capability in Iraq, and the UN incapable of addressing the issue:

As the Tribune reported Nov. 9, 2002: "... Minutes after the measure won the support of even last-minute holdouts Russia and Syria, President Bush warned Hussein that it was up to him whether war erupts in the Persian Gulf. `The outcome of the current crisis is already determined,' Bush said in a hastily arranged appearance. `The full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq will occur. The only question for the Iraqi regime is to decide how.'"
The UN then dispatched weapons inspectors to resume the search suspended in 1998. But rather than open itself to complete scrutiny--a necessary act even if it no longer possessed illicit arms--Iraq's regime feinted and dodged.
Colin Powell, during his Feb. 5, 2003, presentation to the Security Council, increased U.S. pressure on the UN to enforce its demands: "... This council placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm, and not on the inspectors to find that which Iraq has gone out of its way to conceal for so long. Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives. ...
"[T]he information and intelligence we have gathered point to an active and systematic effort on the part of the Iraqi regime to keep key materials and people from the inspectors, in direct violation of Resolution 1441. The pattern is not just one of reluctant cooperation, nor is it merely a lack of cooperation. What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work."
What were these Security Council resolutions that Iraq had not obeyed? Their legalisms instructing Iraq to disclose and surrender all vestiges of its weapons programs run on for pages, but excerpts from two give their flavor:
- Resolution 687, which Iraq had flouted since it was adopted on April 3, 1991, said the Security Council demanded that Iraq "unconditionally" accept the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons and all related research, development, support and manufacturing facilities, and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. It required Iraq to declare the locations, amounts and types of all such items and agree to on-site inspection.
It said the Security Council "Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire [such] items" and called for "a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph. ..."
- Resolution 1441, the last of 17 such broad directives to Iraq, was adopted by a 15-0 vote on Nov. 8, 2002. It said the Security Council:
"... Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 ..." and gives Iraq a final 30 days to provide "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material. ..."
Iraq was to give inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to verify its compliance. The decree concluded with its admonition that the Security Council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
The resolution's 30-day window dragged into months of stalling and limited compliance by Hussein. By early March 2003, the U.S., Britain and Spain were lobbying the Security Council to set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with the Nov. 8, 2002, resolution.
On March 7, 2003, the inspectors paradoxically suggested to the Security Council that Iraq had displayed more cooperation, but the inspectors also said they still had 29 areas of unanswered questions about weapons issues. The Tribune reported that those issues included the whereabouts of thousands of chemical bombs and tons of anthrax, VX nerve gas and botulinum toxin uncovered during previous searches.
U.S. and British officials retorted that, at best, Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors was reluctant, evasive, incomplete--and clearly a rebuke to Resolution 1441.
France and Russia nevertheless threatened to veto the proposed ultimatum. In response, Washington, London and Madrid proposed setting a compliance deadline later than March 17. Again, Paris and Moscow threatened vetoes.
With two permanent members of the Security Council unwilling to support the November resolution for which they had voted, the U.S., Britain and Spain withdrew their proposal for an 18th resolution. They said they instead would rely on the earlier council ultimatums. With diplomacy in tatters, the UN instructed its inspectors and humanitarian workers to leave Iraq.
On March 17, 2003, Bush primarily cited Iraq's failure to obey UN orders as the reason for the impending launch of the war. He spoke of Iraq's weapons programs but pivoted his speech on Hussein's intransigence:
"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
"Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. ...
"The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours," Bush said.
"In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours.
"Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals--including journalists and inspectors--should leave Iraq immediately."
Early on March 20 in Iraq--the night of March 19 here--the first missiles struck Baghdad.

The UN had proven itself to be feckless. It's hard to see how an American President, with troops lined up along the Iraqi border, and no ability of the UN to hold Iraq accountable for their lack of response, could have acted differently.

9/11 did change everything. and the 12/15 Iraqi elections, the aftermath of violence and politics in Iraq, and the Nov '06 elections will determine the short term view of this period of history. It's interesting to note that the Republican politicians are not 100% behind the war, butg even more interesting to see how confused and split the rudderless Democrats are. It's an issue that has split America--and only the elections will show how America comes out on this--Nov '06 and '08. History written in 2050 will give the final reviews.

by wchurchill on Sun Dec 11th, 2005 at 01:01:49 AM EST

Re: The reasons are numerous for the Iraqi invasio (none / 0)

The UN had proven itself to be feckless.

And your proof is a conservative US paper's quotes from George W. Bush?...

I won't even qualify this.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sun Dec 11th, 2005 at 06:07:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

my proof that the UN is feckless is their (none / 0)

lack of action on 16 resolutions.

by wchurchill on Sun Dec 11th, 2005 at 05:33:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: my proof that the UN is feckless is their (none / 0)

What lack of actions? Last I heard, Iraq was disarmed.

And who are you to determine when actions lack and what should be done and when? That's the job of the 15 countries in the UN SC, and the overwhelming majority of them disagreed with Bush's and your interpreation

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 09:00:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: my proof that the UN is feckless is their (none / 1)

And it was disarmed before the 2003 invasion.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 09:06:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

so now I can't express opinions? (none / 0)

And who are you to determine when actions lack and what should be done and when?

I guess that is just for you and those that agree with you. And of course it's not just me and Bush that thought that. While you may disagree with the positions of the US, it is a representative democracy, and the decision to go to war was ratified by the US Senate, and supported by the House.

Last I heard, Iraq was disarmed.

But their responsibility from the end of the first Iraqi war was to document they had disarmed--prove it, it was clearly laid out. They didn't, and intelligence agencies did not believe they were disarmed. Examples of the resolutions:

What were these Security Council resolutions that Iraq had not obeyed? Their legalisms instructing Iraq to disclose and surrender all vestiges of its weapons programs run on for pages, but excerpts from two give their flavor:- Resolution 687, which Iraq had flouted since it was adopted on April 3, 1991, said the Security Council demanded that Iraq "unconditionally" accept the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons and all related research, development, support and manufacturing facilities, and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. It required Iraq to declare the locations, amounts and types of all such items and agree to on-site inspection. It said the Security Council "Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire [such] items" and called for "a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph. ..."
- Resolution 1441, the last of 17 such broad directives to Iraq, was adopted by a 15-0 vote on Nov. 8, 2002. It said the Security Council: "... Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 ..." and gives Iraq a final 30 days to provide "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material. ..."
Iraq was to give inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to verify its compliance. The decree concluded with its admonition that the Security Council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
The resolution's 30-day window dragged into months of stalling and limited compliance by Hussein. By early March 2003, the U.S., Britain and Spain were lobbying the Security Council to set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with the Nov. 8, 2002, resolution.

IMHO, a UN organization that took its responsibilities seriously could have headed this situation off years ago--17 resolutions mocked by Saddam over 12 years!! Incredible.

I had promised myself that since my thoughts were too far out of the ET mainstream on this subject, that I would not comment. Unfortunately I again broke that rule in responding to this diary. Hopefully this is my last comment on this subject.

by wchurchill on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 10:47:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so now I can't express opinions? (none / 0)

. And of course it's not just me and Bush that thought that.

At the UN SC, only Bush and three allies thought that - they failed to convince 11 others. And it's not just these 15: when de Villepin delivered his impassionate plea a month before the war, the ambassadors of the rest of the countries on the tribunes broke out in a spontaneous applause - something unprecedented (and against customs) at UN SC sessions. So get a grip.

While you may disagree with the positions of the US, it is a representative democracy

Please, don't come with this democratier-than-thou crap! Iraq is not America. The world is not America. What the US govermnent does beyond its borders, affecting non-US-citizens, is by default not democratic.

prove it, it was clearly laid out. They didn't

They did. You weren't listening. You stories like "Saddam threw out the inspectors", and preferred 'evidence' like the Niger yellowcakes story. Your government wasn't listening. You preferred to believe your government's claims of 'pack of lies' when your government seized Iraq's documentation of its WMD programme (which your government had to put under wraps because of named US participation in it).

One of the ironies was that much of the West was looking for extensive evidence that didn't exist, didn't exist precisely because Saddam first destroyed his WMD in 1991 in belief that then inspectors will find nothing. So when the Iraqis showed UNSCOM, and later UNMOVIC, the sites where they had destroyed WMD and components, the inspectors said that yes we can verify you destroyed WMD here, but not how much - please give documents! Your government ignored the first part of this. The British government ignored the first part of this, and when they presented a last-minute 'compromise' proposal at the UN SC that made five demands to avoid war, the first was ironically a demand that he admit and hand over specific WMD he didn't have. Just before Bush terminated the inspections, the Iraqis were getting Blix to accept their proposals for advanced tests on the WMD sites, that could have say something about amounts too.

BTW, nice you quote just the part of 1441 Iraq fulfilled, in time, and then the caught-red-faced US government hijacked the documents from the UN. That was the 30 days for, your source again spins like hell.

Hopefully this is my last comment on this subject.

Seriously, it would be good if you stopped commenting, and started reading - reading sources other than pro-government investigation reports and papers. For example, you could start studying Professor Glen Rangwala's evaluations of the WMD evidence before the war. You could start reading Dailykos. Or, if you don't like the level of discussion there, much better: start pondering the assembled (and referenced) evidence in the kosopedia. You could also read the transscripts of the pre-war UN sessions (which I watched live, as mentioned at the beginning).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 03:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sad state of affairs Dodo, when your only (none / 0)

argument is an ad hominum attack.

by wchurchill on Sun Dec 11th, 2005 at 05:48:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

um, it's 'ad hominem' (none / 0)

and he didn't.

classic troll behaviour.

"Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting." - Leibniz .

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 04:48:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, it's 'ad hominem' (none / 0)

thanks for the spelling correction. but how do you figure that just attacking the source as conservative, without attacking their arguments is not ad hominem? Dodo made no attempt to refute the argument--but rather chose to attack the newspaper.

also I don't understand your troll comment. I'm a pretty regular poster, but a poster who doesn't share all of the common views of the site.

just looking at your limited history on the site?,,,,,,seems like an odd comment.

by wchurchill on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 11:18:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, it's 'ad hominem' (none / 0)

but how do you figure that just attacking the source as conservative, without attacking their arguments is not ad hominem? Dodo made no attempt to refute the argument--but rather chose to attack the newspaper.

Actually, I criticised you, your judgement. It was you who drew a conclusion from the series of quotes, and since you haven't detailed any argument as to how you think your judgement follows from those facts, only Bush's words were there as 'arguments'. And I was aghast that you will base your judgement solely on the position of the guilty side - what the admin-friendly paper's collection of quotes can certainly not be called is an objective sampling of all the relevant facts.

And the omitted facts make your conclusion unwarranted on several levels. You forget about the explicit declarations that 1441 does not contain an automatism to war. You forget that 1441 entrusted the UN SC (kind of the UN's overseeing board, made up of 15 states not just the USA and France) with making a decision about whether the UN did its job, and what should be done. You forget that war is not only not the only serious consequence the UN SC could have meted out, but there were actual proposals - from France and Germany, again from France, Germany and Russia, separately from Mexico and others -, all of which would have meant a strenghtened and boradened inspections regime, but not war, and hence the USA dismissed them out of hand. You forget that Bush's, the Chicago Tribune's, and your interpretation failed to convince the overwhelming majority of the UN SC members, despite threats and bribes for all who resisted.

Furthermore, you forget to measure the UN's success in practical terms. You make it as if Saddam violating UN orders means failure, end of story. Whereas even if Saddam drags his feet, if he could be later forced into accepting demands, then the UN was effective, massively effective. This is how they dismantled the WMD programme: bit by bit, starting from Saddam's complete denial, then forcing him all the way down until he had to hand over even remaining documents. Saddam even didn't dare to touch the UN's seals on equipment and yellowcake during the four years of the UN's absence. You forget that starting an illegal war that kills 100,000 people (or even 10,000, or even 1,000) is a much bigger crime than delaying the success of inspectors.

Furthermore, you forget the US's role in the story as constant abuser and saboteur of the inspections process, an even more significant forcer of superseded resolutions than Saddam. You forget the parts about regional disarmament as condition in the post-Gulf-War resolutions. You forget the twisted story of the no-fly zones, which weren't approved by the UN (they were initially a US-British-French trilateral unilateralism, the French dropped out when Clinton started making decisions alone). You forget Desert Fox and what preceded it (from entry into palaces through undercover agents and provocations to thinly veiled excuses). You forget that Bush started the air war in August 2002 with a campaign to bomb air defenses unprovoked. You forget public declarations from Cheney down that the inspections are worthless, before they started (which were a rather clear message as to what Saddam has to prepare for). You forget the information withheld from UNSCOM and IAEA, despite 1441 spelling it out as a duty. You forget the bugged telephones at the UN and at UNSCOM. You forget that 1441 upholds 1284, which spells out a programme and timeframe for inspections, whose implementation was denied to Blix et al in a rush to war - the time for decision would have come after.

So I criticised your judgement, which seems as strange as when you declared that the Oil For Food program gave more into Saddam's pocket than on humanitarian goals.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 02:50:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, it's 'ad hominem' (4.00 / 2)

I'll agree that you don't qualify as a troll. Being wrong is not the same as being a troll.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 03:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, it's 'ad hominem' (none / 0)

Finally, some agreement. :-)

by wchurchill on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 04:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, it's 'ad hominem' (none / 0)

yes my time on this site is more limited than i might wish. there is so much enlightenment to be found on the web.

an 'ad hom' is an attack or insult towards the person's character, NOT his beliefs or even behaviour.

the mass madia is full of the arguments you consistently bring to the table here. i am glad for your presence , as it encourages retorts and rebuttals of the quality made below to you and your talking points.

i'm sure you're a nice, reasonable guy, but like many with your viewpoints, you offer nothing new or alternative in your posts.

i wish you well, as usually you are serious, polite and have done some considerable homework.

however, i am continually reminded by your predictable positioning and explanations that i haven't learned anything new from your posts, and it does irritate me somehow that someone of your obvious intelligence should come here and repeat stuff that parrots those who are placing our entire planet in peril right now; i come here for new and radical offerings to the important debates of today this forum offers.

so it's not personal, but when you accused him of an 'ad hom' it just eerily reminds me of how easily even a good thinker can become defensive and act like a victim, so to blow smoke.

as for you being a troll, that's not what i said.

i do find that conversational tactic deeply troll-like however!

behaviour/person = reflective but not equal

your character cannot be inferred by internet posts, but your behaviour as a writer can be seen and commented on.

a troll is an attention-seeking liar.

when challenged, their behaviour often consists of blowing smoke or playing victim.

ever notice?

if you come here to seriously and humourously debate with everyone, even though as you mention you are often the only one coming from where you do, then that's great, and all the better to have opposing viewpoints.

if you come here to undermine, sow doubt, and try to disempower original thinking by crying foul when there wasn't one, then you're a troll.

just saying...

thanks for reading

"Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting." - Leibniz .

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 05:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, it's 'ad hominem' (none / 0)

if you come here to seriously and humourously debate with everyone, even though as you mention you are often the only one coming from where you do, then that's great, and all the better to have opposing viewpoints.

Yes that is my objective, and I do enjoy the ripostes of others on this site, who, as I have said before, are clearly of high intellectual caliber.

however, i am continually reminded by your predictable positioning and explanations that i haven't learned anything new from your posts, and it does irritate me somehow that someone of your obvious intelligence should come here and repeat stuff that parrots those who are placing our entire planet in peril right now; i come here for new and radical offerings to the important debates of today this forum offers.

(my emphasis above)
However, I think you are a little premature here. And let me take examples that are less highly charged than Iraq. In two diaries I presented economic and financial points of view that are clearly contrarian on this site, but IMHO, will prove to be correct in the longer term--Significant growth over next 5 years, Global Economy and Imbalances and perhaps High Gas Prices, A Blessing in Disguise. With respect, I would say you are making the choice to discard these points of view, your perogative of course, but I think you are saying that you disagree with these arguments (perhaps reject them), and some on this site seem to be more than a little close minded to facts and arguments because they challenge their accepted world view. Clearly you can't know if my views in these diaries are wrong--but if you learned nothing from them, that is your choice, and I can't accept the blame. Time of course will prove who is right on many of these issues and discussions.

by wchurchill on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 07:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, it's 'ad hominem' (none / 0)

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Replace priest with conservative and you have Dodo's initial argument that I called ad hominum,,,,er, ad hominem. This is a perfect analogy to Dodo's statement. Dave doesn't attack the priest's character, he just says his arguments are wrong because he is a priest.

by wchurchill on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 07:33:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:'ad hominem' (none / 0)

Your comment

an 'ad hom' is an attack or insult towards the person's character, NOT his beliefs or even behaviour.

versus the more normally accepted view

First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim)

Your comments sound like you are a reasoned person, and perhaps you could admit that the normal definition of this term goes beyond character.

by wchurchill on Tue Dec 13th, 2005 at 03:10:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

oh well, I guess not. (none / 0)

by wchurchill on Thu Dec 15th, 2005 at 12:43:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The reasons are numerous (none / 0)

Suppose we grant the position that the admin believed 9/11 proved that Saddam was an immanent threat to the US or at least US interests.

How do you explain the existence of plans to replace him that have been in the planning stage by the neo-con think tanks since at least 1993?

Also how do you explain the refusal of the deal that was brokered in the middle east to have Saddam "retire" to another Arab state and thus avoid the need to forcefully remove him. The US has been willing to see dictators leave without punishment in other cases. Haiti and Liberia are recent examples. They even get to keep a good chunk of their wealth.

As has been stated many times 9/11 was used as a convenient tactic to get support for the war. It was not a goal of the war. What we are discussing here is what the actual objectives were. Overthrow of Saddam is a plausible one, except for the fact that he was willing to leave.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun Dec 11th, 2005 at 09:57:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1) and how do you explain that plans have (none / 0)

been in Neocon think tanks and the Pentagon to invade North Korea and Iran since 1993? The reason would be the same.

2) I don't find your Saddam resignation story credible. There are as many denials as statements that it is true. Some of the statements that it's true say Udey would replace him--what a gift that would have been.

by wchurchill on Sun Dec 11th, 2005 at 05:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1) and how do you explain that plans have (none / 0)

Well NK seems to have nukes, so it's immune from invasion. They seem to be working on doing something to Iran, but they screwed up Iraq so bad they're a bit short of forces right now.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 03:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The reasons are numerous for the Iraqi (none / 1)

Regardless of the UN's fecklessness or otherwise - and we apologise for not being as eager to engage in warfare as the US - the US had no right whatsoever to invade a country except to stop a clear and imminent attack on someone, and in that case only insofar as was necessary to stop the attack.

9/11 changed nothing except the arrogance of the US.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 04:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why? To get reelected (none / 0)

Getting reelected is among overarching reasons--and it's practically the only one that came to pass. People vote with just a little less thought about where their best interests lie when a candidate's propaganda machine is banging the drums of war. Bush knew he'd need all the help he could get. The war certainly helped.

And a bonus reason (my own pet theory): they wanted to demonstrate to the world the Rumsfeld Doctrine of underwhelming force--a prong in his PNAC scheme for military transformation. Rumsfeld et al. are pushing to reequip the U.S. military with very expensive, high-tech toys. Oh--and with "enduring" bases all around the world to enable "light" "mobile" "agile" "etc." military actions.

The theory, I gather, is that if our fighters have the right gizmos, we can enter a war zone with a fraction of the troop strength we used to need and still walk all over any army in the world. A force in the hundreds of thousands to take and stabilize Iraq? "Hah," says Rumsfeld, "We'll do it with half that, some contractors to cook the food etc.... oh, and don't forget our high-tech doodads."

Obviously, there are huge financial bonuses--in the form of future consulting contracts, spots on boards of directors, etc.--for Rummy and Cheney and the rest of them when they leave office. It's that classic profiteering move where you sign the Pentagon on to a bunch of new toys, establish a pipeline for the next 20+ yrs of procurement, then leave the government and conveniently find yourself involved with the suppliers of the toys you just ordered. There wont always be oil, but there will always be profitable war over what little remains. Getting rich off that (and preparing for that) is the point of "transformation."

I should note that Iraq has NOT proven the wisdom of Rumsfeld's scheme. But he's not letting that stop him. He will transform the military come hell and/or high water.

by abw on Sun Dec 11th, 2005 at 10:47:01 AM EST

1) I doubt they thought the war would help (none / 0)

them get elected and I don't think it did.

I agree that they wanted to transform the military as you suggest. But I don't think they would pick Iraq for a demonstration, just to test or prove their theory. why not just make the change.
If you think eithere Rummy or Cheney needs any help with consulting contracts or board seats,,,,,,well, you're just wrong. Perhaps you should just look at their CV's before 2001, and you would see that both had, and will continue in future to have, more opportunities than they can handle.

by wchurchill on Sun Dec 11th, 2005 at 05:55:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See George Packer's book (none / 0)

Assassin's Gate.

I haven't yet read it, but all reviews describe it as the best history of the war and its intellectual origins.

by tyronen on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 01:07:59 PM EST

Why US invaded Iraq | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]