Piper,

The gassing of the Kurds in the North was years before, did anyone come to their help then or the marsh arabs, there is only one reason for the war, to secure access to the second largest known oil reserves.

Ian

The U.S. is the only country condemned by the World Court for international terrorism-for "the unlawful use of force" for political ends.

In much of the world the U.S. is regarded as a leading terrorist state.

Edit: And what all of this has to do with the title of the thread about the Microsoft fine, I have no idea.

Then why is gas prices higher than ever

If oil is our real goal then we would do more drilling in our own country and lessen our reliance to foreign oil.

I.

Cathbard,

"they" are doing the same all over the place. Just goole for echelon, or recently was reveiled that "they" were surveilling the central swift-servers in Belgium, so "they" had an overview over more or less the worldwide money being transfered through that network for about five years.

hubi

Makes you think about a country that will bring the full weight of the law against a US president for sexual misconduct and lying about it, but not against one for crossing the limits of legality and human rights time and again. And what about bringing the country to war against another under false pretenses.

(Again, many Americans don't seem to realize this.)

If Sadam really had no weapons of mass destructions, he played really stupid games with the inspectors that would try to come to check on that.

If he was just bluffing and was really just planting roses and flowers it was a really stupid bluff.

This is all about power, not humanitarianism. America thinks they have the right to rule the world.

Piper: There's opinion, and there's fact.

You're welcome to your opinions. You want to think all Democrats are cowards, and publicly call them names, that's your problem.

But as far as your facts go, you're 99% full of shit. You might want to check into the reality of what you said. If you care about reality, that is.

And that's all I have to say to you about your post.

first, you werent there to witness ANYTHING, Kill anything, watch people die in your arms or watch lunchtime crowd get fragged, You weren't there PERIOD, and the biggest people that complain about the "scene" the most are people who have NO CLUE, because they weren't there.

piper: your analysis seems to be missing one fact.
If the Iraqi's had WMD why didn't they use them?
Given the large numbers of Iraqi's willing to die to remove Americans and the coalition the vast armaments that you say are hidden why didn't a single Baathist republican guard use a single one.

Having spent a fair amount of time in Iraq in more peaceful times (and mostly travelling with the Republican guard as an 'escort') I find it hard to imagine not a single until firing a missile, rocket or shell with a WMD warhead if they were so readily available.



Again this only opens more questions. We are told that most Iraqi's want the Americans yet a considerable number seem intent on killing them.
Its not possible to walk round a city like Bhagdad with an RPG or SAM and not be seen so many people most at least sympathise enough to not say anything.

WHY would you use a WMD of that "type" in a WAR in your homeland ?????

It certainly ain't all about oil, which actually makes me laugh outloud.

Right now Saddam Hussein is on trail for human rights violations he committed in 1982 (ie he was behind the killing of 150 or so Shiites). But 1982 was also the year that Ronald Reagan dropped Iraq from the list of states supporting terrorism so that the US could start providing him with extensive aid - including military aid - including means to develop biological and chemical weapons and missiles and nuclear weapons, and Donald Rumsfeld shortly after went to Iraq to firm up the agreement with Saddam.

The Next charge against Saddam Hussein - the next one that's going to come along - it's been announced - it's a much more serious crime - the atrocities against the Kurds in 1987/1988 killing probably 100,000 people - the US didn't object - in fact the Reagan administration blocked efforts in congress even to protest against it. Furthermore, the the support for Saddam by the US increased and continued. In fact Saddam was given an extra-ordinary privilege - remarkable - he got away with attacking a US navel vessel killing 37 US soldiers/seamen in 1987.

In 1989 Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States to take part in a conference in Portland Oregon in which they were trained in how to develop weapons of mass destruction.
[...]
Yes the human rights violations were horrendous, but does that have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq? No, nothing.