The Four Reasons for the War in Iraq - Andrew Wilkie

[a_unique_person]

From 'Axis of Deceit', Page 63, An Unnecessary War.

1) Oil - This is a major driving force, of course, for a country like the US that has a massive hunger for energy, and one that is growing.

2) Procection of power and hegemony. This, according to Wilkie, is the main reason. The grand plan for the US to reign supremely over the world, one of the main objectives of the 'neo-conservatives'. The invasion was to be a demonstration of power, the 'Shock and Awe' was not just a demonstration to the people of Iraq.

3) Strategic reasons. Iraq is a key centre of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is not a good ally. It is unstable, fundamentalist, a source of funding and training for terrorism. The presence of the US troops on holy land fuels resentment. The US wants troops in the area, but in a better area.

4) Israel stood to gain, as well as possibly Iraqi oil and water, more security with a large US presence in the area and the departure of Saddam.

Hmmm, no mention of concern for the Iraqi people. Maybe on the next page....no, not their either.

[Muslim]

Israel again?

[evildave]

Well, I guess you could say killing 1 in 555 people in a region, smashing their economy, laying ruin to their infrastructure, destabilizing its security, and leaving them teetering on the brink of being overthrown in another bloody coup is 'for their own good'.

You'd have to be a liar and not mind all the killing that happens as a result of your lies, though.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Muslim
Israel again?

That's what the book says. It is from an ex-professional analyst with the ONA in Australia, who resigned because he felt the people of Australia were being deceived about the Iraq war.

Israel was not the main reason, just another reason. The main reason is number 2, according to him. Without number 2, none of the others would have been enough by themselves.

He also says that the plan to assasinate Bush Snr was never really believed or given credence.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by evildave
Well, I guess you could say killing 1 in 555 people in a region, smashing their economy, laying ruin to their infrastructure, destabilizing its security, and leaving them teetering on the brink of being overthrown in another bloody coup is 'for their own good'.


Iraq's infrastructure was in shambles mostly because of two decades of neglect. The economy was likewise smashed by the cost of multiple wars started by Saddam, and was kept in a crippled state purposely by Saddam's abuse of the oil-for-food program.

Funny, though, that the major indicators that would tell us whether or not your characterization of the current situation is correct point exactly the other way. If Iraqi security is so terrible, why has there been a significant RETURN of refugees to Iraq rather than an exodus? If the economy is so shattered, why is the Iraqi currency, which is freely traded now (unlike under Saddam) also STABLE for the first time in decades? If things were as bad as you imply, the Iraqis would be trying to leave, not come back, and they'd be selling all their dinars for dollars. Neither is happening. Which tells me you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

As for teetering on the brink of a coup, that's laughable. Who, exactly, is in a position to pull off such a coup? Sadr? Nope, we crushed his militia, and the survivors scattered to the winds. Zarquawi? Nope, he never had the numbers. Saddam? Nope, he's facing the noose. So where is this coup you imagine going to come from? It's not coming anytime soon, that's for damned sure.

[crimresearch]

"2) Procection of power and hegemony. This, according to Wilkie, is the main reason. The grand plan for the US to reign supremely over the world, one of the main objectives of the 'neo-conservatives'.
The invasion was to be a demonstration of power, the 'Shock and Awe' was not just a demonstration to the people of Iraq"

This may be the first time I've seen in print one of the more rational and supportable analyses of reasons for the current war....not the nonsense about world domination, or oil, but about sending a message to burgeoning world rulers like China that the US has not only technology, but a large military with actual and recent combat experience.

[hgc]

Originally posted by crimresearch
... but a large military with actual and recent combat experience. This has been kicking about in the back of my mind for some time. I just couldn't believe that such a heinous reason to make war would actually be true, but with Cheney and Co., I'm ready to believe a lot previously unbelievable things.

[crimresearch]

Note that I'm not saying that it was the only reason, but it has occured to me ever since a friend of mine attended a staff meeting in the early 90s, and realized that he was the only person in the room, from the generals on down, with any combat experience, and he was a civilian.
(Ironically, he had been RIFed as a major after Vietnam because he was in artillery, and the Army had too many combat officers and not enough admin types).

Given some of China's recent activities and statements, although woefully underreported, such as the one by the Premier a few years ago that 'any country where Chinese have ever lived or currently live is Chinese territory', or the one about 'any country whose economic success competes with China's economic success is 'interfering in China's internal stability'...' (code for 'provoking us to military action like Tibet did'), it does make one wonder how much of the current willingness to commit troops was to send a message and toughen up reserve forces.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Iraq's infrastructure was in shambles mostly because of two decades of neglect. The economy was likewise smashed by the cost of multiple wars started by Saddam, and was kept in a crippled state purposely by Saddam's abuse of the oil-for-food program.

Evidence?


Funny, though, that the major indicators that would tell us whether or not your characterization of the current situation is correct point exactly the other way. If Iraqi security is so terrible, why has there been a significant RETURN of refugees to Iraq rather than an exodus? If the economy is so shattered, why is the Iraqi currency, which is freely traded now (unlike under Saddam) also STABLE for the first time in decades? If things were as bad as you imply, the Iraqis would be trying to leave, not come back, and they'd be selling all their dinars for dollars. Neither is happening. Which tells me you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Evidence?


As for teetering on the brink of a coup, that's laughable. Who, exactly, is in a position to pull off such a coup? Sadr? Nope, we crushed his militia, and the survivors scattered to the winds. Zarquawi? Nope, he never had the numbers. Saddam? Nope, he's facing the noose. So where is this coup you imagine going to come from? It's not coming anytime soon, that's for damned sure.

But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

"I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance," says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. "At the beginning ... there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people."


source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm)

It is, of course, irrelevant that there isn't anyone around to pull off a coup. Leaders can always fill the void. In fact, there could be someone working behind the scenes to organise one right now who simply isn't prominent in the media. Who heard of Moqtada al Sadr before his antics in Najaf?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Iraq's infrastructure was in shambles mostly because of two decades of neglect.


The infrastructer was just fine until we started dropping bombs on it. I remember how impressed everyone was that teh power grid held up so well during the war. Until we hit the point that we started targeting it. There were even jokes about how our grids go down so easily compared to Iraqs.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Tmy


The infrastructer was just fine until we started dropping bombs on it.

And I remember the opposite.

The intel said we'd be able to get the electricity, water & oil running in VERY short order.

After the major fighting (aka Mission Accomplished) ended we discovered decades of neglect made our Pollyanna projections just another 'fantasy.'

Of course, the bombs and terrorist attacks are NOT helping us expedite a sense of order but IMO if we had gone in with the proper number of troops... we would have been able to SECURE the country & begin the rebuilding.

[peptoabysmal]

http://www.protestwarrior.com/images/posters/saddam_killed.jpg

This poster was created by an 18 year old HS student. You can read his full story here:

OPERATION TIGER CLAW (http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php)

[Skeptic]

4) Israel stood to gain,

Oh. So the "real reason" for the Iraqi was that it's the jews' fault.

Can't say I'm surprised you consider such a "book" wonderfully credible, AUP.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Mel

The intel said we'd be able to get the electricity, water & oil running in VERY short order.
.

Cheese n crackers our intel cant even properly gauge the infrastructer???? How hard is that???

Once agian we know the real culprits. THE JEWS, BILL CLINTON, and SADDAM!!

If Saddam had a better infrastruter we wouldntve broke it so bad.

If Bill gave the CIA more money they wouldve figured out that the Iraqi power plants suck/

And the Jews, well they are behind all the sabotage as usual.

Did I miss anyone?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
From 'Axis of Deceit', Page 63, An Unnecessary War.

Hmmm, no mention of concern for the Iraqi people. Maybe on the next page....no, not their either.

Hmmm... no mention of anal probing by space aliens, either :rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Hmmm... no mention of anal probing by space aliens, either :rolleyes:

You got to love the logic of AUP's argument: humanitarian concerns weren't a reason for the Iraq war... because a partisan book against the war doesn't mention them as a reason for the war. This is taking the "absence of evidence is too evidence of absence" fallacy to new heights.

Using this "logic", did you know virtually all the people who go on trial for murder are innocent? I checked thousands of pages of their defense attorney's opening statements, and the evidence for them committing murder is just NOT THERE.

What more proof do you need?

[evilgoldtoesock]

The United States does not have the moral authority to "liberate" a country without the consent of the rest of the world. Imperialism, as always. End of story.

[Mel]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
http://www.protestwarrior.com/images/posters/saddam_killed.jpg

This poster was created by an 18 year old HS student. You can read his full story here:



I bet the Iranians & Kuwaitis would disagree.

[crackmonkey]

I didn't realize the 'rest of the world' was the arbiter on moral authority. Apparently, populations can be oppressed and murdered in good conscience, as the moral arbiter deigns not to intervene.

[davefoc]

Although it is hard to believe right now, I think the main justification for the war in the minds of the decision makers was the suspected existence of WMD. I have only read a little bit of Woodwards book but that appears to be the case he makes.

I think the theories that assume a malevolent rationale for the war derive mostly from people's desire to view a gray world in a black and white way. i.e. if somebody has decided that the war was a bad idea then the decision makers for the war need to be evil people to make the basis for his view as clearcut as possible.

[Skeptic]

The United States does not have the moral authority to "liberate" a country without the consent of the rest of the world.

Of course it does, or else Germany would still be under Hitler now. (Fascist) Italy and (Vichy) France were opposed to that, as I recall.

[Tony]

Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock
The United States does not have the moral authority to "liberate" a country without the consent of the rest of the world.


Of course it does. Not only do we have the moral authority, we have the moral responsibility to spread freedom and human rights. What the "rest of the world's" opinion on that is, is irrelevant. The cause of human rights is more important.

[Tmy]

The war wasnt all that long ago.

The justification was simple. Saddam had WMD's and was willing to give them to our terror enemies.

Now that the WMD didnt pan out many people want to rewrite history and turn the whole thing into a humanitarian event. Saddam is no Peace Prize candidate but the height ofhis nastyness was some 10 years ago. While freeing the Iraqis from his is A reason, it sure wasnt the top reason. Just like oil was a reason although not #1.

As for the Kurds and Iranians, we didnt give much a crap about them when Saddam actually was killing them. In fact teh Iran war was viewed as a good thing.

[davefoc]

Tmy said:As for the Kurds and Iranians, we didnt give much a crap about them when Saddam actually was killing them. In fact teh Iran war was viewed as a good thing.

I don't think this is entirely true.

I think you have a point when it comes to the Iran Iraq war. The US saw stopping the fundamentalist Iranians as a good thing and seems to have been willing to at least stand by while Hussein gassed the Iranian soldiers and civilians.

In the case of the Kurds the US seems to have acted on their behalf largely for humanitarian reasons (of course it acted after thousands of them had been killed).

I see leaving Hussein in power after the first gulf war as the most immoral act by the US in my lifetime. What happened to the Kurds was a reasonably predictable consequence of that decision, but the fact is that the US did act for the Kurds to prevent an even greater massacre eventually so I think to say that the US didn't give a crap about them is not correct.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
4) Israel stood to gain,

Oh. So the "real reason" for the Iraqi was that it's the jews' fault.

Can't say I'm surprised you consider such a "book" wonderfully credible, AUP.

Origianlly posted by a_unique_person
That's what the book says. It is from an ex-professional analyst with the ONA in Australia, who resigned because he felt the people of Australia were being deceived about the Iraq war.

Israel was not the main reason, just another reason. The main reason is number 2, according to him. Without number 2, none of the others would have been enough by themselves.

Your reading comprehension skills are as sharp as ever, I see, Skeptic.

[Tmy]

I said we didnt care MUCH!

We cared enough to go wh sanctions and wave our fnger in dissaproval but not enough to physically send in the troops (kinda like the Sudan thing).

No years later people want to make it like were swooping in like Spiderman saving the day. Its not like Saddam was on a Kurd killing spreed when we invaded.

[Mr Manifesto]

Here's (http://hnn.us/articles/862.html) an interesting article on the whole Kurd-gassing thing. It's fully sourced, you can make your own mind up on how much the US cared about what happened at the time. To my mind, though, it seems like it wasn't politically expedient to kick up too much of a fuss about it.

[Mr Manifesto]

Vocal American businesses were adamant that Iraq was a source of opportunity, not enmity. The White House did all it could to create an opening for these companies"Had we attempted to isolate Iraq," Secretary of State James Baker wrote later, "we would have also isolated American businesses, particularly agricultural interests, from significant commercial opportunities."

Powers mordantly comments: "Hussein locked up another $1 billion in agricultural credits. Iraq became the ninth largest purchaser of U.S. farm products.... As Baker put it gently in his memoirs, 'Our administration's review of the previous Iraq policy was not immune from domestic economic considerations.'"


(From the above link)

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Tmy]

If it's such a Kurdish love fest why dont we give them an independent state? Cause that would cause trouble with Turkey and others thats why.

[Skeptic]

So what's the problem, Tmy?

The US knew for a long time that Saddam was a nasty piece of work, but didn't want to fight an all-out war without good reason.

So then it became wrongly convinced that Saddam was on top of it an imminent threat, especially after 9/11, this passed the threshold and the US finally took him out.

So now it turns out the WMD were not there. So? Why does this make the action any less morally acceptable?

To repeat an analogy, the USA declared war on Hitler only after his declaration of war on it four days after Pearl Harbor. Suppose it is not discovered that this never occured--that the whole declaration of war was a trick by the British secret service to finally get the US on their side. Would that make removing him any less accepatable? No.

The US went to a good war for bad reasons. But so what? This hardly means it was a bad war.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Here's (http://hnn.us/articles/862.html) an interesting article on the whole Kurd-gassing thing. It's fully sourced, you can make your own mind up on how much the US cared about what happened at the time. To my mind, though, it seems like it wasn't politically expedient to kick up too much of a fuss about it.


Are there any articles on how much anyone else cared about what happened at the time?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by aerocontrols



Are there any articles on how much anyone else cared about what happened at the time?

Well, I'm a Canadian-born Australian, so it looks like my hands are clean (http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn)

Only the Scandinavian countries, Australia and Canada, together with bodies like the European Parliament and the Socialist International, saved their honour by clearly condemning Iraq.a

:p

But, really, even if no-one condemned the gassing, that's irrelevant. The US is the country who declared war on Iraq ostensibly for what Iraq did to the Kurds. And we can't even blame previous administrations, because so many from the administration of the day are in the current one.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So what's the problem, Tmy?

The US knew for a long time that Saddam was a nasty piece of work, but didn't want to fight an all-out war without good reason.

So then it became wrongly convinced that Saddam was on top of it an imminent threat, especially after 9/11, this passed the threshold and the US finally took him out.

.

Just dont pee on my back and tell me its raining. (I love that line)
If you say "hey it was a mistake." fine we can debate that point. But people are spinning it as if humanitarian efforts were THE reason. Thats just BS.


And the Hitler thing isnt a good analogy. Saddam was not nearly as much a threat as Hitler. Imgaine if talking out a powerless Hitler meant losing to the Japanese cause you split your military?

Thats what we have here. We waste time on Saddam while our true foes AlQueda remains at large.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its not like Saddam was on a Kurd killing spreed when we invaded.

No, I guess he was too busy wiping out the Marsh Arabs.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm

Hey, there's only so many hours in a day, how is your average brutal dictator supposed to get around to supressing all the people he needs to?

[Skeptic]

If you say "hey it was a mistake." fine we can debate that point. But people are spinning it as if humanitarian efforts were THE reason. Thats just BS.

It was surely part of the reason. Who says it has to be the ONLY reason? In fact, I would be quite worried if the US regularly went out to wars SOLELY on humanitarian grounds, for a variety of reasons (with exceptions--if the US threathened Sudan with war unless it stopped its genocide, I would support that).

And the Hitler thing isnt a good analogy. Saddam was not nearly as much a threat as Hitler.

As we now know. But imagine Hitler with the bomb, which Saddam was trying to get according to intel... you get the idea.

But in any case, that's not the point: removing Hitler was justified morally even if he hadn't been a threat to the US due to his treatment of the jews and the slavs (let alone his own people).

Stopping the gas chambers was morally justified even if it could be proven no Americans would be hurt in them. In the same way, Saddam's removal was surely morally justified due to his killing of hundreds of thousands even if he wasn't a threat to America.

As "peptoabyssmal" said, your argument seems to be, "Saddam only kills his own people, so it's none of our business".

Imgaine if talking out a powerless Hitler meant losing to the Japanese cause you split your military?

That is a practical decision; in that case it would be wrong to do for practical reasons. But it would still not make taking out Hitler MORALLY wrong, now would it? If I fed all the hungry in my city I would go bankrupt, but that hardly means it's morally wrong to feed the hungry.

We waste time on Saddam while our true foes AlQueda remains at large.

Maybe. But that's a practical issue. Your entire argument is that the war is MORALLY wrong and evil. Why?

[Tmy]

I have no problem with war. For the right reasons. Like in Afgan. Im glad we are there.

If you look in the JREF archives prior to the invasion I felt that we could afford to wait on it to 1) gather more international backing 2) Saddam was starting to crack under the pressure.

I firmly believe that there was almost nothing Saddam could agree to that wouldve stopped the invasion. Bush was looking for a fight.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"2) Procection of power and hegemony. This, according to Wilkie, is the main reason. The grand plan for the US to reign supremely over the world, one of the main objectives of the 'neo-conservatives'.
The invasion was to be a demonstration of power, the 'Shock and Awe' was not just a demonstration to the people of Iraq"

This may be the first time I've seen in print one of the more rational and supportable analysis of reasons for the current war....not the nonsense about world domination, or oil, but about sending a message to burgeoning world rulers like China that the US has not only technology, but a large military with actual and recent combat experience.

That's a very interesting observation crime, thoughtful and pertinent. I disagree with your point though that you don't believe in the doctrine of establishing a hegemony. I believe that has been the mission of the US since 1945 through Republican and Democratic administrations, to establish and maintain a "Pax Americana". It has seen various stages from active intersession ( war, war by proxy), MAD and foreign policy of carrot and stick and even was acknowledged by Adams as Manifest Destiny. I think that it is firmly ingrained in the American character and Psyche and looking at the condition of mankind today doesn't appear to be an entirely false or worthless idea. The main problem we have in application of this ideal hoverer is the reconciliation of the principles of freedom and free will. Some have a mind set of "We will free you and you will enjoy our style of government whether you like it or not". This has been , and continues to be a fallacy much to the detriment of the worthwhile enterprise of playing big brother to the world.

You other point of demonstration of strength is arguable as well but has truth to it and if not the main reason for the war was certainly a consideration. Look at the disposition of policy and application of force in Iraq and you will see that the professional soldiers had differing views from their civilian political "superiors". The generals that stated that Rummy and others were wrong in their estimation of the battle during and after the war were correct at the cost of hundreds of lives and billions in treasure. I hope if we ever have an engagement with a real foe like NK or China that those armchair generals are absent from control.

It's kind of ironic also that the normal portrayal of the war pigs are fat cigar chomping General officers leading the poor duped politicians ( and us ) into conflict when the truth is that the civilians dragged the US armed forces-screaming all the way- to the morass in Iraq. They ignored advice , warnings and troop estimates as well as the battle for the peace We cannot blame Tommy Franks or or even Powell
snip-
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from US army generals that substantially more troops and armour would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, according to recent media reports. Military pundits believe the lack of firepower is one of the key reasons why the US advance has been seriously bogged down.
In an article in today's edition of New Yorker Magazine, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh exposes the divide between military and political decision-makers at the Pentagon.
snip
full article here: http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/us030331.html

[crimresearch]

Never said there wasn't some such doctrine, it just hasn't produced classic imperial world domination ala the British Empire, or the Chinese map of the world that shows dozens of countries labelled People's Autonomous regions # 36....
As far as forcing a lifestyle or ideology or religion on the rest of the world, well the US has some stiff competition there too, not to mention being in decline since the mid 1970s.

And as far as oil, that is yesterday's movies too...Iraq was what, 3% of the world's production, max?
The new rush to recolonize Africa for oil will eclipse that in no time, which would account for all the Chinese troops in Africa.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Skeptic
So then it became wrongly convinced that Saddam was on top of it an imminent threat, especially after 9/11, this passed the threshold and the US finally took him out.

The latest big lie.

For 'wrongly convinced' read 'a convenient facade'.

PS haven't you ever heard of something called the 'coalition' or was that, as we suspected, a fig leaf across the Bush neo-conalia?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

Look at the disposition of policy and application of force in Iraq and you will see that the professional soldiers had differing views from their civilian political "superiors". The generals that stated that Rummy and others were wrong in their estimation of the battle during and after the war were correct at the cost of hundreds of lives and billions in treasure.


This isn't really accurate. What we have is the voices of a number of retired generals who were critical of the war planning. We don't have access to the personal opinions of generals still serving. But keep in mind the saying that generals are always ready to win the last war. As for the cost, well, I've never seen any evidence that troop strength was really something we lacked. We made mistakes in places (looting wasn't cracked down on because the army wasn't tasked with that job), and the reconstruction bill is certainly larger than the administration advertised. But none of that has to do with troop strength. Even during April of this year, when the insurgency was at its most violent, our main limiting factor wasn't so much troop strength as it was intelligence (and even that flareup worked out fairly well in the end).


US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from US army generals that substantially more troops and armour would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, according to recent media reports. Military pundits believe the lack of firepower is one of the key reasons why the US advance has been seriously bogged down.


This is also incorrect. In fact, the invasion happened much quicker than anticipated. Simple logistics (Advancing supply lines for troops as they rushed towards Bagdad) were a MUCH bigger limiting factor than troop strength, and more troops wouldn't have helped there. Also keep in mind that the tactics used in this war ended up being different than the Pentagon itself anticipated (for example, the Pentagon never planned to use heavy armor to take urban areas, but local commanders did, and it worked well). Considering how well the invasion worked, it seems to me Rumsfeld's final decision was right (early proposals using fewer troops don't matter, what matters is what he decided on in the end), and his critics were wrong.

I'm sure that at the time, claims like "But now that the US advance looks unlikely to end rapidly or efficiently, there is mounting criticism of the decision not to send in more ground troops." looked reasonable. But in retrospect this was simply wrong: the invasion was amazingly quick, even quicker than planned or anticipated.

[Frank Newgent]

Whether or not Iraq or anyone else ever had weapons of mass destruction doesn't matter. Still I think that it was a good idea to attack them because it shows the world that our United States of America is not afraid to stand up to their damned Islamic and Arab extremism.

Doesn't their orthodoxy command the devoted to utterly destroy the infidel? The silence of so-called moderate Islamic leaders since September 11th suggests that they wouldn't be at all distressed to see everything the world knows us for to go phfft, like having nearly three times the purchasing power of Japan or maybe cancelling Cops.

Creating fear in the hearts of our enemies is a valid foreign policy objective. Instead of worrying about what we didn't know before we started killing those people, we ought to take pride in the fact that the mullahs in Iran and everywhere else in the Islamic world are losing sleep right now over which Satanic irregulars we might slap around next.

By the way, this obsessive psychopathic verbigeration is no picnic.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So now it turns out the WMD were not there. So? Why does this make the action any less morally acceptable? Because its not morally acceptable to start a war based on insufficient evidence, just-in-case preemption and "faith based policy".

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=23154

'course WMD's were only the ostensible reason.