Iraq Reconsidered

There was plenty of slack-jawed credulity to go around. When the PM told the Commons with a straight face that the Iraqis could launch missiles with WoMD warheads with only 45 minutes notice, there were plenty of fools in the UK who bought that bullshit.

The problem with "Other sources" is that theyre pretty much agenda driven bullshit also.

There are two, and perhaps only two, examples of American success in nation building: Japan and Germany.

Rebuilding a destroyed enemy nation is wise strateg, however, the US didn't go to war with Japan or Germany with the underlying goal of rebuilding their nations; transforming them into some semblence of allies or democratice beacons. The US went to war with Japan and Germany to destroy them, and the fact that it and allies were so successful in their destructive goal made successful nation building possible.

The opinions seem to fall into four general categories:

In other words we were brainwashed just as throughly as any of the communist countries by our government and our media.

The Iraq War has met with considerable popular opposition in the United States, beginning during the planning stages and continuing through the invasion subsequent occupation of Iraq. The months leading up to the war saw protests across the United States, the largest of which, held on February 15, 2003 involved about 300,000 to 400,000 protesters in New York City, with smaller numbers protesting in Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and other cities.

Consistent with the anti-war sentiment of the protests, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, American public opinion heavily favored a diplomatic solution over immediate military intervention. A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention. That poll also found, however, that if diplomacy failed, support for military action to remove Saddam Hussein was above 60 percent.

Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.

In the United Kingdom, both the governing Labour Party and the official opposition Conservative Party were in favour of the invasion. The Liberal Democrats insisted on a U.N. resolution; they opposed the war as a result. Outside parliament, anti-war sentiment was more widespread: the February 15, 2003 protest in London attracted between 750,000 and 2,000,000 supporters from various walks of life. Prominent politicians and other individuals expressing anti-war views included: Ken Clarke[53] Charles Kennedy, Menzies Campbell, Robin Cook, Tony Benn, George Galloway, Chris Martin, Damon Albarn, Ms. Dynamite, and Bianca Jagger. Cook resigned from the government two days before the start of the invasion, saying:

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

Makes me wonder what we're buying now. When everyone has an agenda, it's difficult to decide which agenda to buy. Not that this excuses us from trying to get it. But, it is difficult from where a U.S. citizen like me sits.

That suggests that the government were acting against the wishes of their people.

One only has to notice that the US doesn't ever do anything in this regard for altruistic reasons.

I don't believe any one, individual or state, ever does anything for purely altruistic reasons.

It's more about how it's being done and is it being done with the best balance and consideration for others as can be managed.