Liberal - not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. It's not a swear word pe
So, at a cost of trillions of dollars to the American taxpayer, George Bush finally got his bogey-man. The broken man was pulled from his "spider hole" by heroic American troops, and the world is once again a safe place, but what did "The Butcher of Bagdad" do to deserve this? For years, he was the darling of the American right wing, but one day, he stepped out of line by threatening America's favourite dictatorship in the region, Saudi Arabia, by invading Kuwait. Of course, we all remember what happened then, a war was fought and won, and all was well with the world again. So what was the reason for going back? According to George Bush, Hussein was the world's most dangerous man, hoarding huge stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, aiding and abetting the terrorists that attacked America on 9/11/2001, seeking nuclear armament, and threatening the security of the free world. Of course, even an idiot could see that these were all blatant lies, and while Hussein was truly an evil man, he wasn't capable of threatening the security of any other nation after having virtually all of his military hardware destroyed in the first Gulf War conflict, and being worn down by a plethora of sanctions, embargos, and continued bombing of his country.

As for the terrorist connection, anyone who took the time to even do 10 minutes of research on the matter would know that Hussein ruled with an iron fist, and terrorist groups were not tolerated in the regions of Iraq that he controlled. Despite the implied and specifc connections between Hussein and the September 11th terrorist attacks constantly fed to us through the American media, and George Bush, anyone who knew anything about the matter was fully aware that not only did Hussein not assist al-Quaeda in any manner, but he positively hated them. The feeling was mutual, with one of the tenet's of al-Quaeda's beliefs calling for the destruction of Hussein's secular government. The man was clearly an infidel - he even allowed synagogues into his country.

On the subject of his alleged stockpiles of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", again, a minimal amount of research would reveal that the only WMDs that he ever possesed were supplied to him by his old ally - the USA. The reason that the UN inspections didn't reveal any stockpiles of these deadly armaments were simply that he no longer had any - not that the UN inspection teams were inefficient, or that he was a master of hiding them. Again, many people could have told you this before the sequel to the Gulf War was ever launched, but for even the staunchest believer in the deceptions of George Bush, the truth is now painfully obvious.

Though Americans will bear a burden of financial debt for this farce for years to come, the real victims are the Iraqi people who have been murdered in the course of the American lead war. The 3,000 people that died on September 11th pales in comparison with the number of Iraqis murdered in the period from the first Gulf War to the present day. We've all heard the stories of "mistakes", such as a bus load of unarmed women and children being gunned down by nervous American troops at a checkpoint, but you can rest assured that there's a great deal more that we don't hear about in the mainstream media. Every American who supported this war is guilty of one of two things - either willfully and knowingly supporting an unjustifiable war for purely jingoistic reasons, or being so staggeringly stupid as to have not seen through the lies of their government and media in building up support for this invasion. Either way, they're as guilty as the men who flew jets into skyscrapers.

Of course, the lies don't end here. Amerca's stated goal of promoting democracy in the region is yet another totally transparent deception. America's refusal to turn over control of the country to Iraqi authorities, and their refusal to allow allow free elections to take place can only be for one reason - they know that free elections won't go the way that they want, and so they continue their illegal occupation.

The severity of the wrongs done here can never be righted, but the truly right way to go is another thing that doesn't look like happening any time soon. Control of the reconstruction of Iraq should be turned over to the UN, and be funded exclusively by the countries that took part in this atrocity. Bush, Blair et al should be handed over to international authorities, and tried as war criminals, and financial reparations should be paid to the people of Iraq by the guilty coalition members. Any country that refused to take part in this debacle should be truly proud of themselves. France, Germany, Canada, and all the others that said "No" to Bush, despite the ongoing bribe of lucrative reconstruction contracts should be commended for standing up for what is right and decent, and should be the ONLY countries allowed to bid on reconstruction projects.

So, Bush caught his monster, but there is a far more evil man still at large, who poses a threat to the security of free nations unheard of since the fall of Hitler. To hope that Bush is held accountable for his crimes is a fool's hope, but we can all hope that this monster doesn't get to serve another terms as president, and that maybe somebody with at least a shred of decency will become president at the end of 2004. If you are a citizen of America, use your vote wisely, and don't allow this man to dig your country even deeper into the dirt.
Comments (Page 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Jan 03, 2004
There are entire websites dedicated to pointing out Michael Moore's tendancy to invent his own facts. We're not talking mere distortions, we're talking outright fabrications. I sure haven't heard any libel suits against them.
on Jan 03, 2004
Not to defend Hussein, far from this but the Bush crusade against Hussein was more than stupid. Even the CIA couldn't see any evidence of WDM or implication of Saddam in September 11th. Threath to whom? First of all, Hussein was a treath to the chiites population of Iraq (only 60% of the poulation after all). You know what, after having supported him for years, the US just dropped him and declared him as evil. Smart people knew it before and wouldn't have kept him in power for years such as the US did. As long as the USA continues this politics of creating and or supporting dictators (Pinochet, Noriega, Taliban as long as it helps them in their "big picture" and other really evil guys) the USA will not be credible regarding the jusice of their cause. The don't make only mistakes, see Kosovo, but their mistakes kills lots more people in third world than ny terrorism.
on Jan 03, 2004

How exactly is the US responsible for Pinochet, Noriega, and the Taliban? It didn't put any of them in power. It may have lended support to those countries in various ways. But it didn't "create" any of them.  It also had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's rise to power either.

As long as people are going to rant anti-American claptrap that has no basis in reality they'll never be taken seriously.

Getting rid of Saddam was definitely a good thing for the USA and every intelligence service (including France's) believed Iraq had WMD.  Whether they did or not is still under dispute.  It doesn't really matter though because ultimately, Saddam failed to comply with the UN resolutions that saved his hyde in the first gulf war.

on Jan 03, 2004
If anything, I think that's what justified it for me. Saddam had many chances to do what he needed to do, and he blow it. Maybe it'll set an example for any other dictatorship to cooperate lest they want to be destroyed as well.
on Jan 05, 2004
Most of us knew that when G.W. got elected there would be a war with Iraq. The attack on 9/11 just made it easier to justify it. For those who love our country, it is hard to understand the perceptions that outsiders have for our country. Many times throughout history the United States has acted as a hero and just as many times as a bully. Unfortunately both for Iraq and the U.S.
on Jan 09, 2004
Can't say fairer than that. Keep the voice of reason and understanding shouting loud and clear.
Happy New Year.
on Jan 09, 2004
to say that the usa had no in pinochet is a hideous fucking lie. go to "http://www.lakota.clara.net/"
it was the usa no aguments no excuses accept that it was the usa and move on.
now thats what i call regime change vol 33
on Jan 17, 2004
Sam: "Yes, of course it's a blatant lie that Bush said he's hoarding huge stockpiles of WMD, aiding and abetting Al Qaeda. It is FACT that Saddam was a dangerous man - just go ask the Kurds, the Iranians, or the Kuwaitis. It is FACT that Saddam was seeking nuclear armament. It is FACT that a dictator who gassed his own population and started two expansionist wars against his neighbours, launched SCUDs at Israel, possessed WMD, sought nuclear weapons, held himself to be the Second Coming of Saladin, and was quite certifiably insane is a fucking threat to the security of the free world."


I find your argument to be absolutely dangerous and simple-minded. To say that it is okay for Bush to go to war to remove a dictator although he does not have full evidence contradicts the very nature of law. Dosen't American law espouses the value of "innocent until proven guilty"? Wouldn't it be double-standards that the very law that governs American society be any different when it comes to dealings with international affairs? This whole saga stinks of hypocricy. If the argument that WMDs existed and he has a link to the terrorists, show the evidence, not half-baked intelligence reports.

I say this is dangerous because if the world is not convienced that all evidence is clear and unquestionable, and yet America chooses offensive action on its own, my worry is that suspicion and fear of America will prevail. What could America do next? Would my hometown be bombed just because American didn't like my president, even though they have no solid proof that he's a theat to the rest of the world?

I do not think Saddam is innocent of the crimes he has committed during his rule of the Iraqi people. In fact, something has to be done to remove him. But going to war based on half-truths is a dangerous path. I think the whole affair has made the rest of the world jittery, fearing what American foreign policy could do next just so it could promote its own believes and system. If only the argument for war didn't rest so heavily on WMDs and links to terrorists, and America has taken more time to gather and work out the evidence, this war would have been less unpopular.
on Jan 17, 2004
You admit that Saddam needed to be removed, and the US did something to remove him. I highly doubt this means that the US will start going after presidents who have not been threats for over a decade. Personally, I think Saddam's past as well as his continued sandbagging was evidence enough for his removal.
on Jan 17, 2004

Meanwhile conservatives look on bemused as liberals wag their finger about Iraq even as Clinton ordered the bombing and regime change in Serbia without any real evidence of human rights violation in Kosovo.

When you look up intellectually dishonest in the dictionary in the future it would probably be appropriate to make it synonymous with left-wing.

"Well sure mass graves were found in Iraq and sure he tortured thousands of peopel in grissly ways. Sure he was sending money to terrorists in the west bank and sure every intelligence agency in the world thought he had WMD, but...but...we haven't actually found stockpiles of WMD and therefore it was wrong.. but us bombing Serbia into submission was okay because you know...Clinton wasn't Bush..."

on Jan 17, 2004
aj i am sorry to say and pardon my french but you are a dumbass. Speaking of the French not since the last time I saw Chirac speak have I seen such incredulous stupidity. I hope that whatever country has the pleasure of having you as a citizen is one day helped greatly by the U.S. so you can look back and say "wow I was really stupid". Don't get me wrong I believe anyone can have an opinion but when it is a factless opinion it just sounds ignorant. I am not taking sides you just don't know how to debate anything. I am suprised you don't forget to breath my friend. You have to base something you say off of facts, so lets take a look at them. Most of the countries that did nothing to help the U.S. during the war are hungry to rebuild Iraq. Let us look at the past to base our opinions on for the moment for nothing is more certain than what has already happened. Germany after World War 2 was devastated so the Americans rebuilt it to the one of the stronger countries of today. Same with Japan. This is what is intended for Iraq. The Iraqis are happier now than they were then so why does anyone have a problem with this. I think Bush is an Idiot but he still has done what the U.S. always does and thats the right thing. As I recall when Nazism and Communism where the enemies the world stood behind its American protector, the reason for that was Nazism and Communism threatened the whole world at that time. Hitler was taking Europe and Asia, ofcourse here come the American heroes and everyone stands behind them. Muslim extremism is different its more of a narrow hatred aimed at the U.S. mostly. Other countries of course are only interested in mainly their interests. This threat is not aimed at them and they sit back enjoying the diminishment of the American people and criticize.
on Jan 19, 2004
GemCityJoe: "We'll run our affairs in America to suit ourselves and protect our nnational security whenever and however we see fit. We could care less about your non-American perspective, furthermore, the fact that you are not an American suits us just fine.
In theory this is fine, with one crevat. You have fewer rights outside your own borders and (usually) no rights whatsoever inside any other countries borders. Think about it, if every country has the right to run its affairs to suit itself and protect its national security, then every other nation has no right to operate within its borders. I would be interested to hear how saddam was threatening the borders of the USA from the other side of the world.
Brad Wardell: "...he was sending money to terrorists in the west bank..." a bit like some (by no means all,) Americans and the IRA then?
By the way, may I congratulate you on not only creating one of the finest games i've ever played, but also the best level of customer support and communication i've ever seen. Oh, and more power to you for leaving such contravertial and (at least in your home country by the look of it, ) minority opinions free of censorship.

-I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it-
on Jan 23, 2004
I am an American and I very much enjoyed this post. I agreed, in fact, with almost all of the points. More can be said but who cares, really? Keep up the thinking...(it's rare around here.)
on Jan 24, 2004
Interesting and very good article, in relation to one of Anthony R's comment, re where these WMDs were made and who the suppliers where, true about Russia, France and Germany, although relative late commers, however you seem to have selective memory here Anthony, the biggest supplier of arms and aid to Iraq was in fact the US, and maybe when you show photos of leaders visiting Iraq, you be a little bit more honest and Include Donald Rumsfeld, for a start, who practially lived over there. I did this fact escape you. Rather conviently I would.
on Jan 24, 2004
Well...

it seems this topic has been turned discussed throughly so I'll only add my little bit of infomation. Even if Iraq was a proxy war does not justify America giving that country weapons. Think of every proxy war the Americans took part in....Afgahistan, China, Korea, Vetinam, etc.... they all were either lost, screwed up for a number of years following to the dates of the actual war, or nothing really changed. It's hard to defend a side that says Iraq was the less of the threat. By arming these countries in the proxy wars America made these countries threats. They never had the technology before to have ever become a country to fear. America made these countries so.

Plus, I really do have another view on the Iraq war.....since almost the beginning of American's history there has always been the "common foe". The American's common for now is terrorism. What better thing is there to get one of the 'bad-guys'. The U.S got a scape goat and scarficied him on the media.

If America wanted to set up a democratic government then why haven't they let the people of Iraq to actually take part in their government?

Plus, what right did the Americans have to decide the future of an entire country? What right did the American's have in disobing the UN's orders? What right did the American's have to kill and main the people of Iraq just because they suspect that there are weapons of mass destruction?

It is also completly unreasonable to demand a country to disarm themselves. These weapons are the devices that keep foriegn armies out of Iraq. What right did the American's have to demand that Iraq explose itself to it's enemies?

So, again, U.S used the reasoning that Iraq totured it's people, had weapons of mass destruction, and was a threeat to the world. Basically, that's the jist. Well, North Korea public stated that they has WMD's, and they have been toturing it's citizens for many, many years now. N. Korea have weapons to destroy almost any city on the planet, while all the weapons found in Iraq can only reach Iraq's immediate neighbour. I would consider N. Korea a much bigger threat. So, why is Ameican allies with N. Korea? Why didn't America use this 'flawless' logic to attck N. Korea?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want another war. I'm am just using American's logic and trying to figure out why they aren't in N. Korea.

What qualifies as toture? Canada has been ignoring and suppering it's native population. is that considered toture? Canada has weapons and the threat to hurt the entire world. Why isn't Canada being attacked? You know, you could apply this idiotatic logic to almost any country in the world and be able to attack and CONTINUE TO OCCUPY these countries. the simple answer is that America wanted something from Iraq. Be that Engery (Oil - U.S uses over 20% of all engery produced in the world while only having less that 3% of it's population. it really needs this oil for engery), or the ablity to cover-up a mistake (See Proxy Wars), or prehaps to feed it's new imperialistic urges(Look at Panama Canal) U.S still wanted something. is that right? I don' think so
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5