The ambition to see the whole picture is IMHO more important, than the wish to hate a single culprit.

the media was beating the drum for war without covering any dissenting voices.

so now it is the media’s fault?

i’m becoming confused! whom should i hate, april?

The US public believed that, because the media was beating the drum for war without covering any dissenting voices. I happened to be in Europe at that time and I remember, that European newspapers were far more skeptical.

travis, you don’t seem to understand, that the UN weapon inspectors have been working successfully before Bush ordered them out. The US could have never suffered from a failure of the international community, because they successfully disarmed Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqoJHOSrjQo

I can only speculate why Bush was so eager to overthrow Saddam. He probably wanted to “end a job” his father started.

Bush’s ruse was to convince the US public of an imminent threat of WMDs in Iraq.

and, as i mentioned above, saddam’s ruse was to convince the world iraq had WMDs. try as the world did (see my comment above) saddam continued to allow us to believe this.

as i’ve said in the past, the one argument that i found very convincing in bush’s case for war was this: the entire world–except hussein himself, thought iraq had WMDs. hussein suddenly wouldn’t let the UN conduct inspections so lots of people, understandably, started freaking out. when the UN, because of corruption failed to act, the US acted. this makes sense because the US was most likely to suffer from a failure of the international community to deal with the perceived problem.

do you think bush wanted to invade a sovereign nation only to discover he made the biggest goof of the new 21st century, dooming himself to being hated by 2/3 of his countrymen? probably not. bush messed up. but the ball was in saddam’s court and he chose to do nothing. i don’t blame bush for that one.

Bush’s ruse was to convince the US public of an imminent threat of WMDs in Iraq. He had no evidence for WMDs, that’s why he created evidence (remember the Nigerian tubes story?).

“fixing intelligence and facts around the policy” was Bush’s ruse^H^H^H^Hcrime
http://downingstreetmemo.com/

My opinion of world affairs is such that unless you maintain a strong amount of advanced weaponry, you will eventually be mercilessly overrun.

I understand where you’re going with your arguments. I agree, it would be great if no one had any nuclear or biological weapons. However, evil is a part of this world just like the good is. It lurks in the hearts of some men everywhere and rears its ugly head when it sees an opportunity to conquer and control more. It has existed throughout the entirety of recorded history and will continue to manifest itself in future generations. I wish we were on the threshold of world peace, but I’m afraid that the prudent thing to do is to remain armed and vigilant, acting responsibly with whatever power we have.

These comments do not apply to any specific events…

People fell for Bush’s ruse much more than they fell for Saddams’.

please explain what you mean by that, and also whether or not that point is relevant to the discussion we’re having here.

btw, do you also believe it was bush (or the jews) brought down the twin towers on 9/11?

thanks in advance!

People fell for Bush’s ruse much more than they fell for Saddams’.

I am glad to hear, that there is some disarmament going on. Now imagine how much easier it would be to convince other nations to conform to NPT, if there were an effort to end nuclear weaponry globally.

http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2005/may/video/dnB20050502a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=12:41

conservatives oppose nation building. i am conservative and i do, just like ron paul. i would prefer our nation to have a ron paul foreign policy.

but i’m not going to blame the people who fell for saddams’ ruse.

just like huckabee’s pie-in-the-sky tax idea, ron paul’s awesome (but unpopular) policies do not have a chance of happening, even if he is elected.

Why doesn’t the US destroy its WMDs?

we are destroying them.

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. (Army News Service, Jan. 9, 2008) – As of Dec. 10, the Army has safely destroyed 50 percent of the United States’ chemical-agent stockpile since beginning to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention April 29, 1997.