Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Chaerophon]

The precedent has long ago been set. My country (USA) explictly justifies its creation on this basis in its Declaration of Independence. I think the USA is the last revolutionary country on earth, and the rest of the world is filled with tired cynics.

And here I was thinking that such imperialist standards had been debunked long ago. Then again, Britain sure did a good job of spreading its way of life back in the good ol' 17 and 1800's, didn't they? Destroyed a number of cultures along the way, but I'm sure that you think that they're better off in the long run anyways. For that matter, in my opinion, the USA is one of the least "revolutionary" of the modern western nations. Every day I am absolutely shocked with the American people's acceptance of the "status quo" based upon their belief in their inherent "freedom", and the importance of its spread. Without a doubt, it's the catch phrase for a new millenium under the auspices of which myriad injustices can and will be committed as long as an idiot like Bush is in power. The attacks in Iraq had nothing to do with freedom. They had everything to do with control.

This idea of 'implicit consent' is ridiculous.

No, in fact, it is not. It has been the norm for around 2500 years and the fact that you can't bend your one-track "democratic" mind around it doesn't make it any less true. Certainly other regime forms can facilitate all manner of injustice - so can democracy. While the democratic system has certainly demonstrated its inherent stability and strength, for you to say that a democratic country has the moral right to invade another country on that basis alone is farcical. Certainly, gross injustice ought to be punished. The fact remains that democracies are not imposed, they develop from within.

We did not attack out of spite

,

I never said that you did. What you claimed in the first post "we will continue, blah, blah, blah" was a proclamation of your intention to continue to attack out of spite for the actions of a select few.

we did not atttack the entire populace. Can you ever accept either of these facts?

I don't believe that I ever made that claim... While you may not have explicitly attacked the entire populace, the fact remains: war is war. Maybe it was the means to a 'just' end. Maybe they attempted to minimize civilian casualties. That's fine. The fact remains that the United States INVADED Iraq.

Furthermore, if those who have taken up arms as terrorists do so because they are ill-informed or brainwashed, this does not excuse them nor should it spare their lives. The war against Terror is a real war with the real goal of killing terrorists, not changing their minds by winning a debate.

Certainly not. However, to attack an entire country who a.) does not have any particular terrorist affiliations (particularly compared to its neighbours) and b.) is governed by a regime at polar opposites with those clerical orders in the rest of the arab world from which terror cells develop seems very nearly counterproductive, particularly given the fact that it seems evident that they own few, if any WMD. (Once again, particularly compared to their counterparts in the middle east and elsewhere) Such acts certainly do not change anyone's minds; rather, they generally serve the purpose of turning more and more heretofore uninvolved citizens towards the terrorists rather than away from them.

And 10,000 frenchmen can't be wrong, eh?

The reason was the termination of French and German business dealings with Saddam circumventing the sanctions regime. I think the reason that the euro-crowd so frequently hurls the "its all about oil" charge at America is simple psychological projection: that is exactly what european businesses were doing, buying Saddam's smuggled oil.

Try at least 30 million. Then add to that the majority of the rest of Europe, including Britain, and you arrive at the conclusion that, although the political goals may have involved the oil economy, the vast majority of the population of Europe is staunchly against the war. I just got home from France and Italy - there are signs stating their support for "pace" (peace in Italian) hanging from EVERYONE's windows, storefronts, displays, offices. Thousands upon thousands of them. It's not a myth, there are MANY MANY people against the war.

As for the rest, first of all, your facts aren't straight. Germany had no oil contracts with Iraq. Italy and Spain had very minor contracts, (along with Russia, obviously) but in those countries, I would say that support for the war is somewhere around zero. It's true, none of these countries will have their exclusive oil contracts with Iraq with the regime change. The Americans will organize a free market for oil in which the largest firms (e.g. many American ones with whom Bush et al have associated for most of their lives. Not to mention the fact that big money wins big lobbyists) will win out. Furthermore, with the regime change will come assurance that OPEC is unable to function and the potential military stranglehold over the cartel that would be held by a Hussein with WMD will be averted.

You should go back and review Nico's post re: the Wolfowitz doctrine, or rather, the "American Imperialist Manifesto" as I like to call it, and then get back to me.