No one wanted war. Bush didn't want war, Blair didn't want war, the soldiers didn't want war! But they knew that the only way to get rid of the tyrannical, murderous regime of Saddam Hussein was to go to war, because letting Saddam and his murderous regime stay in power would have resulted in more death and suffering in the long run! So in this case war was the lesser of two evils and they made the right decision.

The people of Iraq have now been liberated and can look forward to democracy and freedom that they would never have enjoyed had Saddam stayed in power. Some things like freedom are worth fighting for and defending!

Actually, some people do like war. Arms dealers, generals, CEOs etc...

Conditions in Iraq are now worse than they were under Saddam. And trusting
the US-led coalition to bring 'democracy' and 'freedom' to Iraq is like
trusting a serial killer to do your babysitting; unwise given the history!

There were other ways to bring Saddam down - eg supporting genuine Iraqi
people's resistance. Unfortunately that became pretty much non-existent
after we helped Saddam crush it in 1991.

Everything takes on a different colour when you know the history.

Rockwell, you've obviously never heard of Michael Ledeen, a very influential figure closely linked to people like Cheney, Rumsfled, Wolfowitz. Michael Ledeen believes that war is an act of 'creative destruction' which will lead to the spread of US-style 'democracy'. He also believes in 'Total War', a term famously used by Goebbels in one of his speeches ("Wollt ir den totalen Krieg?").

Find out more about him here:
 http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Michael_Ledeen

Rockwell postes on all the regonal sites I visit, if not all the pages on indymedia. Dissagreing nomater what the subject. Leys give Him a big hand for his eforts to hone our arguments.

ty Rockwell.

OK, so we'll pull out of Iraq and put Saddam back, if that's what u want...

Well, it wouldn't be the first time our governments had supported this tyrant...

I'm afraid to say, I think the American solution right now is much simpler, just find someone to be the next Sadam. They've often said they'll only leave when they have a government which bums them, Israel, and free trade.

as if it was ever up to yourself jamie, why not pull out of all the other countries that are occupied by the US while you're at it, stop propping up brutal, despotic regimes with arms and political support, and allow ordinary, suffering people, to take charge of their own lives. Which of course won't happen, not voluntarily anyway, because that is not on the agenda. How many times does it have to be pointed out that Saddam came to power by way of a CIA sponsored coup d'etat, that saw the overthrow of an elected government (not that i would regard such a government as being particularly democratic)? 'Freedom' and 'democracy' are palliatives that serve to disguise the fact that worldwide society is ruled from the top down, not the other way round. Which is why the US will be imposing it's own style of 'democracy', with it's preferred candidates given all the advantages and any 'elected government' will have it's power constrained within limits imposed by the occupying regime.

As for Rockwell's comments. Basically they are false, as anyone with a few functioning brain cells could deduce. The Bush administration really wanted this conflict. The people of Iraq now live under military occupation, and will have to endure death and suffering for a long time to come. To many of them it must seem that their suffering will be never ending. Not that will concern Rockwell, because to be honest I don't think he gives a toss about the Iraqi people.

An there was me thinking it was all about weapons of mass destruction! How do you suppose it's democratic?