Iraq has weapons of mass destruction they said. Fact - they didnt. Never did after 1991.
Al Qaeda & Iraq are chuddie-buddies they said. Fact - they werent. Interestingly Osama Bin Laden's family was quite a favourite of the Saudi Arabian government which is rather pro US.
So the US invades Iraq on its own free will, overthrows Saddam and ends up being stuck in a country thats mired in a bloody battle with itself. And if you still think its about WMDs, I would suggest you read a book on the Bush administrations former Secretary of Treasury - "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill". He provides rather disturbing details of how the Bush government was searching for excuses to land in Iraq since he took office. If you dont believe me go read the book.
5 years since the invasion & today George Bush (Junior & dumber) has the audacity to say " Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision -- and this is a fight America can and must win ...... Yet there was nothing easy about it. The liberation of Iraq took incredible skill and amazing courage. And the speed, precision and brilliant execution of the campaign will be studied by military historians for years to come." I am not even bothering to get into the details of how messed up their strategy (or lack of it) was. Instead I would like to throw light on Colin Powell's role in the madness of the Iraq invasion. Before he went in front of the United Nations Security Council and told them that Saddam was working towards producing nuclear components, State Department staff had realised that a number of claims that were in his speech were errrr lies. Still they went ahead with some of them that would prove damning enough to build a watertight case. Since then Powell has tried to wash his hands of his involvement in the war. He says the speech was a blot and that it will always be a part of his record. "It was painful. It's painful now." Its a little too late for empty words now isnt it Mr Powell? Powell who has advocated containment and diplomacy in international matters rather than military intevention says he had warned Bush about the dangers of entring Iraq and tried to convince him not to do so. But given the nature of Bush's cronies that was never going to work.
So where does that leave the world ? We have a rogue #1 country that decides where and when it wants to do anything. Countries that support it like a pussy cat (cough cough Britain) get benefitted with large (re)-construction contracts going their way (this after America destroys half the stuff in Iraq so it can get rebuilt by its corporations). Countries that oppose them get their products boycotted (cough cough France) .... Maybe there is a way out - maybe just maybe we could get our Miss Universe's and Miss World's and Miss USA's to run for the presidents seat everywhere. After all each of them wants to work for world peace ......
The Fall Of Diplomacy