"What we have discovered behind the war rhetoric was weapons of mass deception."

Clever. Come up with that on your own, did you? Looking for a cookie?

Please. Are you suggesting that nothing good came of the war in Iraq? Or are you honestly and truthfully telling us that NOT having Saddam Hussein in power ANYWHERE is better than having him in power?

The world trembles with breathless anticipation for your answer.

Wunderduck,
why not start arrguing in terms of geopolitics, rather than just repeating the latest White House bulletin.

Even the key neo-con policy makers in Washington draw a distinction between the geopolitics of American power in the Middle East and the public presentation of their case.

The public presentation of the case for the military intervention in the Middle East was sloppy.

"why not start arrguing in terms of geopolitics, rather than just repeating the latest White House bulletin."

...which doesn't actually answer the question I posed to you, does it? I'll repeat it for you, if you'd like:

Are you suggesting that nothing good came of the war in Iraq? Or are you honestly and truthfully telling us that NOT having Saddam Hussein in power ANYWHERE is better than having him in power?

Your answer is still being awaited...

Yeah, that's what I figured, Mr Sour-Tawkin' (hey, if you mis-spell my name, I'll do the same).

No answer, avoid the hard question. Typical.

Macho Man:
one cliche to another;

Oil and empire;

remember the battered alliances, a weakened UN and the other casualties of unilateralism.

A question for you: What if the cost of democracy in Iraq is an unfriendly government. Would that cost be too great for the American eagle?

...and yet, no response to my question. I'm amazed that you won't answer a very simple question.

One cliche to another, eh? Okay, I'M not afraid to respond...
"Oil and Empire." The US is leaving in July, according to all reports. Not much of an empire if we withdraw, huh?

"battered alliances, a weakened UN and the other casualties of unilateralism." Alliances that weren't actually ALLIES, you mean? Like the NATO that said they'd stand with the US, then strangely neglected to do so, yet tried to dictate our response? A weakened UN is not a bad thing to most US eyes. If it is weakened because the US will not follow it's dictates, what does that say about the rest of the UN's members?

Finally, allow me to address the question of "unilateralism." The actions of the US are considered "unilateral" because France, Germany and Russia had material interests in Iraq, not because the US acted alone... unless you consider England, Australia, Italy, Poland, Japan, and all the others who helped in operation Iraqi Freedom to not be valid countries?

Ball is in your court, Gary... Show me some cojones. Answer the simple question: Are you suggesting that nothing good came of the war in Iraq? Or are you honestly and truthfully telling us that NOT having Saddam Hussein in power ANYWHERE is better than having him in power?

Wonderduck if you had bothered to read my weblog's previous sposts you would have found the following:
1. The Hussein regime in Iraq was an oppressive one;
2. democracy is better that tyranny;
3. It was a good that had oppressive regime was overthrown
4. that the democracy favoured by the Americans in Iraq was too thin;
5. that the best form of democracy in the US was a federal style one based around the difereent regions;

As you well know the above had very little to do with the justification for the unilateral action in Iraq by the US, UK and Australia.That intervention had to do with geopolitics.