Thank you for saying absolutely nothing..... FYI, much of my information on Iraq comes from a very good book by Thomas E. Ricks called Fiasco.

Ricks has spent much of his professional life reporting on conflicts around the globe. I suggest you pick up his book and give it a go, rather than spout ideology and portend to know all there ever was or is about Iraq after having spent two weeks in the mostly northern regions.

Oh, and by the way Leauki.

You were wrong about your statement regarding the armenian genocide. The Grand Vizier, Said Halim Pasha, was indeed the ruler of the Ottoman empire at the time and the deportation orders were signed by him. While the "young turk" movement was indeed responsible for the overthrow of the previous ruler, the empire at the time was still ruled by a constititutional monarch, the Grand Vizier.

he said a lot. for one thing he pointed out that even the most avid anti war democrats are not brazen evenough to put forth such lies as you would.

Wonderful, a liberal Washington Post journalist writes a book and you believe for everything he says. Surprise! Surprise! Here is an example of what else Thomas E. Ricks has to say:

"Dunno why, but I've managed to pick fights with parts of the Navy and the Army at the same time. On the ground, I recommended in the Sunday edition of the Washington Post that West Point and the other service academies be closed."

He really sounds like a "fair and balanced" jounalist....not. If your that easily influence by one hack trying to sell a book along with his philosophy, please don't read Mien Kampf or similar materials. I'm sure you can find other books that advance your personal thoughts on the issue....doesn't make it correct though. Research the material, not some else's interpretation of the material.

Well, have you read the book? And by the way, he's got a very exhaustive bibliography listing his sources and material. Again, I always quote my sources, all of which quote their sources, and yet the only response I get is

"biased liberal lies!!!"

Yet, the on-the-ground truth remains that the commander of the entire U.S military was against the invasion and was one-hundred-percent correct in his analysis that the plan cooked up by Rumsfeld and other civilian politicians was woefully inadequate and would lead to needless bloodshed and insurgency.

The reaction? He was fired by Rumsfeld.

This is not a "liberal biased opinion" but pure fact which is exposed, not just by Ricks but by military journalists themselves.

Did you know that Rumsfeld declared war on the pentagon the day before the 9/11 attacks- he wasn't very popular and stated that the Pentagon was it's own worst enemy and would therefore have much of it's functions be outsourced to the private sector. Hello expanded contracts for Halliburton, Triple Canopy and Blackwater.

But no, just sit back and content yourself with the fact that since the journalist is a "liberal" therefore everything  he reports is clearly garbage and there is no necessity to actually pay attention to any of it

Last line you quoted from my post says it all.

I just love authors who refer to other authors as sources.

Even if the original story was somewhat correct, the constant need to rewrite it will have produced something awesome.

You really think that quoting sources that quote sources that are also opinion pieces without actual evidence makes your stories more believable? It doesn't matter how many people quote the lies, they remain lies.

I have read too much from you that you claimed you gave sources for, too much that was so highly unlikely, physically impossible, or that directly contradicted the direct evidence I saw myself, to believe that your sources that quote sources are very valuable.

In fact I do believe that what you yourself make up is probably more reliable information that the stuff you quote from sources that quote other sources.

Aha, so not only have you not read the literature I provide as my source, but you magically know that all of their research and sources must be lies as well, of course for the sole fact that they are "liberals" (nowadays the term liberal can be used to encompass any point of view you do not agree with)

That's nice. Thanks again for saying absolutely nothing. If, however, you would actually like to debate rather than say that all of my information is "lies" I would be more than open to it.

The funny thing of it is that much of the information I provide, does not come from a single source. If that was the case, yes, it could indeed be fabrications or twisting of the truth. No arguments there.

Another source I like to draw on heavily is Chris Hedges, who spent decades overseas directly experiencing several conflicts and reporting on them. He's written several very good books, all of which, Leauki, I'm sure you'll unequivocally state are filled with lies and opinion.

Again, another of my 'faves is Chalmers Johnson, a fellow who used to work for the CIA and has been prescient in his predictions of just how badly we'd bungle things.

Another interesting read is John Perkins- while he does make some dubioius claims, he did work as the chief economist at Boston firm Chas T Main and other large international consulting firms over the years.

So, are all of the above liars and loons, despite the fact that they all have exhaustive sources quoted? (which, if you were to actually look into instead of summary dismissal you'd see is not just an opinion quoting an opinion)

Speaking of sources based on (unconfirmed) sources, there's an old saw about how to succeed in medical academia - write a series of articles along the following lines:

"Stool Velocity in Congestive Heart Failure"

"Stool Velocity in Congestive Heart Failure: Five Years On"

"Stool Velocity in Congestive Heart Failure: A Review of the Literature"

"Stool Velocity in Congestive Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis"

By that time, you're an expert.

don't forget to cite your own previous work as sources.

I really cannot be bothered to check your sources every time when you yourself say that they are books quoting other books.

I have been disappointed by your sources in the past, I don't want to confirm your sources just to be disappointed again.

If you want me to believe something you say, say something that makes sense.

You keep referring to "interesting reads" but you don't understand that that means NOTHING to me. Give me a link to a neutral source, a primary source, or a gallery of pictures, and you will be convincing. But give me the names of other people like you who quote each other, and you won't be.

_I_ claim that Iraq was Russia's ally, not America's. My evidence is the pictures I myself took of Russian, not American, weapons I found in Iraq. My evidence is also that I myself talked to people who confirmed to me that what I claimed is true.

Give me something like that as evidence, and we will have got something.

But you have made so many ridiculous claims that are also often physically impossible (like vanishing a few hundred thousands bodies in Iran) and tried to back them up (ha!) by referring to some loony who apparently wrote the book where the story was first mentioned, that I have started not to bother checking your "evidence" any more.

From now on, if you want to say something and want me to believe it, post a picture or a link to a picture.

(Obviously not a picture on a Reuters site. They photoshop.)

And -I- claim that this illustrates your lack of knowledge on Iraq's history, as you claim to be so well versed in it. The truth is that Iraq has been allies of BOTH!

Yes, at one point in time Iraq was indeed an ally of the Soviet Union. However, if you really were intimate with it's history you would know that this relationship soured big time in the early 80's

Saddam publicly opposed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and their operations in Yemen. This ended the honeymoon with the Soviets and began a tilt toward big brother U.S and Europe. Also, with the fall of the Shah, this is what happened

1) We (the west) wanted a new regional power to act as our proxy as a counter-weight against the soviets  (role used to be filled by Iran)

2) The Soviets were very happy when the Shah lost power, and made overtures to the new Iranian regime for diplomacy and trade, eventually including sending nuclear scientists to Iran and arms deals. When Iraq invaded Iran, Soviets were not happy about this one little bit as they wanted to move Iran into their fold.

Again, thank your for saying absolutely nothing. You could sum this up by placing your hands over your ears and yelling "lies, lies!!"

You can repeat whatever claim you want to repeat.

You don't get it. You just don't get it.

It DOESN'T MATTER to me how often you repeat a statement or how many people you can name who also make such claims.

I want EVIDENCE, not your word for the fact that people I have never heard of agree with you.

I totally believe you when you say that [insert liberal author here] wrote a book which makes the same claims as you do. What you don't understand is that that fact means absolutely nothing to me.

Absolutely excellent!

That short exchange symbolises the typical argument between conservatives and liberals.

Oh no, my good man. I "get it" just fine. The position that you're taking requires the minimum amount of effort (and knowledge) on your part as you refuse to even consider the points I put forward because of this little tidbit:

You have assumed, that because I am a "liberal" (I'm actually not, by the way as there is more to political persuasions than the ridiculously oversimplified left vs right argument we are spoonfed) that that means that by default ALL sources and books I provide will be written by liberal authors merely spouting their opinion/propaganda.

Therefore, again, you can sit back and say "lies, all lies"

I have provided my evidence, from disimilar authors on different subjects. This doesn't make me "right" or correct anymore than your two weeks in Iraq "proved" that Saddam was an ally of the Soviet Union and not the U.S (to which again I answer he was allies to both in different capacities)

Artysim, I don't care if you are a liberal, a conservative, or a communist.

But I do dislike extremely your views on war crimes and your belief that using human shields is an acceptable battle tactic. But that's beside the point at the moment.

You keep bringing up the screaming "lies, lies" thing, because you really don't understand the point.

You have in the past made all sorts of claims about the Shah, about Iraq, about Israel, about many subjects, and you have always backed them up by referring us to other people who made the same claims as you. And that's the problem. Those people are not sources, they are merely repeating stories just as you are. The fact that you can find an author of a book who agrees with you proves NOTHING.

However, SEEING Russian tanks in Iraq and hearing stories from locals about what happened IS a source.

Oh Leauki,

I can't be held accountable for the fact that you've misconstrued my views to fit your narrow mythic narrative of what's going on in the world. In regards to that topic, again, I never stated that using human shields is an acceptable tactic. I -did- try to communicate the fact that the IDF had essentially turned all of Lebanon (in 2006) or Gaza (most recently) into one huge free-fire zone, thereby exposing literally the entire area to air and artillery strikes. My friend's families' in south Lebanon -did- evacuate but were run off the road several times by air strikes. And of course nevermind that roads, bridges, and the airport in Beirut were all possible "terrorist transit points" and therefore open to attack, leaving the multitude of civillians trying to flee virtually stranded.

-so- while everyone in the entire country was in danger of being hit, the IDF justified this by saying that Hezbollah was hiding behind human shields. Again, Hezbollah only having less then 10,000 combatants and succesfully stymying the IDF's ground assault (with tens of thousands of troops, armor, air and artillery support while Hezbollah was heavily outnumbered light infantry) is proof that the majority of Hezbollah weren't hiding behind women and children, they were mostly out in the field, in small squad sized groups harrassing the IDF. -IF- the majority of Hezbollah were actually hiding behind civillians, and not in the field fighting the IDF, then the massive ground force would have easily rolled through south Lebanon in less than a day!

But you are right, this is beside the point of the topic at hand-

You keep saying that I don't understand your point, but I do indeed my good fellow. If you had spent more than two seconds actually looking into the sources I provide, you will see that they provide proof (not just reference to an opinion piece) to back up their claims.

But you really don't have to believe me. The proof is in the pudding, and the various situations have been repeated, over, and over and over again in different countries all over the globe.

That situation being, that we don't really care about democracy or freedom for the world. What we do care about, is having leaders in other countries that will act in our interest. So long as they play to our tune, we keep them around and support them (sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly) and if they rebel, then we cut them loose. Sometimes this merely means withdrawing support. Sometimes this means financing and backing a coup or election to replace them with someone who WILL dance to our tune. Sometimes this means an actual invasion.

If you look at the number of 'good' dictators that we supported for years or decades over the years (information which is widely available from multiple sources but seldom studied) you'll see this bears out. Again, I use the term 'good' dictator sarcastically because for the most part they were good for us and we didn't give a damn about what they did to our people.

And you know what?

We're not the only ones who do this. This is an age old formula, which right now the Russians are using in Chechnya. Right now, Ramzan Kadyrov is the Russian's man in office, their "guy" running Chechnya. If however, he ever bites the hand that feeds him you can be rest assured that his benefactors in Moscow will suddenly produce a trove of massive evidence supporting the fact that he is a corrupt, evil little man who tortures and disapears anyone even suspected of being an opponent of his supposed democratic regime.

Right now, Hamid Karzai is "our" man in Afghanistan, but he's been tilting away from the U.S recently what with the fact that one too many times dozens of civillians have been killed in indiscriminate airstrikes and he's been complaining a bit too much for Washington's liking. If he doesn't shape up, we'll probably find a way to get him out of power or dispose of him.

President Diem of South Vietnam was "our guy" there until he started turning away from our interests. Then we backed a coup in which his generals took control and executed him.

This has played out so many times over the years and is not just the crackpot musings of "liberal" authors but is widely available information.

At the end of the day, we do not care about being the good guys. We care about our interests, as is the only way an empire can be succesfully run and all else be damned!

My apologies, a correction-

"I use the term 'good' dictator sarcastically because for the most part they were good for us and we didn't give a damn about what they did to THEIR people." (I said our- my bad)

I didn't do anything like that. I was merely referring to the discussion on Lebanon were you claimed that using human shields is a perfectly normal strategy and that the American forces would do it too if the US were attacked.

(Oddly enough the Israeli military doesn't use that strategy and never has. The Israeli population was instead evacuated. And I remember you claimed that Lebanon didn't have the time to evacuate southern Lebanon. And I told you that I found that odd since Hizbullah had been firing rockets at Israel for five years, which is ample time to evacuate the region so that no civilian would die when Israel strikes back. Israel also dropped leaflets before she dropped bombs so that people could get away.)

And that's a lie, my friend. The IDF never did turn anything into a "huge free-fire" zone. Certain anti-Israel people claimed such, but it wasn't true.

And I offered proof. I showed you a picture of a village used by Hizbullah were everything was destroyed except the mosque. The pictures proves that the IDF knew exactly what they were targeting and how to avoid targeting what shouldn't be targeted. It proves that the claim that Lebanon was a "free-fire zone" was a lie.

It's an anti-Semitic lie anyway. It's just a way to put the blame on the Jews even when the IDF actually pays close attention to not harming civilians. (Or do you think the Arabs built field hospitals in Israel to care for the civilian population when the terrorists attack? They don't, but Israel does exactly that when she strikes back. The lie about the "free-fire zone" is designed to overshadow that fact.)

And then there is a third thing you don't understand.

Not EVERYTHING you can possibly say qualifies as wrong. Your story about South-Vietnam might very well be true. I never said anything about the subject. It's a silly example and I don't know why you brought it up. What you don't understand is that these things don't scale. Whatever you say about Vietnam and even when we agree about it does NOT change even the tiniest bit the truth value of anything else you say.

In short: If you lie or repeat a lie about, for example, the Shah, and you give as a "source" a book where somebody makes the same claim (and that's it), my problem is with your belief that finding someone who agrees with you constitutes "evidence" for your claim. And if you say something else, for example about Vietnam, and that claim is true, the first claim is still a lie.

Let's say that I agreed with you about your Vietnam claim. Does that constitute evidence for your story? I don't think it does. It merely constitutes my agreement with your claim. But you cannot use it as a source to back up your claim.

The Lebanon war is a good example of our two different ways of thinking:

You claim that Israel turned Lebanon into a free-fire zone and your evidence was other people who made the same claim.

I claimed that Israel fired at very specific targets and I provided pictures of videos that showed such. I also claimed that Israel had fewer civilian victims because Israel evacuated, and I know that because I was there (and am now) and was evacuated. I also claimed that Israel dropped leaflets asking the Lebanese to evacuate the area, and I have in fact seen those leaflets. (Of course, I cannot myself verify that they really were dropped.)

And you claimed if the leaflets were really dropped, Lebanon didn't have time to evacuate because a million people cannot be evacuated within a few days. Your source for that was, let me think if I recall correctly, other people who made the same claim.

I claimed that millions of people can be evacuated very quickly, and that I know that because I was one of the million who were evacuated very quickly.

Do you still not understand my issue with your version of "evidence"?

You claim X and your source is some other dude claiming X.

I claim Y and my source is what I have myself seen.

I assume we can believe each others' words. And I do believe that you know other people who agree with you. I never doubted your words when you said that author whatever wrote the same thing you just claimed. I am perfectly fine with YOUR word.

But I am not fine with the word of somebody I don't know and who gives me a source which is yet another person I don't know.

And when I or others tell you that there is a problem with your version of "evidence" you turn into whining liberal mode and cry that the only reason we don't accept your "evidence" is because you are a liberal. It's useless.

You just don't know the things you are talking about. And that's the problem. And it doesn't matter to me which side you believe, if you don't apply critical thinking.

Your position on war crimes I find disgusting but other than that my problem with you is that you are incredibly ignorant while fully capable of keeping a lot of information at the ready. It's impressive but for a discussion it is also entirely useless. What can I learn from you? You just tell me what any anti-Semite can tell me and give as a source some other dude making the same claims. It's useless.

A few days ago I was in an Israeli navy base. I met the supreme commander of the Israeli navy (I assume that means "both boats" as the navy is not really big). He looks Chinese. We talked.

I totally expect that if the two of us, you and I, were ever involved in a discussion about what Israeli barracks look like and we happened to disagree about it, I would say that they look like Y and you would claim that they look like Z, and my Y would be what I saw, and you would insist on Z and give me a "source", an article where some other guy also claims Z. Note that I couldn't take pictures in the installation. I did have a camera, but didn't want to find out what would happen if I used it.

Thank you, again for saying absolutely nothing. I have made my case, and presented my sources on it. I would like to ask you to make your case and present your sources in return, which you have not. I have drawn parralels between Afghanistan with our puppet Hamid Karzai and Vietnam, with the puppet we deposed there.

FYI, if you don't see the importance of the south vietnam parralel, then it is you who is lacking in critical thinking skills my good man!

I do not say something unless I research it. You, however, are more concerned with keeping this illusory hologram, this mythic narrative of the Noble civilizations of good fighting the evildoers. The truth is that there really are no good guys, and most of the supposed "necessary" conflicts we fight are fought over lies.

Why? You keep talking about "evidence" well, what about my friend's whose family members had to get off the road because it was being bombed? Just because you can provide a video in which the IDF surveilled one launch site is not proof that they therefore only targetted combatants.

Also, again. Hezbollah is not very big. If the IDF truly knew where they were, they would have wiped Hezbollah clean off the map. But they didn't. Their airstrikes didn't seriously hamper Hezbollah's command and control and their ground campaign was stuck in the mud. IF, as you said the IDF actually scouted out and targeted their bombs properly, with the sheer amount of ordnance that was dropped Hezbollah should have been wiped out several times over!

No, again, you're twisting my words. My point was that -IF- the United States were invaded by a major power, U.S army regulars would be involved in the defense of cities and other settlements. While an evacuation would indeed be attempted to be carried out, of course there would be civillians left in the area where fighting would be occurring. Therefore, the invader would state that U.S army regulars were cowardly hiding behind human shields.

I never stated that using human shields was an acceptable tactic, merely trying to shed light on the hypocrisy used by the IDF when it carries out operations.

Yes, indeed. The brave, intrepid Leauki who ventured forth as a tourist to northern Iraq for two weeks, several years after Saddam's regime was toppled. As I said before, I do indeed give you credit for going into a dangerous place. No arguments there. But seriously, if all that you can use as evidence is personal experience, then no one could claim to have a position on just about anything.

I went to Cuba for two weeks. The whole time I was there, I didn't SEE any sign of a repressive regime. Does that mean that it's not the case? Not at all. I'll be the first to openly admit that life in Cuba in decades past was indeed very opressive. Just because I didn't see something directly with my own eyes, does not mean it hasn't happened.

Personal experience is key, absolutely. And as I said earlier, I do give you credit for it, absolutely. But that only goes so far in any avenue of life. Again, I point to the example of my friends' father who was a member of a Panzer crew in WW2.

His personal experience was that WW2 was the most boring, peaceful episode of his life because he was stationed on the Swiss border and they didn't have any fuel. Does that mean that because he SAW ww2 with his own eyes and I didn't, that he is right when he says the war was uneventful and I am then wrong because I read in a book that it was bloody and horrible?

Your sources are other people making the same claims. I don't accept those "sources". It doesn't matter how often you "present" them.

My sources for my claim that your sources are other people making the same claims are the links you post to other people making the same claims as you.

Perhaps you don't understand how this works.

I assume that SOME people assume that Israel is guilty until proven completely innocent. That's not how I see the world.

If somebody claims that Israel did bad thing X and he has no evidence, I don't believe the claim.

If somebody claims that Israel did bad thing X and I have evidence to the contrary, even if only anecdotal, I don't believe the claim.

Ask your friend why he didn't team up with his friends to stop Hizbullah from firing rockets into Israel.

You have to know how to read facts.

I am quite experienced with repressive regimes, as I grew up in West-Berlin, surrounded by an repressive regime in East-Germany.

What you saw with your own eyes was that the Cuban regime is not oppressing tourists. But I don't think anybody ever claimed they did, so you saw the facts and you would be right to make the claim that the Cuban regime does not oppress tourists. And I, who was never there and did not know (but I guessed it) that the regime was friendly to tourists will accept your word for it.

It is ironic, but one of the signs for an oppressive regime is that you don't see any signs. The more you see, the less well does it work. Kurdistan today is filled with security guards at every street corner. Yet it is less oppressive than it was back in the day when people tended to vanish without a trace.

That anecdote is evidence for the fact that quiet corners existed in WW2. And if I had never seen evidence to the contrary I would indeed assume that the entire war was quiet, just like I assume that Iraq was an ally of Russia but not the US because I saw evidence only for the first, not the second.

As for WW2, I now know your story but I also know other stories. For example my father told me that somebody threw a bomb on his family's house in WW2. Thence I conclude, with the evidence I have from you and my dad, that WW2 had quiet and not-so-quiet corners.

We are getting there. But there is still a difference between how we read evidence.

I read evidence as proving one aspect of the lot and I induce that the whole is like the aspects I know if I see nothing to the contrary.

You read evidence as proving one aspect of the lot and then apply the claim that that cannot be all and hence the whole must be different.

So if we have a situation X and see the evidence X1 and X2 but we know that there is also X3 and X4 which we do not see, I conclude from X1 and X2, not knowing X3 and X4, that X is probably like X1 and X2. You conclude from X1 and X2 that X is whatever you want it to be and claim that X3 and X4 COULD confirm that if we only find them.

But there are three principles that make your method wrong (or impractical). The first is In Dubio Pro Reo, which means that we have to assume the innocence of the accused until we have proof for his guilt. This means that unless we find real evidence for a claim against some party, we have to assume it is wrong. The second is the laws of physics. If a claim contradicts the laws of physics (like the idea that tens of thousands of bodies can vanish without a trace and without furnaces or mass graves), it is wrong also, regardless of whether evidence X3 and X4 are still unknown. And the third principle is simply inductive logic.

The tale of your father's friend is evidence, as is your tale of Cuba.

But the tale of your father's friend is not the sole evidence I have for WW2 so I _know_ that the conclusion "All of WW2 was like your father's friend's story" is wrong. (If I had no other evidence for WW2 it would be wise to conclude that the story is representative until I have more evidence.)

And your story of Cuba is not about what Cuba does to Cubans, only what it does to tourists. It confirms what I thought: tourists are treated nicely.

You can have positions, but you cannot claim that the position constitutes a fact, even if other people have the same position.

Personal experience is not the only evidence I can use. But it's evidence. Claims made by people, regardless of how many other people they quote, are not evidence.

Fair enough, but seeing as we had a rental car and were able to tootle around freely (no government "tourist industry" escort or any such nonsense), no restrictions on where we could go) we did get a good look at much of Cuba off the beaten path. As I said, I'm not disputing the fact that it was at one time a VERY repressive regime (and may be today still in some capacities) but the fact that average folks there had no problem launching into scathing criticism of their leadership in open daylight, that's a good sign!

This is true. Claims need to be backed up and supported. I believe that in the case of the U.S going to war in Iraq, the claims that there was not a legitimate threat posed by Iraq and therefore the invasion was based more on geo-political chess than any pressing need, have been backed up and supported.

I've got two more sources that I like to draw on, in fact I highly recommend you take a toodle of this fellow's books-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Taylor_(journalist)

This fellow has been to Iraq over 20 times, he was present for the 1991 fighting, the 2003 invasion and made subsequent trips during the occupation. In 2004, he was kidnapped by Iraqi police and handed over to AQ in Iraq (ansar al islam) in Tal Afar. They held him hostage for 5 days and the only reason he lived was partially because he was able to prove he was a non-U.S, non-Jewish foreign journalist (they repeatedly accused him of being a Mossad agent as is standard practice) but he lived mostly because Turkish Intelligence got wind of the kidnapping and was able to negotiate for his release.

Anywho. This fellow has put forth claims, backed up by his personal evidence, that indeed the war against Iraq was based more on opportunism and was in no way necessary as we were lead to believe. Furthermore, he also provides a pretty compelling case for the systematic practice of supporting a monster so long as it's convenient, then tossing him when the benefits dry up.

Namely, in this case the conflict with Serbia in 1999 (this is all news to me which I just recently learned)

Did you know that just months before the KLA started it's big campaign in Kosovo with NATO air support and U.S arms, that they were classified as a terrorist group by the state department?

So, one day they're terrorists, then the next they have our full support and blessing to raise holy hell. Also of interest, is the leader of the KLA who we openly supported was Agim Ceku, a fellow who was documented by UN peacekeepers as the commander of uniformed forces that committed ethnic cleansing of Serbians in the Medak region in the early 90's.

So, in the case of the Serbia 1999 war, we took a fellow and a group made up of monsters very similar to Saddam and openly supported them, because it was convenient for us and no one really cared about what Agim Ceku had done earlier, just as in the mid-80's no one really cared that Saddam was killing Kurds (I did some checking and there was a UN resolution tabled to denounce Saddam's use of chemical weapons, but it was indeed blocked by the U.S veto!)

Another interesting source is a fellow named Scott Ritter-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

He served as an Intelligence Office in the marine corps for 12 years and was the head of the UN weapons inspection program until 1998. On every point he's made about the war, he was right and the official party line from Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz (and Bush) was wrong. He also states his case that the war against Iraq was unnecessary, and again, more about the politicking of removing a former compliant dictator who no longer provides any benefits.

So, who do I believe? Both of the fellows above have extensive experience, background, and good evidence to boot. Do they qualify as loony liberal sources too???

Wikipeadia...great source!!!

Well, in this case it is as it's got links to other sources.... one of which being the magazine he started in the 80's

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/