Invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and other countries, purportedly to find weapons of mass destruction

The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by a United States-led coalition that overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein. The conflict continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the post-invasion Iraqi government. An estimated 151,000 to 600,000 or more Iraqis were killed in the first 3-4 years of conflict. The U.S. became re-involved in 2014 at the head of a new coalition; the insurgency and many dimensions of the civil armed conflict continue. The invasion occurred as part of a declared war against international terrorism and its sponsors under the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.

  • Haditha Massacre - Massacre of Iraqi civilians in Haditha committed by U.S. Marines


A Bogus Libertarian Defense of War, by Sheldon Richman, Future of Freedom, Oct 2007
Criticizes Randy Barnett's Wall Street Journal article "Libertarians and the War" and a follow-up at the Volokh Conspiracy blog
"But the prohibition on wars of aggression rules out the war in Iraq, which never threatened the American people. Barnett disagrees. He says the war can be justified as part of the defense against Islamic jihadis. But as noted already, the anti-American jihad grew out of decades of oppressive intervention in Arab and Muslim countries. It's the blowback Barnett refers to. Moreover, conquering a secular Westernized Arab country that was a natural barrier to both Sunni jihadis and Iran's Shia government seems a peculiar way to defend against jihad. It's far more likely to create new mortal enemies."
Americans Have Lost Their Country, by Paul Craig Roberts, 1 Mar 2007
Discusses the neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration and the rationale for their actions furthering wars in the Middle East
"Having conned the UN, Congress, and the American people, the regime invaded Iraq under totally false pretenses and with totally false expectations. The regime's occupation of Iraq has failed in a military sense, but the neoconservatives are turning their failure into a strategic advantage. At the beginning of this year President Bush began blaming Iran for America's embarrassing defeat by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in Iraq."
A Nightmare in Iraq, by Sheldon Richman, 24 Sep 2003
Examines the situation in Iraq six months after the March 2003 invasion, including the Bush administration reportedly "considering using Israel as a model for managing an occupied people"
"Americans soldiers are killing innocent Iraqi civilians almost on a regular basis. In recent days and in separate incidents they killed eight Iraqi policemen, an Iraqi interpreter working for the U.S. occupiers, a woman and her child at a wedding, and a young teenager at another wedding. Many more have been seriously injured. ... No wonder that U.S. government analysts believe that the troops have more to fear from average citizens than from the remnant of Saddam Hussein sympathizers. ... This has got to be an eye-opener to all those who insisted that the Americans would be greeted as liberators."
Related Topics: George W. Bush, Israel
"Anti-War" Poseurs: All Whine, No Spine, by Terry Michael, RealClearPolitics, 23 Nov 2005
Criticises liberal Democratic politicians to stand up against the neoconservative arguments that eventually led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq
"Weapons of mass destruction was always a marketing ploy, as admitted to by Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the madness ... Playing on homeland insecurity, the neo-cons ... succeeded in getting the pre-emptive ('we're powerful and can do anything we damn well please') war they so badly wanted. Meanwhile, the actual bad guy who orchestrated 9/11 is still hiding in a cave somewhere thats not Iraq."
Related Topic: Vietnam War
UpdAtrocities in the 'Good War': A Tract for Today, by Robert Higgs, 19 Jun 2006
Introduces excerpt from Edgar L. Jones' article "One War is Enough", Atlantic Monthly Feb 1946, as "valuable lessons" for those pondering the atrocities committed in the Iraq War
"Even Americans who detest war and recognize that nearly every war is the product of mendacious, power-hungry political leaders generally make an exception for World War II, the so-called Good War. ... In any event, their actual actions in that war, which contrast starkly with the story line of the prevailing myth, might well teach valuable lessons to Americans today, as they ponder the meaning of atrocities such as those committed by U.S. soldiers, airmen, and Marines at Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, and Haditha, among many other places in Iraq yet to receive comparable publicity."
Related Topics: War, World War II
Bush's Doublethink, by Sheldon Richman, 19 Jan 2007
Analyzes President Bush's statements and possible implications, of a speech made on 10 Jan 2007
"[Bush] has spent too much time lecturing us that Iraq is the central front in his 'war on terror,' 'the decisive ideological struggle of our time,' and that failure would be catastrophic for America. If that's all true, how could he pull out simply because the Iraqi government isn't making nice with the Sunnis? ... Perhaps he’s threatening something else: regime change. ... 'Surge' may be the word du jour, but what Bush intends is not a surge, just a plain old phased-in increase in troops. A small one at that, considering what the neoconservative hawks think is needed for victory."
Related Topic: George W. Bush
Confessions of an "ex" Peak Oil Believer, by F. William Engdahl, 14 Sep 2007
Explains why the fossil fuel theory is wrong, the Russians successes with their "a-biotic" oil origin theory, and the possible reasons for the Iraq invasion
"Why then the high-risk war to control Iraq? For a century US and allied Western oil giants have controlled world oil via control of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Nigeria. Today, as many giant fields are declining, the companies see the state-controlled oilfields of Iraq and Iran as the largest remaining base of cheap, easy oil."
Foreword to A Foreign Policy of Freedom by Ron Paul, by Lew Rockwell, Mises Daily, 15 Mar 2007
Examines the historical precedents for the Paulian view that American foreign and domestic policy both be conducted in the same non-interventionist manner
"Ron Paul ... never believed the nonsense about how US bombs would transform Iraq into a modern democracy. He never went along with the propaganda lies about weapons of mass destruction. Nowadays, we often hear politicians say that they have changed their minds on the Iraq War and that if they had known then what they know now, they never would have gone along. Well, hindsight is child's play in politics. What takes guts and insight is the ability to spot a hoax even as it is being perpetrated. In any case, they have no excuse for not knowing: Ron Paul told them!"
How Did We Get Here?: You have the "mainstream" media to thank for the Iraqi quagmire, by Justin Raimondo, 24 Oct 2007
Recapitulates the actions of various media in making the case for the Iraqi invasion and supporting its continuation
"It was Rose, after all, whose four-page spread ... made the most extreme claims about the imminent danger posed by Saddam: the Iraqis were feverishly working on a long-range missile project, which was perilously close to becoming operational. ... When none of this turned up in the aftermath of the invasion, did the editors of Vanity Fair cry 'mea culpa'?"
UpdHow Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie, by Lew Rockwell, Mises Daily, 28 Oct 2006
Comments on two issues, related to the U.S. population reaching 300 million, which Rockwell not being addressed: what kind of economy is needed to support that population and do all these people need to live under the same central government
"The more implausible the imperial war, the more a variety of rationales becomes necessary. Iraq has been justified on grounds of security, safety, religion, vengeance, and economics, each rationale carefully tailored to appeal to a certain demographic group. ... And at this late stage in the Iraq conflict, the Bush-run state is asking us to forget even how the Iraq war began. Recall that the idea was to bomb Baghdad, create shock and awe, decapitate the head of state, and then watch as the rest of the country celebrated their liberation from Saddam. Today, Iraq is a country in ruins."
How Much More Harm Can Bush Do?, by Paul Craig Roberts, 7 Mar 2006
Discusses the casualties resulting from the 2003 Iraq invasion, the changed world opinion of the United States and the lobbies that benefit from the continuation of hostilities
"The media have done a good job for the government of keeping the blood and gore out of the living room. ... Every day 100 or more Iraqi civilians are killed and 100 or more are maimed and injured. ... U.S. troops routinely kill Iraqi civilians mistakenly or from frustration, but the heavy daily casualties are the result of the civil war made possible by the U.S. overthrow of the Iraqi government."
Iraq Exit Strategy: America's Path Forward [PDF], by Libertarian Party, 29 Jun 2005
Proposal by the Libertarian National Committee for the U.S. to remove its troops from Iraq and a direct-aid program to allow Iraq to reconstruct its infrastructure (note: the occupation lasted another six years)
"Regardless of an individual's stance on the initial invasion of Iraq, it is now clear that there is no end in sight to the sustained violence in the region. ... On March 19, 2003, the U.S. invasion of Iraq began with a massive bombing campaign and a large ground invasion. The active campaign lasted forty-four days, with an end to major combat operations announced by President Bush on May 1, 2003 ... American and coalition troops have remained in Iraq for over two years since Bush's declaration of victory."
Related Topics: George W. Bush, Iraq, United States
Iraq: One Year Later, by Sheldon Richman, 19 Mar 2004
Comments on the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and on the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq
"It's got to be embarrassing to anyone who backed the war that terrorism is spreading, not receding, since the world's mastermind of all evil, Saddam Hussein, was deposed and arrested. Iraq itself is writhing from the violence, now aimed at civilian social workers and missionaries. ... No matter how devastating the evidence against the administration's policy — no weapons of mass destruction, no Iraqi alliance with bin Laden — the president and his people have only clichés to offer."
Related Topic: Spain
Is Any War Civil?, by Sheldon Richman, 4 Dec 2001
Considers the controversy over whether Iraq was engaged in a civil war in 2006, and Tony Snow's comment contrasting the situation with the American 1861-1865 conflict
"If President Bush admits we have a civil war on our hands, the American people will (1) know that the Bush doctrine is a big flop, and (2) wonder why we should stay in Iraq. So what sounds like a debate over semantics is really a matter of politics. ... it doesn't matter whether Iraq is having a civil war nor not. In either case that country is in a situation that the U.S. presence can only make worse. Why? Because the U.S. military is a foreign occupier, and it is perceived as such."
Is This Really War?, by Sheldon Richman, 16 Jun 2006
Discusses the Haditha killings and argues that U.S. troops in Iraq are acting more as a police force for the new Iraqi regime
"One could argue that American forces were at war, albeit unnecessarily and illegally, when they first invaded Iraq and sought to unseat the regime of Saddam Hussein. But after the government fell, was it still war? Or was it simply an occupation in which foreign troops sought to maintain order and suppress any resistance to the invaders and the government it helped to establish? This latter description seems closer to the mark"
Killing Iraqi Children, by Jacob Hornberger, 19 Jun 2006
Comments on a Detroit News editorial condoning the bombing, rather than the arrest and prosecution, of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the "collateral" death of a five-year old girl
"Moreover, what people often forget is that the United States is no longer at war in Iraq. This is an occupation, not a war. The war ended when Saddam Hussein's government fell. At that point, U.S. forces could have exited the country. (Or they could have exited the country when it became obvious that Saddam's infamous WMDs were nonexistent.) ... Occupying Iraq, like invading Iraq, was an optional course of action."
Know When to Fold 'Em, by Sheldon Richman, 19 Feb 2007
Discusses the attitudes of Sen. John McCain and other hawks who opposed a non-binding resolution against a troop "surge" in Iraq
"Guerrilla warriors have many times humbled great powers. The Shias and Sunnis in Iraq are highly motivated, and they have the home-field advantage. What offsetting advantage do invading and occupying troops have against that? ... Bravado and messianism won't turn the loss in Iraq into a win. Bush, McCain, and the other hawks should know when to fold. A defeat for them would be the real victory for America."
Libertarianism and the Great Divide, by Justin Raimondo, 16 Mar 2007
Review of Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism
"While Doherty’s book was in the pipeline, the issue of the [Iraq War] was settled, not only in libertarian circles, but in the political culture at large, and the verdict is: it was a mistake, and a very bad one. While more than a few neocons have come in from the cold and recanted, I have yet to hear a single member of the 'libertarian' contingent of the War Party confess their sins and seek absolution."
Obama's Iraqi Fairy Tale, by Sheldon Richman, 28 Mar 2014
Examines, in devastating detail, Obama's March 2014 remarks about the 2003 Iraqi invasion
"In terms of international law, Bush was not allowed to launch a war against Iraq, which had threatened no one, until he secured another resolution from the Security Council ... That resolution was proposed but then withdrawn when Bush realized it would be vetoed. So he ignored the UN rules, which prohibit launching a war unless it's in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council, and invaded on his own say-so, after Congress rubberstamped his discretionary 'authorization for the use of military force.'"
Our Patience on Iraq Should Be Exhausted, by Sheldon Richman, 4 Apr 2007
Comments on George W. Bush's request that the Iraqi troop "surge" be given a chance and on congressional efforts to impose a 2008 withdrawal deadline
"President Bush started the fifth year of his war in Iraq by pleading with the American people for patience. Give the escalation ('surge') a chance to work, he said. In the discussion over ... the recent increase in troops ... the big picture is getting lost. Even most war critics in Congress seem to not fully see it. They routinely criticize the Bush administration for its incompetent execution of the war, but by doing so they have dropped the more important ball: regardless of how the war is being run, the invasion was illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to the interests of the American people."
Related Topic: Imperialism
Our Terrorism, and Theirs: Liberal apologetics for American atrocities, by Justin Raimondo, 5 Jun 2006
"... all meaningful moral and legal restrictions on American behavior were swept aside with the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a country that had never attacked the United States, and represented no threat to us. Having embarked on a war of aggression, it wasn't too long before we began to slide down the slippery slope ..."
Related Topic: Haditha Massacre
Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran, by Karen Kwiatkowski, James Harris, Josh Scheer, 27 Feb 2007
Interviewed by James Harris and Josh Scheer of Truthdig; topics include possible conflict with Iran, the Pentagon situation prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Office of Special Plans, Vietnam, terrorism and neoconservatism
"We're looking at regular intel, we're looking at the stuff the CIA and the DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency produces. And that stuff never said, that stuff never said Saddam Hussein had WMDs, had a delivery system, was a threat to the United States. It never said that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda. That intelligence never said that."
Rambo Was A Chump: John Kerry Should Be Ashamed of Vietnam Service, by Ted Rall, 27 Aug 2004
Discusses comments made by then Senator and presidential candidate John Kerry about the 2003 Iraq war, including the change in his Senate appropriations voting record, and the Vietnam War
"Indeed, by March 2003 72 percent of the U.S. public supported attacking Iraq. Kerry's cynical calculus, it seemed, had paid off. Five months after the fall of Baghdad, Bush asked Congress for $87 billion to finance the occupation of Iraq. But with 130,000 troops bogged down by a resistance movement that was killing at least one soldier a day, the war had already become unpopular. Only 41 percent of Americans--the number kept sliding--remained sweet on regime change."
Related Topics: Vietnam War, War
Rationalizing Haditha: The War Party's 'moderates' minimize it - and the crazier neocons deny it, by Justin Raimondo, 7 Jun 2006
"If the elected Iraqi government conducts its own investigation into Haditha ... it could mark the beginning of a rupture between the Shi'ite majority and the occupation forces. This will ... show that the real tug-of-war is not between the U.S. and the Sunni insurgency, but rather one that pits the occupiers against important elements of the ruling Shi'ite coalition ..."
Related Topics: Haditha Massacre, Iraq
Ron Paul's Goldwater Moment, by Justin Raimondo, 11 May 2007
Critiques Washington-centric "conventional wisdom" about Ron Paul's presidential candidacy
"... this Washington-centric 'wisdom' has been spectacularly wrong in recent years, notably about the invasion of Iraq. Before the war, 'everybody' knew Saddam harbored 'weapons of mass destruction.' ... And remember how the Washington wags were all so certain we'd be greeted with showers of rose petals and hailed as 'liberators'? They were wrong about that one, too. ... the District of Columbia know-it-alls were wrong on all counts about the war – its rationale and its results ... the election will surely be all about the war in Iraq ... Popular opposition to the Iraq disaster is at an all-time high ..."
Ron Versus the Huckster, by Justin Raimondo, 7 Sep 2007
Analyzes Ron Paul's response to Chris Wallace's questions on the Iraq invasion and Paul's exchange with Gov. Huckabee, at the 5 Sep 2007 Republican presidential debate
"As the US position in Iraq becomes more untenable ... the urge to hold someone responsible for what General William E. Odom rightly calls the biggest strategic disaster in our history grips large portions of the electorate. ... we hear very little about how [McCain] would manage to occupy a nation of some 30 million souls that resent and have come to hate the American presence. ... The only way to recapture [our honor] is to retrace our steps, to conduct a thorough investigation in order to discover how and why we were deceived into invading and occupying Iraq – and, most important of all, by whom."
Related Topics: George W. Bush, Ron Paul
That Death Toll, by Lew Rockwell, 21 Jun 2006
Comments on White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's remark about the reporting of the death of the 2,500th American soldier in the 2003 Iraq War
"There is something morally creepy about the way the White House responded to the news — released as inconspicuously as possible — that the 2,500th American soldier has died in Iraq. ... What's more, it's a number that continues to grow even as the opposition grows in Iraq. It is no longer plausible to even speak of an isolated insurgency. The US has sparked a full-scale civil war between tribes, a war that cannot be won no matter which side the US takes in the struggle. Perhaps 100,000 Iraqis have already been killed."
Related Topics: George W. Bush, War
The Abominations of War: From My Lai to Haditha, by Cindy Sheehan, 5 Jun 2006
Responds to those who demand to "support our troops" and the President by listing various immoral and illegal actions, suggesting instead that George W. Bush be prosecuted as a war criminal and offering support to those who disobey unlawful orders
"I have not seen anywhere in the discussion of this topic that, not only is Haditha not the worse war crime committed by American or coalition troops, but the entire war is a war crime. ... The invasion of Iraq is a preventive war of aggression against a country that was no threat to the USA or the world and was expressly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. ... 'Shock and awe' targeted civilian centers and killed many innocent people."
The American Sniper Was No Hero, by Sheldon Richman, 28 Jan 2015
Considers whether Chris Kyle was a hero or a competent government-hired killer
"Kyle was part of an invasion force: Americans went to Iraq. Iraq did not invade America or attack Americans. Dictator Saddam Hussein never even threatened to attack Americans. Contrary to what the George W. Bush administration suggested, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. ... The only reason Kyle went to Iraq was that Bush/Cheney & Co. launched a war of aggression against the Iraqi people. Wars of aggression, let's remember, are illegal under international law."
The Bill of Rights: Searches and Seizures, by Jacob Hornberger, Future of Freedom, Oct 2004
Discusses general warrants (and the British case of Entick v Carrington) and writs of assistance in colonial America as precedents for the framing of the Fourth Amendment and the latter's imporance in the present
"In occupied Iraq, armed U.S. soldiers routinely barge into people's homes and businesses and conduct intrusive searches of the premises and of the persons who are unfortunate to be there at the time. If they find any contraband, including weapons, they seize it and take it with them. Not having to answer to any court, they operate with omnipotent power, and their searches and seizures in Iraq are arbitrary and indiscriminate. ... With omnipotent power, U.S. officials have behaved much more abominably in occupied Iraq, especially in the area of search and seizure, than British officials behaved in colonial America ..."
The Great Unknown, by James Ostrowski, 17 Jan 2007
Argues that Hillary Clinton, considered to be the Democratic nominee by the author, would prefer to face McCain rather than the "Great Unknown" of Ron Paul
"Pre-Ron Paul, John McCain was the presumptive nominee in my view. For many reasons I believed Hillary would beat him. Reason number one is his ferocious support of the failed war in Iraq. If it's Hillary versus McCain, Hillary has the good fortune of being the antiwar choice even though she supported the war. ... Now, consider the fact that on the key issue of the campaign, the Iraq War, Ron Paul beats Hillary. He voted against the war and she for it."
Related Topic: Ron Paul
The Iraq War Crash: Stock market takes a dive - along with the prospects for peace in the Middle East, by Justin Raimondo, 2 Mar 2007
Discusses a 9% drop in the Shanghai Stock Exchange on 27 Feb 2007, which also affected other markets, in the context of the Iraq War and potential conflict with Iran
"According to the estimates of economic experts, the Iraq war drained off one trillion dollars from the U.S. stock market before the first shot was fired. After the war was 'won,' however, the real costs began to kick in, which economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz estimate at another trillion bucks (in direct costs), and possibly two trillion when all the other variables are factored in."
The Meaning of Haditha: Murderous depravity and empire-building go hand-in-hand, by Justin Raimondo, 2 Jun 2006
"... the occupation of Iraq will soon take on all the familiar earmarks of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Both Iraqis and Americans will be locked in a deadly embrace of indignities ... Iraq is the occupied territories writ large, and we are well on our way to becoming as hardened, as self-exculpatory, and as ruthless as our Israeli allies."
Related Topics: Haditha Massacre, Imperialism
The non-debate on the war, by Terry Michael, The Washington Times, 25 Aug 2005
Criticises the media for its lack of discussion about ending the 2003 Iraq War
"But how can mainstream journalism now be excused for quarantining stop-it-now voices from outside official Washington, after justification for the war has shifted from: 1) eliminating weapons of mass destruction, which didn't exist; 2) getting rid of a brutal dictator, who was a secularist thug, not an associate of Osama bin Laden; 3) spreading democracy ... 4) fighting Islamic terrorists, who need the United States in Iraq, not out, as their bete noir for recruiting more terrorists."
Related Topic: Vietnam War
UpdThe President Seems Out of Touch With Events on the Ground in Iraq, by Robert Higgs, 31 May 2006
Contrasts a George W. Bush speech given at West Point with nearly concurrent news reports about the Haditha massacre
"Anyone who has bothered to follow the reports of the war, especially in the foreign press, knows that wanton murders have occurred repeatedly, often from the air, owing in part to the use of high-explosive bombs and rockets in densely populated areas ... however, every person the U.S. forces have killed in Iraq is the victim of a murder, because the U.S. forces had no just grounds for invading and occupying the country in the first place—this war is a textbook case of unprovoked aggression—and the Iraqis and their friends have a just right of self-defense against these violent foreign invaders."
The Revolutionary Candidate, by Thomas Woods, 26 Mar 2007
Discusses and comments on the reactions of various organizations in the early days of Paul's 2008 presidential campaign
"... Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes of Columbia and Harvard, respectively, now say that their initial estimate of $2 trillion as the long-term cost of the Iraq war is too low ... the 'liberal media,' including the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the cable news networks, overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war. ... A writer for The Nation argued that 'this Constitution-wielding contender, who voted against authorizing Bush to invade and occupy Iraq and has steadily opposed that war since its launch four years ago, would certainly make the GOP debates worth watching ...'"
Related Topic: Ron Paul
The War the Government Cannot Win, by Lew Rockwell, 1 May 2007
Discusses how government cannnot win the war on terror because economic law is more powerful than the state
"Monthly spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan averaged $6.8 billion in 2006. That figure is now closer to $8 billion a month. ... Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Colin Powell warned President Bush that if you break it, you buy it. At last count, we've bought the equivalent of 10 Iraqs with your tax dollars. But instead of buying 10, the money has gone to completely destroying one country."
They Lied About the Reasons for Going to War, by Jacob Hornberger, 23 Oct 2006
"Now ask yourself: If a foreign nation was really about to attack the United States, especially with WMDs, would any president spend any time whatever going to the UN to seek permission to attack that nation first or spend time to round up a group of countries to participate in a 'coalition of the willing'?"
Trapped in Lies and Delusions, by Jacob Hornberger, 20 Nov 2006
"Let's not forget that this is Bush's and Cheney's war and occupation. It was they who chose not to go to Congress for the constitutionally required declaration of war, no doubt convinced that some sharp members of Congress would challenge their WMD justification for attacking Iraq."
War Loses, Again, by Lew Rockwell, 8 Nov 2006
Reflects on the results of the 2006 U.S. mid-term elections
"The Iraq War is in the news constantly but it has little impact on most American voters. The draft is threatened but not likely. The war debt is high but hidden. What do regular Americans care whether we were lied into war or that Iraq suffers under military occupation that is driving the country into the hands of fanatical Islamic theocrats? Well, apparently many voters do care, even those who don't have family members fighting and dying."
War, the God That Failed, by Lew Rockwell, 15 May 2004
Contrasts the general reaction to the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse vs. the mass deaths caused by the 2003 Iraq War, and the rationalizations made about the war with the excuses made by early Bolsheviks
"We should add mass death to the list. We are right to wince and then condemn pictures of naked prisoners in dog collars; not even Paul Wolfowitz was willing to defend such practices in testimony. And yet those private groups that bother to count civilian dead point to figures that exceed 10,000 in this war alone. These figures rise by 5, 10, 20, and more per day. ... Torture is awful; but should it really be necessary to point out that the mass death of innocents is worse?"
Related Topics: Communism, Terrorism, War
What Is the Mission?, by Charley Reese, 3 Jun 2006
"Is it to overthrow Saddam Hussein? He's been overthrown ... Is it to allow the Iraqi people to hold elections? They've held three elections ... But if the purpose was to install an elected government, why are we still there? Why are we spending half a billion dollars to build the world's largest embassy ..."
What's Become of Americans?, by Paul Craig Roberts, 22 Mar 2006
Ponders the lack of reaction by Americans to events related to the Iraq War, such as the missing WMDs, Abu Ghraib, mass surveillance, "free speech" zones, the death toll and the Haditha massacre
"The Bush regime acknowledges that 30,000 Iraqi civilians, largely women and children, have been killed as a result of Bush's invasion. Others who have looked at civilian casualties with greater attention have come up with numbers three to six times as large. The Johns Hopkins study accounted for 98,000 civilian deaths. Andrew Cockburn, using more sophisticated statistical analysis, concluded that 180,000 Iraqis died as a result of Bush's invasion."
What's to Lose?, by Sheldon Richman, 20 Apr 2007
Explains the benefits to most Americans if the U.S. government would admit defeat and withdraw its troops from Iraq
"What would an American defeat in Iraq mean? Would evil Iraqis conquer the United States, force us all to speak Arabic, and convert us to Islam? Hardly. There is no threat whatsoever to the American people from the sectarian fighters in Baghdad or elsewhere in that country. ... If anything holds the disparate Sunni factions together, it's their common animosity to the U.S. occupation. So in what sense would 'we' lose? From the standpoint of the American people, it would be no loss at all. Rather, it would be a victory. How so? Because we are losing now! Americans are killed every week, and the wounded are scarred for life."
Who Lost Iraq?: Neocons run for cover, by Justin Raimondo, 13 Nov 2006
"The U.S. occupation is being defeated by objective circumstances, i.e., the near-complete absence of support from the Iraqi people, and not by the exigencies of American politics. ... I contend that these results were eminently foreseeable, that in fact they were foreseen by the very policymakers who urged us on to war."
Will Congress Finally Face Up to Their Responsibility and Debate Iraq?, by Kevin B. Zeese, 31 Mar 2006
Discusses the proposal by a group of six congressmen to have 17 hours of "open and honest debate about the future of U.S. policy in Iraq"
"We are in the midst of a military quagmire in Iraq — a conflict that is costing precious American and Iraqi lives, leaving hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis seriously injured, costing the United States more than a billion dollars a week with no end in site and feeding anti-Americanism around the world — yet the Congress has never declared war. ... Even U.S. troops in Iraq support returning to the United States within a year. ... Do we continue to occupy ... Iraq? Can the occupation be successful? How do we end the Iraq occupation? How much money and how many troops are we willing to lose to the Iraq War?"
Related Topics: George W. Bush, Ron Paul


Starting a Brush Fire for Freedom: An interview with US Rep. Ron Paul, by Ron Paul, John W. Whitehead, oldSpeak, 9 Feb 2004
Topics include: being a lone wolf in Congress, the Patriot Act and related legislation, George W. Bush, the Iraq War, conservatives and neo-cons, the federal debt, education and the Constitution
"[America's invasion of Iraq] was clearly unconstitutional because there was no declaration of war. It was immoral because there was no direct attack on our country. And it was immoral because the response was not appropriate. Also, Iraq is a Third World Nation that couldn't defend itself. This has been proven to be correct. We had been bombing them ... for 12 years. They have been trying to shoot our airplanes down, and never have been able to. ... What really aggravated me was the unconstitutionality of the so-called Iraqi war and the fact that we were really going into Iraq to boost the United Nations ..."

Cartoons and Comic Strips

Fate Meets Fatima in Fallujah, by Ted Rall, 14 Dec 2006
Hanging on pins and needles, America awaits ..., by Ted Rall, 20 Nov 2006
... he still won't let go of the zombie apocalypse fantasy, by Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 11 Jul 2015
In Case You've Forgotten, by Ann Telnaes, 19 Mar 2008
IN THE FUTURE the Republican Party is dead ..., by Ted Rall, 30 Nov 2006
Related Topic: Democratic Party
Tell us, Senator, why did you vote in favor of war in Iraq?, by Pat Oliphant, 6 Feb 2007
The War in Iraq Progressed Today ..., by Chip Bok, 4 Jun 2006


Introducing ... the Apple iRack, Mad TV, 10 Mar 2007

Ron Paul Slams Republican Warmongers, by Ron Paul, 30 Jan 2008
Ron Paul answers the question "Do you agree with McCain that U.S. troops may be in Iraq for '100 years'?"

U.S. Foreign Policy and the War in Iraq, by Doug Casey, Ron Paul, 5 Jul 2007
Debate between Congressman Ron Paul and Doug Casey vs. Dinesh D'Souza and Larry Abraham, at FreedomFest, Las Vegas

Winter Soldier Mike Prysner testimony, Pt2, by Mike Prysner, 23 Dec 2009
Testimony given at hearings sponsored by Iraq Veterans Against the War

The introductory paragraph uses material from the Wikipedia article "Iraq War" as of 28 Oct 2018, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.