I thought he was installed, but really the point is the same. We supported an unpopular leader and messed with governments during the cold war in order to piss of the Soviet Union. The average citizens of those nations suffered during this period, and it makes sense that they would hate us.

 

Actually the South Vietnamese loved the US and were pretty upset when we pulled out of Vietnam. It was the Communist North Vietnamese that hated the democracy in the south and the Americans that supported them. And our support for the South was not to piss the Soviet Union off, it was to stop the spread of Comunism like we did in places such as Korea, Afghanistan, Berlin, etc.

 

I still would bet there's WMDs out there...... there's only about a million miles of desert with which Hussein had his choice where to burry the stuff.

 

this is true.

 

Sure the South Vietnamese government loved us. Of course it did we were the only reason it survived as long as it did. The actual people of South Vietnam did not though. This is kind of the same problem we have in Iraq now...we don't know who's on our side. The kid on the street or the man sitting in his house can all be "soldiers" in a sort of "invisible" army against US forces. There were Vietnamese that supported us in Vietnam, and most of them were wealthy people who benefited from business or trade that the American presence allowed. The frequency of such things as "Zippo raids" where SOUTH Vietnamese villages suspected of siding with the North and fighting against US forces were completely razed, shows that popular support of the US did not exist. I would also not call North Vietnamese as hating democracy, as hating the fact that the United States was keeping their country from uniting. Fine points like democracy are not often as important to citizens of former French colonies more interested in establishing a national identity than a particular ideological system. Razing villages isn't going to convince your average Vietnamese person that democracy is the way to go.

Yes our support for the south was, more eloquently stated, to stem the spread of communism; ie, piss of the Soviets. Yes we supported anti communist forces in Korea, Germany, Afghanistan, Cuba. The point still stands: because we sent many of these countries towards war in the name of ideology, wars where men, women, and children died, where families were torn apart, where the way of life in that country was destroyed, people around the world have a great deal of reason to hate us.

 

Yeah it wasnt a confirmation of no WMD, simply a statement that said its possible there were none. I still believe that they are there, buried somewhere in that country, there's definitly ALOT of space to bury them....

 

I am surprised that noone has brought up the findings in David Kays report on the state of Iraq's WMD under Saddam Hussein. But that is not the reason I am posting. I want to give you all some quotes and a link that are very relavent to this topic. Here they are...

NOT ME, I DIDN'T SAY IT


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
- Al ! Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a! deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear wea! pons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
& nbsp; next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,! every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years sin! ce the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
; Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the! threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Here is the link to a news story about John Kerry justifying his vote to authorize President Bush to use force on Iraq. He is justifying his reasons for the vote, but moreso goes to justify Bush's reasons as well. Some quotes from the article...

I find it very interesting now how many Democrats are trying to say that Bush lied to the American people about the reasons for going to war. Yet since the Clinton administration the argument has been the same as to why Saddam had to be removed from power. John Kerry has now even gone so far as to say he supported President Bush to go to war because Clinton would not.

 

Excellent post, Tom. Really good research.

 

Here's another update I got in mail. I think it's very interesting reading. Sorry guys but yea ... it's from MoveOn.org. :P

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1750688&l=16332 >
===============================

BUSH'S WMD MISLEADING CONTINUES TO ESCALATE

Faced with evidence that no WMD existed in Iraq before the war, President
Bush is citing different rationales for going to war. He said this week that
the war was justified because "the world is a better place without Saddam
Hussein." The president's recent statements, however, are belied by what he's
said in the past. A look at the historical record shows President Bush
justified an invasion of Iraq by making unequivocal statements that Saddam
Hussein possessed WMD that threatened all Americans, even claiming that
inspectors had found WMD when they had not.

On November 23, 2002, President Bush said a war was justified because there
was "an urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons
of mass destruction to kill thousands." In early January 2003, President
Bush said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have
weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's
why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat." And in his speech announcing the
invasion, President Bush said the war was justified because Americans were
"living at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with
weapons of mass murder." None of these assertions have since been
substantiated.

The president and his advisers had been warned repeatedly in the fall of
2002 by the intelligence community, including the CIA and Defense
Intelligence Agency, that the WMD case was weak. However, ten days after the
war began, Secretary Rumsfeld asserted the U.S had pinpointed the location
of WMD, saying, "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit
and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Less than two months
later, President Bush went on television to claim that WMD had been found,
saying, "we found the weapons of mass destruction" - an assertion that was
false. Asked a follow-up question, the president again contended they'd been
found, saying, "For those who say we haven't found [them], they're wrong, we
found them." The statement has not been repeated since by the Administration
or supported by the Iraq Survey Group's months-long search for WMD.

Independent observers are speaking out about the administration's pre-war
assertions on Iraq versus the reality that's emerging. The respected
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote that the administration
"systematically misrepresented the threat" from Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction. The Army War College called the war "unnecessary," and the
President's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board believes the White House
was so desperate "to grab onto something affirmative" to demonstrate Iraq's
weapons that it ignored intelligence reports undermining that claim.

 

It is an interesting read...however there really is nothing substantive in it. Where is the proof, or facts to back up this statement?

The Kay report has come out and said that the intelligence that the CIA and DIA reports were very wrong about the state of Iraq's WMD. Kay has also said that the blame does not lie with the Bush administration, that they in no way had influenced the reports, and that it was the intelligence community that failed.

Besides you mentioned this came from moveon.org. That site is so far to the left of the spectrum I do not trust, nor put faith into, anything from that site. It is the opitome of propaganda.