A 'warblogger' repents

What Went Wrong?: Normally I dont read these 'warbloggers' - even when 'repenting' it is virtually unreadable, delusional nonsense. But I struggled through to the end of the article and a few of the comments.

The Iraq war was an illegal, criminal act of aggression based on a pretext of ludicrous lies against a virtually defenceless nation the purpose of which was to establish a reliable client state and seize direct control of the region's oil reserves.* There were no weapons, no links to Al-Qaeda, and no concern for democracy in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter). The propaganda was fixed around the policy decision to invade which had been taken somewhat earlier in the piece.

All this was obvious at the time to any observer with a computer and a modem connection, and if a person could not or cannot perceive this (either then or now) then that is a subject worth examining. Anyone familiar with either history (especially war and imperialism) or political science (especially either clasical liberalism or anarchism - not to mention common sense understanding of human nature) could see at once what was happening and how it could not be any other way.

Its back to elementary education and a probable 'deprogramming' if an intelligent, educated person did not or cannot see this.

* Yes that's right. After reading or skimming the article and comments I did a search on 'oil' and could not find a single mention, either in the article itself or in the comments. How can anyone think like this? We've got 15,000 plus words of twaddle on the biggest international issue of the modern world, and not a single mention, direct or indirect, or even by way of denial, of the crucial factor underlying the whole affair. How's that for ideological discipline?

What Went Wrong?: Normally I dont read these 'warbloggers' - even when 'repenting' it is virtually unreadable, delusional nonsense. But I struggled through to the end of the article and a few of the comments.

The Iraq war was an illegal, criminal act of aggression based on a pretext of ludicrous lies against a virtually defenceless nation the purpose of which was to establish a reliable client state and seize direct control of the region's oil reserves.* There were no weapons, no links to Al-Qaeda, and no concern for democracy in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter). The propaganda was fixed around the policy decision to invade which had been taken somewhat earlier in the piece.

All this was obvious at the time to any observer with a computer and a modem connection, and if a person could not or cannot perceive this (either then or now) then that is a subject worth examining. Anyone familiar with either history (especially war and imperialism) or political science (especially either clasical liberalism or anarchism - not to mention common sense understanding of human nature) could see at once what was happening and how it could not be any other way.

Its back to elementary education and a probable 'deprogramming' if an intelligent, educated person did not or cannot see this.

* Yes that's right. After reading or skimming the article and comments I did a search on 'oil' and could not find a single mention, either in the article itself or in the comments. How can anyone think like this? We've got 15,000 plus words of twaddle on the biggest international issue of the modern world, and not a single mention, direct or indirect, or even by way of denial, of the crucial factor underlying the whole affair. How's that for ideological discipline?

A 'warblogger' repents