Good comments.

As for the “joint statement” - that was a diplomatic and political gesture that was of course not issued by the same government that was in place at the pertinent time (on either side); it was issued due to the majoritarian Shi’a influence in both countries, and due to the desire to forge a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran (which is 89% Shi’a). The conservative Republican leader Jude Wanniski offered his perspective on this matter at that time. This issue is much more complicated than we’ve discussed here - especially considering that much of the relevant information regarding this involves intelligence agencies, and is still either classified, or not known to the public. I am not saying that Iraq was not responsible for invading Iran, or that it was the right thing to do… The many issues surrounding that war’s commencement, however, are very debatable, and there is so much that is not known. The online encyclopedia article on this war presents a balanced perspective on this subject.

As for the issue of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait… I have written about this matter before; there were many long-standing conflicts surrounding that as well. But that will have to be a topic for later.

Thank you for providing your perspective on these issues… This type of discussion is healthy, and allows us to learn from each other. Keep up the good work.

You are wrong to assume that most of the terrorists (i.e., insurgents) in Iraq are Iraqis. This is NOT the case. My husband, 82nd Airborne Division, served in Iraq from the start of the war (actually started their attack out of Kuwait and worked upwards into Baghdad, where they finished the remainder of their deployment). By the time he returned from Iraq in Feb. 2004, the insurgency was already on its last wobbly leg and had transformed into full on terrorism. Now, there are disgruntled Iraqis who are paid to launch grenades and set up IEDs in dead dogs and such, but the vast majority of the terrorism in Iraq is from terrorists outside Iraq. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are the big providers. This is the word from the boots on the ground, and I think they ought to know.

Also, my husband saw a similar mural in southern Iraq (minus the portrait of Saddam) and they were indeed ordered by Saddam. In fact, an Iraqi could not buy an appliance without the request granted by Saddam. Iraqis referred to him as “papa Saddam”, since he was their version of a sugar daddy. He had total control the economy. Of course, he delegated some of that responsibility to his sons and higher ups in the cabinet.

Some war supporters have called our liberation of Iraq an occupation, but that’s a poor term to use. Did France consider our involvement in WWII an occupation? What an insult! Consider Saddam the Nazis and France Iraq. We have liberated and reconstructed. From the earliest possible time we pointed Iraq toward self-government and we aided in that development. An occupation, militarily speaking, is the taking possession of (which we never did) or carrying out policies of a foreign government within that country. We never did that, either.

The real issue is the connotation those terms sustain. They provoke one to think of a bully, forcing a country against its’ will. My husband can tell you first hand that Iraqis want us there. They want us to “occupy” (liberate) and they are not rising up against their own government as in an insurgency, but are supporting and voting for their new government. It is the foreign terrorists by and large who we see on the news every night.

Iraq also claimed that Kuwait provoked them to invade Kuwait…..

On May 20, 2005, Iraq and Iran issued a joint statement saying that Saddam was responsible for the Iran/Iraq war. Here is a referrence:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157123,00.html
Saddam has bombed Israel (1st Gulf War), invaded Kuwait and started war with Iran. He’s paid suicide bombers to murder Jews in Israel. He was a threat.

Thanks!

This is not the first pro-war blog entry to question the characterization of those militants as “insurgents”… However, as I pointed out in that post [in case that link fails, it's the 3rd comment in this thread], the White House and the Defense Department have been using that same term to refer to those people. And as for the term “occupation,” I think that even some supporters of the Iraq war have used this to describe what is going on… I am a conservative, Republican opponent of the war, but I think that this term is somewhat accurate, to describe the situation in that country.

As for the mural… I had seen it before - but I was not aware that Saddam ordered it painted.

The circumstances behind the war with Iran are unknown at this point… Iraq claimed that Iran provoked the war, with its incursions… and some have theorized that Iraq was encouraged to invade Iran by foreign intelligence agencies. A lot of this is not overtly known at this point, and unless more hard information comes out, it will be difficult to ascertain the whole truth regarding many of these matters.

It’s late, and that’s about all that I can say about these issues right now. You’ve raised some good points in your posts, and ‘California Conservative’ is one site that is going on my blogroll. Keep up the good work here.