I'm sorry but i have to disagree with the majority of what you wrote.

Firstly, i never said the US liked him. You liked how he was able to keep control of his people, you could rely on him. The fact that you cannot acknowledge that it was predominatly america who armed Saddam baffles me. This is a well established fact, even right wing people in your country have had to acknowledge this fact. I'm not saying that Russia didnt sell them weapons, and im not saying Germany and France didnt also sell them military technology but it is well known that America sold them the majority if the arsenal they had. Saddams army wouldnt have been nearly as advanced had it not been for washington. This really isn't up for debate, i cant beleive you even tried to deny it. I'm not saying you were close but to say that you werent allies prior to the gulf 1 is a little deceitful. Like most of what was coming from US state department documentation tells a very different story.

Do you remember the famous Donald Rumfled quote "He's our man in the region."I think tells its own story. Look im not saying you controlled Iraq, you didnt control Egypt or any of other middle eastern countries within which you propped up tyrannical regimes, but that doesnt mean you didnt install those repressive regimes. Washington knew that by supporting a certain group of elites within the country their own(the eiltes), and your interests rather than those of the people of the country would be served. This isn't some crazy allegation made by the rantings of some anti-american propagandist this is a well established fact. It has been played out now so many times, in so many different ways, in so many different countries its hard to even keep count. You tell yourselfs that you are the world police and that you have some right ti interfere in other countries affairs, you perpetuate the belief within your own country that soemhow you are a force for good but reality tells a very different story.You serve your own interests, no one elses.

Now, i can understand you having such deep disdain for Chomsky, really i can but even if you disagree with all his opinions and conclusions you have to acknowledge that the evidence he uses to back them up is 100% factual. I mean, he's the 2nd most quoted author in history for Gods sake(Shakespear is 1st). Surely you know what that means, it means the facts he presents are so irrefutable that more authors use his info. as a reference source than anyon else.You say to use him as a refernce is like pionting to some blogger, so why is he the 2nd most quoted author in history, that kind of flys in the face of your wild accusation DOESNT IT? I mean your entire intellectual community has been trying to disprove the man since he started speaking out but has never caught him out on anything. The man is probably the most the assiduous intellectual of the 20th century. Again, if you chose to disagree with him fair enough but please dont try to tell me that his evidence is anything but factiual, you'll have a better time trying to convince the moon is made of cheese. Look if you can send me a link proving he lied about i will gladly accept it cause i know it would make headlines in your country. They have wanted to destroy the mans crdibility in wanyway they could since the day he started speaking out, so please send it on.

Again, you describe the barbarity of Saddams regime. I agree with all of it. But i get the sense that your using it as a justification for the war. I cant understand how this makes sense to you. Your country was a very close ally to Saddam (Like many other dictators e.g. Rafael Leonidas Molina Trujillo, Morena Manuel Antonio Noriega, Mubarak, Saddat, Pinochet, the list is endless) when he was commiting all his atrocities, and dont try to tell me they didnt have full knowledge of it. You see, your country doesnt care what these leaders do to their civilian populations as long as they play by your rules. Saddam only became a tyrant when he began to fight against Western interests in Kuwait, to dent this is to deny reality. And what about Saudi Arabia now, its well known how repressive a regime they have buit are they ever portrayed as such in your media. Go look up the Amnesty international reports on that country, it makes for some very iteresting reading, you know seeing the kind of regime your country supports.But you see they dont oppose US interests but a country like Iran does so there the big bad. I'm not trying to stand up for Iran, ive been to the country, i know there regime isnt perfect but i can tell you now they its alot more free than what is portryaed in Western media, and i dont even need to say how much better it is there than saudi aradia. But hey Saudi Arabia are playing by Western rules so theres no problem.

I dont agree with that assessment of the situation. I think he knew full well what he was doing when they pulled out of the country. I think your giving Bush Sr. (and the cia, and american administration in general) far too little credit. They were cold and calculated in their decision making process, they preferred Saddam to an actual democratic movement in that country. Thats was the key factor in their decision making process. This is my opinion, you have yours. I obviously cant prove it but i think mine is more grounded in reality.You see i think its much easier for you to say he was a wimp and leave it at that. I think it would be alot harder to entertain the thought that your government could be so self interested.

I'm sorry but the war was for oil. I mean, how can you deny this, do you think that is Kuwait's main export was flour that the US would have intervened, do you think if Iraq main export was grain you would be there now. Look at whats going on in the Ivory Coast, you think your country cares about that, they dont sell oil. It baffles me sometimes how people like you (who is clearly intelligient) are able to convince yourselfs of of some of these things. Chomsky deserves every bit as much blame as Bush, what planet are you living on? I dont even know where to begin with that statement.

Again, this whole paragraoh is a justification for American actions. LOok, i dont consider American people to be bad, that includes your army. We can argue about exactly how many deaths were caused by Amercian troops, how many were caused by the Iraqi resistance, how many were civilians, how many of those killed were from Saddams regime etc. etc. You say, "its war." Again, i agree with you completely but its a war you instigated. America had no right to invade, it lied in order to do so and still fail to get the support of most of Western Europe, therefore it is responsible for all the deaths that followed. It completely destabilsed the country, it casued the deaths of over a million people. You can justify plenty of its actions once it was in the country, the piont is it had and still has no right to be there.

I agree with you here but unfortunately your government doesnt. Its gona stay in that country for a long time to come. Those bases will be there long after all the ground troops have gone home. Iraq is just too strategically important i.e. its oil, its close proximity to Iran and the middle east in general. It admit once your country install a puppet government they probably send most of the troops home but a complete withdrawl (i.e. no American presenc in the country) is a long long way off yet im afraid.

Look i know full well that American soldiers dont go driving through the streets killing Iraqis civilians. What im saying is that civilians deaths are inevitable due to there presence in the country. From the wikileaks reports (please dont try to tell there lies to) its clear that your soldiers dont excercise a huge amount of restraint, even though they are a foreign oppressive power who have no right to be in the country, and they definietely dont have the best interests of the people at heart.

The scenario you describe (although realistic) is the product of the scare mongering media currently in operation in your country. Iraq clearly had no capability to launch any Nukes on Isreal and even if it did i strongly doubt it would. You give some of thse countries far too little credit, they dont want to be blown into nothing, besdies you cant just use that excuse everytime you want to invade somebody elses country to steal their resources espeically when its a lie i.e. Iraq had no WMDs.

I'm sorry, i though you meant the 2nd ivasion. I apologuise, i know full well that leading up to Gulf 1 Saddam was responsible for a number of attacks i thought you were claiming you were provoked the 2nd time round. By the way no one has lied to me, especially not Chomsky, do really think if he made such a statement that your media wouldnt have pounced on him. I think your hatred of Chomsky stems from the fact that you know the facts he presents are 100% air tight, and when you see the reality of your governments actions its much easier to shoot the messenger than to acknowledge there truthfulness.

I dont deny that Saddam could have used oil money to support his people, but we but know he wasnt exactly the empathic type. His country was after getting destroyed and now suddenly your country had imposed devastating sanctions on him. I think helping his own people was bottom of his agenda, but the death that it did cause would have been a lot less had you country not imposed those sanctions. And yes they did kill Iraqis, that link proves nothing except that Saddam was a brutal self interestd tyrant. Here watch this, you can chose to beleive it if you like, im tired of trying to convince people of the veracity of the links i send.Let me just say this, the info' presented in the documentary is fully backed up by Mnesty international and WHO reports but you'll see that if you chose to watch it.

http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/paying-the-price-killing-the-children-of-iraq

Please stop blaming everything on Russia, you should know they opposed the brutal sanctions your government imposed, they did not prop up his regime, you did. How can you even deny this.Yes they sold him weapons but again anyone whos serious about the truth knows American is largely responsible for arming Saddam. Russia may have lusted after Iraqis oil but they didnt lead the invasion the first time round and they didnt illegally invade the second time round in order to procure it. I can't beleive you have the guile to shift blame so blatantly when the fatcs are so clear for anyone to see. Answer me this, do you think your country is guilty of any wrong doing. I mean do you seriously think there on the good honest true side of everything.

I'm not saying they wokde up one day and decided to invade, im saying if Iraq didnt have so much oil they would have have ever had any interest in it. Thye would have propped up Saddam, they wouldnt have cared.

My piont is that you destroyed their country. You had no moral right.The destruction you caused is not even calculable, and it will be felt for decades to come. Iraq had the most modern infrostructure in the middle east prior to Gulf 1.I mean dont you feel any sympathy for the death and destruciton you casued and still cause. Imagine the situations were reversed. If nyou cant see my piont then i dont think theres any piont in responding to me. You must be incapable of feeling sympathy for a bewildered people.

Well at least theres something we can whole heartedly agree on.

Again, i think your only fooling yourself if you think America has relinquished control of that country.

The accusations you continually make about Chomsky i find absolutely astounding. Look i dont want to insult you so please back up what you are saying about the man. Show me why you think this way, prove him wrong and i promise i will agree with. If you can show me one example of him telling something that just isnt true i will acknowledge all the claims you've made about him.

Lastly, i examined all the links you sent and i largely agree with them. I fail to see how any of them run contrary to what ive been saying though.