The Boxing Day discovery ...occurred in Karbala.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/27122005/140/iraqi-mass-grave-discovered.html

Iraqi Mass Grave Discovered
Tuesday December 27, 10:29 PM

Iraqi officials say they have found the remains of 31 people in a mass grave in the southern city of Karbala.It is believed they may have died during the suppression of a Shi'ite uprising against Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War.The bodies were discovered by workers laying pipes for the city's sewer system.

Police have sent the remains for DNA testing at a local hospital as they try to identify the bodies.

People who lost relatives during the rebellion are assisting with the identification
Advertisement
process.

Initial tests indicate men, women and children were buried at the mass grave, which was uncovered by chance on Boxing Day.

Local man, Salman Saadoun, 50, said he remembered seeing bulldozers digging in the area after Saddam's elite Republican Guard entered the town to crush the rebellion.

A small public park was later built there.

Authorities say at least 259 mass graves containing some 300,000 people have been discovered in Iraq since the fall of the former dictator.


Slim

Just out of curiosity...why did you post this in Chat Central?

slim

Those 259 mass graves from the time when Saddam Hussein was the dictator of Iraq do not prove that he had anything to do with the killings. It is all circumstantial evidence so must be discounted. Just ask she-devil.

Now if you ask me, I would say they are pretty convincing evidence that he was a murderous monster.

On a side note, it's always a mistake to go into any crime scene or criminal procceeding with your mind made up already.
It's only human nature to thus twist the facts to support your theory.

Keep a blank mind, look at the evidence only.

We should all wait and watch as this trial unfolds. I don't believe the prosecution has as yet brought out its big guns.

As it is Saddam is already disrupting the proceedings more than Manson ever thought of.

Saddam is pissed because he wants to spill all the dirt on the US but the US chose to charge him with stuff he did on his own.

Originally posted by Frogger
Now if you ask me, I would say they are pretty convincing evidence that he was a murderous monster.
I don't think anyone denies he was a murderous monster. I think what people take issue with is was he the biggest murderous monster in the Middle East? And did we help him while he was a murderous monster? And is helping the Iraqis escape a murderous monster more important than our national security? And is this "murderous monster" reason only now used because the links to terrorism and Saddam having WMDs were recently proven false?

I don't think anyone denies he was a murderous monster.

There are those who post in Allforums who have said that any evidence showing Hussein is a murderous monster is strictly circumstancial and not to be trusted.

I think what people take issue with is was he the biggest murderous monster in the Middle East?

Can you point to another Middle East ruler who gassed his own people? Can you point to another Middle East ruler who's country if filled with mass graves? Can you point to another Middle East ruler who simply invaded another country in an attempt to annex it?

And did we help him while he was a murderous monster?

Yes we did in an effort to contain Iran, a country that had recently taken scores of Americans hostage. In the world of
Realpolitik you sometimes find yourself in bed with some pretty unsavory characters. That does not make it right but it does make it almost inevitable.

And is helping the Iraqis escape a murderous monster more important than our national security?

Setting up a democratic Muslem nation in the Middle East is directly tied to our national security. If Iraq becomes a successful democracy other nations in the area will be forced to democratize their regimes. As it now stands only Israel has any semblace of democracy and the Arab and Persian regimes will hardly look to Israel as an exemplar.

And is this "murderous monster" reason only now used because the links to terrorism and Saddam having WMDs were recently proven false?

The fact that wmd's were not found makes Hussein neither a more or a less murderous monster. His crimes against his own people stand on their own and do not require wmd's for their proof. The ouster of Hussein and the building of a democratic society in the Middle East as part of our plan for national security after 9/11 was always the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq.

Originally posted by Frogger
There are those who post in Allforums who have said that any evidence showing Hussein is a murderous monster is strictly circumstancial and not to be trusted.
I suppose I should say the vast majority of people (including most liberals) do not disagree with the fact he was a murderous monster.

Originally posted by Frogger
Can you point to another Middle East ruler who gassed his own people? Can you point to another Middle East ruler who's country if filled with mass graves? Can you point to another Middle East ruler who simply invaded another country in an attempt to annex it?
Lets just look at Saudi Arabia:

Saudi courts impose capital punishment and corporal punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for serious robbery, and floggings for lesser crimes such as "sexual deviance" (i.e. homosexuality) and drunkenness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia


A notorious incident attributed to the Saudi mutaween occurred on March 11, 2002 when they prevented schoolgirls from escaping a burning school in Mecca, because the girls weren't wearing headscarves and abayas (black robes). Fifteen girls died and 50 were injured as a result. There was widespread public criticism afterwards, both internationally and within Saudi Arabia itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutaween

All I am trying to convey is that Saddam was not the only monster in the Middle East. And that other leades were indeed horrible to their people and why was it that we picked Saddam out of all these leaders?

Originally posted by Frogger
Yes we did in an effort to contain Iran, a country that had recently taken scores of Americans hostage. In the world of
Realpolitik you sometimes find yourself in bed with some pretty unsavory characters. That does not make it right but it does make it almost inevitable.
Since we expected him to do the things he did with our weapons at the time, I find it ironic that we all of a sudden find it "shocking" and "reason enough for war" years after he did these things and not right after we didn't need his help anymore.

Originally posted by Frogger
Setting up a democratic Muslem nation in the Middle East is directly tied to our national security. If Iraq becomes a successful democracy other nations in the area will be forced to democratize their regimes. As it now stands only Israel has any semblace of democracy and the Arab and Persian regimes will hardly look to Israel as an exemplar.
I find this very much incorrect. Firstly, the only way for the Middle East to change is if they come to it on their own. Forcing them to accept our way of life only fuels the hate for America. Secondly, Democracy will never happen in Iraq. As with the elections it shows a growing idea of a civil war that will put Iraq back to square one. To force an area that has religious and moral reasons aganist Democracy to follow our way of life is unrealistic. Thirdly, the 2004 Terrorist Report shows an increase in terrorism. This is because us being in Iraq has increased the hate for America and has created more terrorists because they can look to Iraq as an example of why to hate the United States.

Originally posted by Frogger
The fact that wmd's were not found makes Hussein neither a more or a less murderous monster. His crimes against his own people stand on their own and do not require wmd's for their proof. The ouster of Hussein and the building of a democratic society in the Middle East as part of our plan for national security after 9/11 was always the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq.
How can attacking a nation that had no link to 9/11, "small to no links" (See 9/11 Report) to terrorism, and had no WMD's make us safer? All it has done is given the terrorists more time to plan, re-group, and gain members. Basically all the terrorists (since most were not in Iraq) have become more angry, gained more members and are looking at creating a civil war in Iraq once we leave. Since we never had enoguh troops to make Iraq stable (and since the terrorists know this) they will be able to destory democracy in Iraq. To expect us to leave a stable government is insane

Speaking of circumstantial evidence, this can frequently be a lot more devastating than physical evidence, which can be misread, lost, or tampered with.
One prosecutor likened it to a bunch of little pebbles adding up to a big rock pile.

The United States has now killed more Iraquis than Saddam and in some cases, in a more heinous way. Bombing houses while women and children are asleep is one of our favorite ways of disposing of the folks of Iraq. AFAIK -- Saddam never stooped to that level.

Oh yeah, you might want to ask Bush-41 about all these mass graves being found.

LOL

"The message is clear,” says one reservist who is home for the holidays but has to return and asked not to be identified. “If you want to get out of this man’s Army with an honorable (discharge) and full benefits you better not tell the truth about what is happening in-country".

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7918.shtml

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The United States has now killed more Iraquis than Saddam and in some cases, in a more heinous way. Bombing houses while women and children are asleep is one of our favorite ways of disposing of the folks of Iraq. AFAIK -- Saddam never stooped to that level.

Oh yeah, you might want to ask Bush-41 about all these mass graves being found.

LOL

This is simply not true, Lungdop Philing. The United States has not killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein. He killed over 5,000 in a single incident. He also killed them in more heinous ways than the U.S. does unless you don't consider being poison gassed or strangled or beaten to death to be heinous.

Originally posted by Frogger
Can you point to another Middle East ruler who gassed his own people? Can you point to another Middle East ruler who's country if filled with mass graves? Can you point to another Middle East ruler who simply invaded another country in an attempt to annex it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lets just look at Saudi Arabia:

Okay. Let's. Please tell me about the thousands who were gassed by the Saudi rulers. Then tell me about all the mass graves littering Saudi Arabia. When you are finished doing those two things you can point out on a map the country Saudi Arabia invaded.

Originally posted by Frogger
Yes we did in an effort to contain Iran, a country that had recently taken scores of Americans hostage. In the world of
Realpolitik you sometimes find yourself in bed with some pretty unsavory characters. That does not make it right but it does make it almost inevitable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since we expected him to do the things he did with our weapons at the time, I find it ironic that we all of a sudden find it "shocking" and "reason enough for war" years after he did these things and not right after we didn't need his help anymore.

We didn't expect him to gas over five thousand Kurds. We didn't expect him to commit genocide against the Swamp Arabs. We didn't expect him to invade Kuwait.

Originally posted by Frogger
Setting up a democratic Muslem nation in the Middle East is directly tied to our national security. If Iraq becomes a successful democracy other nations in the area will be forced to democratize their regimes. As it now stands only Israel has any semblace of democracy and the Arab and Persian regimes will hardly look to Israel as an exemplar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I find this very much incorrect. Firstly, the only way for the Middle East to change is if they come to it on their own. Forcing them to accept our way of life only fuels the hate for America. Secondly, Democracy will never happen in Iraq. As with the elections it shows a growing idea of a civil war that will put Iraq back to square one. To force an area that has religious and moral reasons aganist Democracy to follow our way of life is unrealistic. Thirdly, the 2004 Terrorist Report shows an increase in terrorism. This is because us being in Iraq has increased the hate for America and has created more terrorists because they can look to Iraq as an example of why to hate the United States.

The only way for a country to become democratic is if they do it on their own. I guess you have never heard of either Germany or Japan, two nations we forced to become democratic and that fully embraced that democracy.

If as you say, the people have religious and moral reasons to not want to embrace democracy how do you explain the great voter turnout?


Originally posted by Frogger
The fact that wmd's were not found makes Hussein neither a more or a less murderous monster. His crimes against his own people stand on their own and do not require wmd's for their proof. The ouster of Hussein and the building of a democratic society in the Middle East as part of our plan for national security after 9/11 was always the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How can attacking a nation that had no link to 9/11, "small to no links" (See 9/11 Report) to terrorism, and had no WMD's make us safer? All it has done is given the terrorists more time to plan, re-group, and gain members. Basically all the terrorists (since most were not in Iraq) have become more angry, gained more members and are looking at creating a civil war in Iraq once we leave. Since we never had enoguh troops to make Iraq stable (and since the terrorists know this) they will be able to destory democracy in Iraq. To expect us to leave a stable government is insane


You don't think we are safer now than we were immediately after 9/11? You don't think a democrated nation set up in the middle of the Middle East will help foster democracy in surrounding natiions? You think that rather than being disrupted the terrorists are now better able to plan and carry out attacks?

Boy, do we think differently.

If we were to follow the surrender monkey Democrats like Harry Reid and his cohorts and precipitously leave Iraq before their army and police can safely control the country it might well slip into civil war. That is why we must stay there until the job is done.

Originally posted by Frogger
This is simply not true, Lungdop Philing. The United States has not killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein. He killed over 5,000 in a single incident. He also killed them in more heinous ways than the U.S. does unless you don't consider being poison gassed or strangled or beaten to death to be heinous.

Have you included the half million or more that were either carpet-bombed to death in gulf war 1 or who have since died from Depleted Uranium?

Didn't think so.

Of course I didn't include the half million figure. I didn't include it because it is bogus.

The high end estimates of military and civilian casualties during Gulf War I are 38,000. 2.5% of the troops. Since there were 360,000 troops that would mean about 9,000 killed in te actual theater of action. Between 3,000 and 6,000 were killed in all other bombing runs; airfields, etc.. Between 8,000 and 10,000 were killed in the ground war. In order to cover any unknown deaths add another 10,000. Civilian casualties were between 2,500 and 3,000.


The problem with posting highly inflated figures is that they can be too easily checked.

I doubt you can post any proof of those figures beyond being controversial, educated geusses and FOX slant.

Shit dude ... we're losing DU patients (and their offspring) at our own VA centers here in the US at a rate that betrays those figures ... unless of course, DU and the science of the human body works differently in Iraq than here in the states.

Let's not even consider that during the Persian Gulf war, we dropped enough bombs on Iraq to kill nearly every person on the face of the earth, had those bombs been used that way regardless of our leaders telling us that our smart bombs don't kill innocent civilians.

Geeesh ... how big of a fool does one have to be to believe that one?

I doubt you can post any proof of those figures beyond being controversial, educated geusses and FOX slant.

Ah, the old FOX News gambit, the refuge of liberals when their hyperinflated figures are shown to be in error.

I never claimed no innocent civilians were killed, nor did I claim that no soldiers were killed. I claimed that your one half million deaths figure was wildly inflated.

Since Iraq has a total population of around 26,000,000 it would be very noticible if one of every fifty citizens had been killed by the Americans. That is not even considering the fact that almost no Kurds or Shia were killed.

Since you have called my figures into question I am sure you will be more than willing to post a citation for your one half million figure.

Originally posted by Frogger
Okay. Let's. Please tell me about the thousands who were gassed by the Saudi rulers. Then tell me about all the mass graves littering Saudi Arabia. When you are finished doing those two things you can point out on a map the country Saudi Arabia invaded.
You are missing the point I'm trying to show. The way the leaders in Saudi Arabia treat their people is horrible. No, they do not have mass graves. But that does not take away from the fact that hundreds yearly die because of their incorrect laws. Now we as a country trade with the Saudis, even though they act like this towards their people. We are supporting a government that is monsterous. This leads me to suspect we don't care about the mass graves in Iraq since we are going to trade so largely with a nation that has almost no human rights, freedom for their people, and is hugely monsterous.

Originally posted by Frogger
We didn't expect him to gas over five thousand Kurds. We didn't expect him to commit genocide against the Swamp Arabs. We didn't expect him to invade Kuwait.
Actually, we should have expected him to kill over five thousands Kurds as his past history before giving him money and weapons showed a past of murder.

As for invading Kuwait:
Saddam urged the Kuwaitis to forgive the Iraqi debt accumulated in the war, some $30 billion, but the Kuwaitis refused, claiming that Saddam was responsible to pay off his debts for the war he started.

......

The Kuwaiti monarchy further angered Saddam by allegedly slant drilling oil out of wells that Iraq considered to be within its disputed border with Kuwait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussain#Tensions_with_Kuwait

Kuwait was indeed safer after the war with Iran so they should have allowed him to be free of that debt. But they didn't. And the war was funded by the United States. Thus, Kuwait should have been thankful and the United States should have helped Saddam out of his troubles with debt. Not to mention Kuwait pushed his buttons by drilling for oil in the land he felt was his. They knew this was going to aggravate Saddam. They were basically asking for war.

Many nations have gone to war with other nations. This is however not reason enough for war. No one ever talked about him "killing his people" and him "going to war with Kuwait" because they realized these were not strong reasons. Only when the WMD and links to terrorism were proven false did we ever hear about these "reasons"

Originally posted by Frogger
The only way for a country to become democratic is if they do it on their own. I guess you have never heard of either Germany or Japan, two nations we forced to become democratic and that fully embraced that democracy.
Firstly, Germany was democratic in many respects before Hitler assumed power. So that is a moot point when pointing out Germany. Secondly, the reason Japan became a Democracy was because they were not surrounded by terrorists and people who would die to fight democracy (maybe the Soviets, but we were on their side during and shortly after the war so they allowed it in Japan), we had enough troops to help keep their nation stable and rebuild their country (unlike in Iraq), and the Japanese were not as religiously and culturally opposed to democracy.

Originally posted by Frogger
If as you say, the people have religious and moral reasons to not want to embrace democracy how do you explain the great voter turnout?
Look at what type of people they are voting for. And you'll see they want it to go back to a religious-run country.

Originally posted by Frogger
You don't think we are safer now than we were immediately after 9/11? You don't think a democrated nation set up in the middle of the Middle East will help foster democracy in surrounding natiions? You think that rather than being disrupted the terrorists are now better able to plan and carry out attacks?
It is 100% factual that we are not as safe. Have you taken a look at the 2004 Terrorist Report? It shows a 21 year increase in terrorism. Which thus means the war in Iraq has helped create terrorists. To further prove my point look at this

In a scathing final report, the 9/11 commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks says the United States wasn't ready then and it isn't ready now.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/05/911051205.html


So the 2004 Terrorist Report says there is an increase in terrorism and the 9/11 commission says we are not ready for terrorism now. What has the Iraq War done to actually make us safer? What proof is there that it has? All the reports show it hasn't...

You compare a few hundred deaths with many thousand deaths. You use the fact that the Kuwaitis weren't grateful enough to Saddam Hussein and were drilling in terroritory they felt was their territory as a justification of the invasion of Iraq. You claim that the Japanese, a people who worshiped their emperor as a god and who lived in a strictly stratified society were not opposed to democracy.

I am sorry, Overdose, but you and I are so diametrically opposed on this issue that further discussion is just a waste of time. I find it impossible to understand your thinking on this issue.

How can you not understand something as simple as OD's point when you understand such deeply scientific military maneuvers like dropping more bombs on Iraq than any country in history and no one gets killed?

I can understand what Overdose is saying. I can't understand how anyone can say it.

Originally posted by Frogger
You compare a few hundred deaths with many thousand deaths.
Add up hundreds yearly and see what total you come to.

Originally posted by Frogger
You use the fact that the Kuwaitis weren't grateful enough to Saddam Hussein and were drilling in terroritory they felt was their territory as a justification of the invasion of Iraq.
No, they were drilling in territory they knew would make Saddam mad and that was their only reason for drilling. They also were not greatful to Saddam for fighting a war with Iran.

You use this war as reason to attack Iraq, but why didn't we attack Saddam while he was attacking Kuwait? Why is this now all of a sudden a reason?

Originally posted by Frogger
You claim that the Japanese, a people who worshiped their emperor as a god and who lived in a strictly stratified society were not opposed to democracy.
Did you miss this part, "Secondly, the reason Japan became a Democracy was because they were not surrounded by terrorists and people who would die to fight democracy (maybe the Soviets, but we were on their side during and shortly after the war so they allowed it in Japan), we had enough troops to help keep their nation stable and rebuild their country (unlike in Iraq)"
I think you missed all of those other reasons. We can argue about if they were or were not as religously/culturally against it, but the other reasons stand alone and are reason enough to make your comparsion fall flat.

You faild to argue against the reports of increased terrorism and the fact that Saddam never had WMDs and he had hardly any links to terrorism. Typical.

Originally posted by Frogger
You claim that the Japanese, a people who worshiped their emperor as a god and who lived in a strictly stratified society were not opposed to democracy.I also disagree with Overdose on this point. Japanese culture was anti-Western and anti-democratic to an extreme. The reason there was not an insurrection in Japan is because the people were utterly and completely defeated. Here, of course, is where Frogger goes wrong. Western values and democracy cannot be imposed on Iraqi society precisely because the Iraqi people are not defeated. We have defeated Saddam and his government and we make war against the insurgents but these do not compel Iraqi citizens to adopt our views. In Japan, societal change was compelled radically by total occupation and restructuring of their institutions. These are huge differences. Japan and Iraq are simply not analogous.

We arre not imposing western style democracy on a people opposed to it. We are offering that opportunity for people to have a democracy that is in line with their culture and aspirations. The United States has paved the way for people to be allowed to vote. It has not told the people how to vote. Hence the results that are not exactly what the United States would have hoped for.

To imply that the Iraqi people do not want a chance to vote for those who rule them is to imply that the Iraqi people value freedom less than other people in the world.

Originally posted by Frogger
We arre not imposing western style democracy on a people opposed to it. We are offering that opportunity for people to have a democracy that is in line with their culture and aspirations. The United States has paved the way for people to be allowed to vote. It has not told the people how to vote. Hence the results that are not exactly what the United States would have hoped for.Further demonstrating that the Japan analogy is of little value.To imply that the Iraqi people do not want a chance to vote for those who rule them is to imply that the Iraqi people value freedom less than other people in the world. Of course the Iraqi people want to elect their own rulers. Unfortunately, those rulers will have a very different concept of 'freedom' than you or I have. They will be free to impose Islamic law, which is quite restrictive of individual freedom and subjugates women. They will be free to ally themselves with Iran and export Islamic revolution throughout the region. The end result of Bush's war, after the sacrifice of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, may well be the creation of an Islamic super-state that is inherently hostile to the United States. Nice going, George.

Perhaps they will do all the things you predict, sedan, but isn't it their right to elect the leaders they want? Were the U.S. simply interested in controlling Iraq we would have manipulated the elections to insure the people we wanted to get in were elected. The fact that many people we didn't prefer were elected shows the election was fair and not controlled by the United States.

Perhaps they will do all the things you predict, sedan, but isn't it their right to elect the leaders they want? Were the U.S. simply interested in controlling Iraq we would have manipulated the elections to insure the people we wanted to get in were elected

You forget recent history quite well Frogger.

"...the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.

So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open elections and a UNSC resolution. They did their job and got what they wanted. But the Americans have been unable to provide them the requisite security for truly aboveboard democratic elections."
http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/mixed-story-im-just-appalled-by.html

futhermore:

"With all the hoopla, it is easy to forget that this was an extremely troubling and flawed "election." Iraq is an armed camp. There were troops and security checkpoints everywhere. Vehicle traffic was banned. The measures were successful in cutting down on car bombings that could have done massive damage. But even these Draconian steps did not prevent widespread attacks, which is not actually good news. There is every reason to think that when the vehicle traffic starts up again, so will the guerrilla insurgency.

The Iraqis did not know the names of the candidates for whom they were supposedly voting. What kind of an election is anonymous! There were even some angry politicians late last week who found out they had been included on lists without their permission. Al-Zaman compared the election process to buying fruit wholesale and sight unseen. (This is the part of the process that I called a "joke," and I stand by that.)

This thing was more like a referendum than an election. It was a referendum on which major party list associated with which major leader would lead parliament."

And you seem to completely ignore even more recent history Quarter Ton.

The election was peopled by people the United States did not approve of, won by people the United States did not approve of. We did not impose our will in any way, shape or form on the candidates, the voters or the eventual winners.

Yes it appears that the US did not meddle in the recent elecions. However to claim that the US did not want to control Iraq is completely wrong.

Wanting the elections to go your way and manipulating them so they do are two entirely different things.

Did you read my earlier post. The US didn't even want to have elections in Iraq. Only after a popular show of force through demostrations was it even considered.

Saying the United States did not want elections in Iraq does not compute since the stated goal was to form a democratic society in Iraq with elected officials. You really have to stop getting your information from Juan Cole.

It's true. The US was against elections for the Iraqis when they first wanted to have them. The United States government, just like the liberals that you love to hate, possesses the tendancy to say what it really doesn't mean, like profess a love for democracy. In reality, democracy is just a word used by people to hide what they are really doing there, which is tie the natural resources of the region up neatly for corporate interests.

The US wants democratically elected leaders only when those leaders are compatible with the economic interests of the United States. If they aren't then the government will stop at nothing to manufacture public hatred for that country's leaders. Just like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

That's an oversimplification, Nappy. It is not that the U.S. did not want elections, they didn't want them held before the proper infrastructure was in place. You can't just run off an hold an election willy nilly like Andy Hardy producing a musical with the neighborhood kids.

You really have to stop getting your information from Juan Cole. Yeah I should really start listening to Faux news or you over Juan Cole...

1975 B.A. History and Literature of Religions, Northwestern University
1978 M.A. Arabic Studies/History, American University in Cairo
1984 Ph.D. Islamic Studies, University of California Los Angeles
1984-1990 Assistant Professor of History, University of Michigan
1990-1995 Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan
1992-1995 Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan
1995- Professor of History, University of Michigan

Scholastic Awards and Grants ; Hudson Research Professorship, Winter, 2003 ; Award for Research in Turkey, May, 1999, International Institute, U-M ; Research Excellence Award, College of LSA, U-M, August, 1997 ; OVPR and LSA Faculty Assistance Fund Grants, June, 1995 ; LSA Faculty Assistance Fund Grant, March 1994 ; Rackham Research Partnership, 1992-93 ; National Endowment for the Humanities, Jan.-June, 1991 ; Office of the Vice-President for Research, U-M (Pakistan), Summer 1990 ; Horace H. Rackham Faculty Grant, Egypt, Summer 1988 ; SSRC/ACLS Post-Doctoral Award, England, Summer 1986 ; Fulbright-Hays Islamic Civilization Postdoctoral Award, Egypt, 1985-86 ; SSRC/ACLS Doctoral Fellowship, Pakistan, India, UK, 1981-83 ; Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Fellowship, India, 1982

and more, more, more....
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/jcpers.htm

That's an oversimplification, Nappy. It is not that the U.S. did not want elections, they didn't want them held before the proper infrastructure was in place. You can't just run off an hold an election willy nilly like Andy Hardy producing a musical with the neighborhood kids.
Wrong again Frogger.

"A prerequisite for Iraqi national elections in the "New Iraq" was the creation of an accurate Iraqi census. However, the New York Times reported on December 4, 2003 that "Iraqi census officials devised a detailed plan to count the country's entire population next summer and prepare a voter roll that would open the way to national elections in September. But American officials say they rejected the idea, and the Iraqi Governing Council members say they never saw the plan to consider it." [1]"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraqi_national_elections

Oh and if the US really cared about Iraq why did Bremer 1: install US puppets into key positions within the Iraqi government for 5 years and 2:install 100 laws that Iraqis cannot overturn that basically opens up their country into a free market wet dream:

#1
"Another device for maintaining control was Paul Bremer’s appointment of key officials for five year terms just before leaving office. In June 2004, the US governor ordered that the national security adviser and the national intelligence chief chosen by the US-imposed interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, be given five-year terms, imposing Allawi’s choices on the elected government. Bremer also installed inspectors-general for five-year terms in every ministry, and formed and filled commissions to regulate communications, public broadcasting and securities markets. (Washington Post, 27 June 2004, p. A01)"
http://vitw.org/archives/833

#2
"Order #39 allows for the following: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100 percent foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" of foreign firms; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses. Thus, it allows the U.S. corporations operating in Iraq to own every business, do all of the work, and send all of their money home. Nothing needs to be reinvested locally to service the Iraqi economy, no Iraqi need be hired, no public services need be guaranteed, and workers' rights can easily be ignored. And corporations can take out their investments at any time.
Order #40 turns the banking sector from a state-run to a market-driven system overnight by allowing foreign banks to enter the Iraqi market and to purchase up to 50 percent of Iraqi banks.
Order #49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40 percent to a flat rate of 15 percent. The income tax rate is also capped at 15 percent.
Order #12 enacted on June 7, 2003 and renewed on February 24, 2004, suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, and all other trade restrictions that may apply to such goods." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap consumer products, which has essentially wiped out all local providers of the same products. This could have significant long-term implications for domestic production as well.
Order #17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq 's laws. Even if they do injure a third party by killing someone or causing environmental damage such as dumping toxic chemicals or poisoning drinking water, the injured third party can not turn to the Iraqi legal system, rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts under U.S. laws.
Order #77 established the Board of Supreme Audit and named its president and his two deputies. The Board oversees inspectors in every Ministry with wide-ranging authority to review government contracts, audit classified programs, and prescribe regulations and procedures.
Order #57 created and appointed an inspector within every Iraqi Ministry with five-year terms who can perform audits, write policies, and have full access to all offices, materials, and employees of the Ministries."
http://teresaalsara.blogspot.com/2004/07/100-orders.html

Allawi was of course a CIA terrorist puppet who lied the US into this war (sound vaguely like some other ex-Iraqi leader yet?...)