CentralCaliBike said:People tend to be so focused on the US that they tend to forget the US is not alone in responding to Iraq - both Britain and Australia were involved at the outset and Italy has sent limited troops to Iraq in 2003 (and still has forces in the country).
Some of the most vocal opposition came from France who has a long standing colonial relationship with Iraq, that became an economic partnership in the 1970s (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31552) The partnership gained France much needed oil in exchange for nuclear power plant, military supplies, and chemical weapons. In fact France sold over 20 billion dollars worth of weapons to Iraq in the next 15 years.
There is a reason that Europe has had the opportunity to grow into the EU. After WWI, the European victors did nothing to bring Germany back into the mainstream of political discussion, in fact they did every effort to economically destroy the remaining pieces of the Austria-Hungary Empire. It was the US who insured the economic recovery of Western Europe following WWII. What most do not acknowledge is that the US military costs include those for the rebuilding (48 billion dollars from 2006 to 2008 alone http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-oe-bilmes15-2008aug15,0,110536.story).
I am not going to state that the US can do no wrong, but I do believe that many out there are not willing to recognize that others (Europe included) have their own responsibility for the Iraq wars.
I'm frankly at a loss for words. Australia? Britain? As if the political and moral responsibility for the debacle in Iraq isn't exclusivly wrapped up in the neocon ideology of "preventative war" of the Bush administration. To look for any other alternatrive as an alibi for one's own conscience, is either the fruit of a cynical and perverse patriotism, or sheer blind patriotic idiocy. All I can say is that your way of seeing things is simply surreal.
