Again, Iraq broke the cease-fire, several times.

The invasion was not "a resumption of hostilities" and it didn't turn out to be overkill.

As for the illegality, in my experience it is always "against international law" to act against dictators while it is perfectly legal to slaughter one's own population. So please forgive me for not caring about "international law".

I am assuming that if there is a case to be made against the invasion it should be possible to make that case without changing the facts. Explain why the invasion is wrong while acknowledging that firing at US aircraft is a violation of the cease-fire and acknowleding that a majority of Iraqis just voted for the very man who gave the US and UK the information about the WMDs (Iyad Allawi) and we can talk.

Who cares whether YOU consider it an annoyance?

That's a lie.

Yes. And thousands have died under Saddam.

The point is that most of the "anti-war" crowd don't count Saddam's victims. Plus they made up the lie about the "hundreds of thousands" of victims that is simply not true.

If it were true (and you can do the maths and find out how many bodies they would have had to deal with to find out that it cannot be true) do you think Iraqis would now vote for exactly the parties that supported and invited the invasion?

Yes. He simply slaughtered those who weren't Arab and Sunni.

He knew.

He had a solution. I have seen it:

http://gallery.me.com/ajbrehm#100025&bgcolor=black&view=grid

Whether you agreed with Saddam's methods or not, I cried when I saw the cells the Kurds were kept in before they were transported to Abu Ghraib.

Actually, Bush was not at all ignorant of the country's demographics. He knew exactly that he could count on the Kurds and Shiites to support the invasion (which they did) and hew knew exactly where Saddam's supporters lived. American troops landed in Kurdistan before the invasion and helped the Peshmerga (Kurdish militia) with their final push against Kiruk and Tikrit.

Shortly after the invasion the Peshmerga (with American air support) also took out Al-Qaeda's base in Halabja. (Yes, Al-Qaeda had a base in Iraq and Saddam did protect them. You might think it was a lie that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda but he did.)

The fact that you disagree with the invasion does not make George W. Bush "ignorant of the country's cultural demographics".

No, there isn't. His party got a majority and it will take a big conspiracy theory to explain that away, especially since the previous government was more pro-Iranian than pro-American.

At some point liberals will just have to get used to the fact that the invasion was a success and that the Iraqis supported it.

Give it up.

Before Bush 43 the US were at war with Iraq.

After Bush 43 the US are allied with Iraq.

Despite what the sensationalist media claim (and in fact the worst lies do not even come from them but from conspiracy Web sites), the invasion went fairly well, certainly not worse than any other invasion of the magnitude.

It's easy to blame Bush and the invasion for terror attacks after the invasion. It's also easy to pretend that those same terror attacks didn't happen under Saddam, where the Iraqi government supported such attacks and the media certainly didn't report them.

But the fact is that Iraq is now an ally of the US and that Iraqis just elected a very pro-American government.

Incidentally, under Bush 43 the post-invasion government of Aghanistan was also completely loyal to the US. How long did it take Obama to change that?

Just days after meeting with Obama, Karzai, who has increasingly distanced himself from his U.S. backers, said that U.S. and NATO troops risked being seen as invaders rather than saviors of the country. In the speech, Karzai also delivered extraordinarily harsh criticism of the Western governments fighting in his country, the United Nations and the British and U.S. news media, accusing them of perpetrating a fraud that denied him an outright victory in last summer's presidential elections.

And Karzai has met with leaders of China and Iran, showing he has options for support from other countries.

http://www.startribune.com/world/89958247.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ

One year.

And no, this is not because Obama is more hawkish than Bush 43 and violence in Afghanistan has increased because of that. It's because the US are no longer perceived as a trustworthy ally. Middle-eastern allies have to look elsewhere for protection.

The same happened in Lebanon a short time ago when the Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, switched sides and now supports Hizbullah. Under Bush 43 he perceived the US and Saudi-Arabia as Lebanon's most trusted allies.

Meanwhile, the King of Jordan is trying to repair Obama's mess in Jerusalem:

"The economic challenges have also not helped in prioritizing the peace process," he noted. "Having said that, I know very well that Obama and his administration are extremely committed to the two-state solution and moving the process forward. But they've had other things to deal with."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3871919,00.html

Not that the King doesn't also lie a lot:

King Abdullah of Jordan on Wednesday urged the international community to intervene in order to prevent "Israel's provocative actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, which are intended to change Jerusalem's identity."

Abdullah met Wednesday afternoon with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, after which the royal palace issued a harsh condemnation against Israel.
 
"We cannot keep quiet in face of the Israeli steps that are meant to change the status quo in Jerusalem and cleanse it from its Arab citizens – both Muslims and Christian," the statement read.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3864228,00.html

He doesn't seem to remember that Jerusalem was a Jewish city before Jordan invaded it in 1948 or that the issue is not Israel cleansing Jerusalem of Arabs but the PLO's demand to cleanse the city of Jews.

But this is the usual strategy of the Arabs, I'm afraid. Try something and then accuse Israel of trying it.

In that case you shouldn't bother making assumptions about subjects you don't understand.

You can waste as much time studying actual history as you can reading conspiracy theories.

But the legend of Obama improving relations with US allies remains believed.

Is it actually impossible to disagree with everything Bush 43 did and recognise Obama is not exactly improving relations with US allies?

Will we even see Obama stand next to a British Prime Minister announcing common policy as equals?

I think if Obama ever stands next to the Russian Prime Minister announcing a common policy it will be Russia's policy.

A love fest.

Get a room.