It has become clear that the Prime Minister has decided to defy public opinion, international law and the will of the international community, to join hands with the United States in launching an attack on Iraq within the next few days that will undoubtedly kill thousands of innocent civilians.

The appeals for peace and the calls to spare the lives of Iraqis who have for long suffered as a result of our short-term self-serving foreign policies, seem to have fallen on deaf ears. The chance to turn away from war and violence has been wasted, and as a result a more dangerous and destabilised world is in our midst.

by Charles V. Peña

Charles V. Peña is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an axis of evil, "arming to threaten the peace of the world." The charge leveled at those countries concerned their development of weapons of mass destruction and whether "they could provide these arms to terrorists." From the start, North Korea was the "odd man out" because it had little in common with the other two axis members. Now that the war in Iraq is ending, it's clear who the real axis of evil is: Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

The impending invasion of Iraq is seen as a crusade against Islam, says Sheema Khan

“A History of Terrorism,” the title of a current exhibit at Harvard’s Lamont Library, provides much food for thought. Probing the maxim “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” it asks viewers to consider why relatively small-scale terrorist attacks are strongly condemned, while acts such as the Second World War firebombing of Dresden and the use of the atomic bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki are often considered justified.

Andrew Gumbel, The Independent

After three weeks of war, after the capture of Baghdad and the collapse of the Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction — those weapons that President Bush, on the eve of hostilities, said were a direct threat to the people of the United States — have still to be identified.

Many influential people have begun to wonder aloud if the weapons exist at all.

Rupert Cornwell, The Independent

It’s over, and mercifully faster than most of us dared imagine. But the devastating military campaign to remove Saddam Hussein has raised more questions than it answers. The categorical assertions the war camp used to justify the invasion have yet to be substantiated. But so too have many of the forebodings of those who opposed it. Is the world a safer or more dangerous place? The short answer is, no one can say.

Hussein Ibish, LA Times

If concern is growing that ideological convictions at the Defense Department resulted in costly miscalculations regarding the war in Iraq, even greater alarm is warranted by glaring missteps in the preparation for what comes after the war. Take, for instance, the political profile of the man tapped to lead the occupation, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner.

By Christopher Scheer, AlterNet, 27 June 2003

"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons." – George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.

There is a small somber box that appears in the New York Times every day. Titled simply "Killed in Iraq," it lists the names and military affiliations of those who most recently died on tour of duty. Wednesday's edition listed just one name: Orenthial J. Smith, age 21, of Allendale, South Carolina.

Why Are We Here?

by David Corn

George’s reasons for wanting to topple Saddam, to protect America. To disarm a madman. To topple a tyrant. To secure oil. To liberate a repressed people. To bring democracy to a region. To impose a Pax Americana. To reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. To bolster Israel. To thwart the threat of potential terrorism. To get even. To do something.

All of these motivations — held in varying combos by different players within the Bush administration and within the pro-war cheering section outside government — have coalesced since 9/11 to create perfect-storm conditions for war against Iraq.

by Linda S Heard, Gulf News, 4/8/03

"Village by village, city by city, liberation is coming," said George W. Bush during a recent radio address. I assume this was designed to suffuse the listening American public with pride in the "altruistic" war being waged on behalf of the Iraqi people. It chilled me to the core.

This invasion was never previously touted as one of liberation. It was supposed to be about the disarming of Saddam Hussain from his weapons of mass destruction. But the Bush/Blair combo is already hedging its bets.

A comprehensive list of articles on the very latest analysis, views and news on this so-called war of liberation in Iraq:

1. On to Damascus?

http://motherjones.com/news/warwatch/2003/14/we_345_04.html#one