
The U.S. and Chemical Weapons: No Leg to Stand On
The United States is in no position to take leadership in response to any use of such weaponry by Syria
The United States is in no position to take leadership in response to any use of such weaponry by Syria
An Argentinian fatwa, a blustering Saddam Hussein.
It didn’t take long for the world to recognize that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq constituted a “dumb war.” But dumb wasn’t the half of it.
If the United States cared so much about democracy in Iraq, why has it acted more like an occupying force in restricting the self-determination of Iraqi citizens?
President Bush speaks to the nation and FPIF’s Stephen Zunes speaks back to the president.
His rule was a travesty of justice. And so was his demise.
The White House promised a nonpolitical speech on 9/11. So why was the president talking about Iraq?
Iraqis must be valued for who they are, not as pawns in some partisan political agenda–left or right.
How oil interests obscured US Government focus on chemical weapons use by Saddam Hussein.
Only in the most direct sense is the Bush administration’s Iraq policy directed against Saddam Hussein.
It is difficult to argue that anything Roh does could place more tension on Seoul’s relationship with Washington than the Bush administration’s unilateral foreign policy.
On December 17, 2002, a long-delayed conference of the Iraqi opposition in exile concluded in London.