This book starts off by slamming G.W. Bush, his father and even negatively mentions Ronald Reagan. I expected an objective view and facts but instead read stretched accusations and political conspiracy theories. This book should instead be titled "Bush vs. Saddam, A biased view from the liberal media". If you want a laugh then this book is for you. If you want the real truth about Iraq then look somewhere else.

Unfortunately, I must respectfully agree with Mr. Hale's review of this book. As a former Iraqi citizen, I see the atrocities committed in my country. I have no American political party or affiliation. I just know what I saw and lived in Iraq.

I am a political science student writing a paper on the current situation in Iraq. I purchased this book thinking that it would be a fair and balanced read on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It was not.The book took a liberal view on everything it said. Of course, on the back of the book it says it is an in-depth, unbiased book. In-depth, yes. This book is full of useful resources that can help anyone understand Iraq and the US war on Iraq. But, although the book gives both sides of the story, it pays more attention to the left-wing views. When the book does talk about conservative views, it does it very biasly. It is very condescending. One can easily tell that the Reuters authors are all left-wing.

Overall, the book is very informative, but if you are looking for an unbiased book on Iraq, look elsewhere.

I'm sorry to say, but this CD-ROM is simply disappointing from a military-historian point of view. 545 MBytes of the 576 MBytes of data is an off-line version of the GulfLINK web page, which is focused on the Gulf War Illnesses. The remaining data are some interviews, some maps, some photos/artwork and the electronic version of "The Whirlwind War". For a CD-ROM that is centred on the history of the Gulf War this is simply not enough. There is another edition from the same publisher centred only around the Gulf War Illnesses for those who seek such information, so there was no need to recycle this data here on this CD-ROM and leave out all those other official important documents about the history of the Gulf War.

These are certainly excellent and useful maps, but this CD is [not worth the $$$] This is a CDR, not a commercial-type CD ROM. It looks like someone recorded it at home. Further, all of thees maps are public domain and available for no charge at the US Military Academy's site...Don't make the mistake of paying [$$$] like I did.

Do not buy this book. Period. Worse than useless, it will actually distract you from answering the question posed by the title. More to the point, it's full of disinformation.

I was hoping _But Was It Just_ would be a highly informative debate about the war. Instead, the book turned out to be very scant on facts, filled abstract vague generalizations and hypothetical examples of what might be considered just in the abstract philosophical sense of the term.

You might find this book interesting if you care what Saint Thomas Aquinas said about just warfare, but who in their right mind would defer to the six moral criteria of jus ad bellum when evaluating an international conflict? These are ivory tower issues that have nothing to do with the Gulf War in specific, nor justice in general (according to most people).

That said, when the book does attempt to paint an objective picture of what happened, it fails miserably. "The bombs were 'smart' and the pilots morally sensitive.... And it does appear that direct civilian casualties were kept fairly low: in this sense, at least, the air war was unprecedented." What a load of balderdash.

The truth is, the air war was devastating. As William Blum shows in _Killing Hope_, Operation Desert Storm was the equivalent of a desert holocaust. Thousands of civilians were killed - smartly or otherwise - and the motives were downright dirty. Black gold dirty. Says George Bush, "Our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom, and the freedom of friendly countries around the world still suffer if control of the world's great oil reserves fell in the hands of that one man, Saddam Hussein" (Blum, 1995).

Other critics of the war, like Noam Chomsky, have also laid out serious indictments of American motives. In _Rogue States_ Chomsky provides solid evidence that top U.S. officials were giving Iraq mixed signals, most likely in an attempt to nettle a Kuwait invasion. However, a discussion of motives can only lead us so far in understanding the (in)justice of the Gulf War. One must also pay close attention to actual consequences that ensued.

As this book was written 1992, discussion concerning U.S.-imposed sanctions is not up-to-date. Currently, these sanctions have lead to the death of over 1.5 million civilians (500,000 of those being children under the age of five). There is also no discussion of depleted uranium radiation illness, which has caused Iraq's leukemia rates to skyrocket into the number one slot. See _Iraq Under Siege_ for a thorough discussion of these issues.

If you are interested in learning about the Gulf War, which is in my opinion the first step in assaying whether or not it was just, _Was It Just?_ is of no help. This book is little more than a distraction. Would have given it zero stars if the program allowed.

In the end I am left to wonder, is this perhaps one of the many books the CIA publishes every year in an effort to convince the nation its foreign policies is legit?

I have to confess I didn't get beyond the first map on page 9. That's because the map of the U.S. on that page has the following states bordering the Gulf of Mexico to the west of Georgia: 1) Atlanta, which looks oddly like Alabama; 2) Alabama, which borders the Mississippi River; and 3) Mississippi, which borders Texas.

These simple and obvious mistakes did not inspire confidence in me for the rest of the maps on which I might not so easily spot the mistakes. Therefore I put this book aside and told my nine-year old that it was unreliable.

Cary

I do not have this book so have to read it because of the resarc

Unfortunately, Dr. Livingston studied the plant nutrients, nitrogen and phorphorus, but ignored the real problem in Perdido Bay - organic enrichment from the paper mill. Dr. Livingston studied Perdido Bay for eleven years and never found that the 5,000 to 6,000 pounds per day of solids that the paper mill discharges into Perdido Bay were having any effect. Rather he concentrated on a much lesser problem of nutrients. Yes, there was and still is eutrophication in Perdido Bay but most of the problem is from paper mill solids.

The problem with this book starts with the title and applies to the whole. The Gulf Crisis began well before August 30, 1990. To completely ignore the Invasion of August 2, 1990, which was extremely significant and traumatic for those of us stuck in Kuwait, if inconvenient and embarrasing to many in D.C., is typical of superficial and sometimes deliberately misleading treatments rushed out by very many twits since then. The Gulf Crisis began well before August 2, 1990 even and any book purportedly dealing with the topic must include the Rumailah Oilfield Agreement, the Saddam-Bush connection from back-when, April Glaspie's communications and detailed eye-witness reports from those inside Kuwait at the time. This book lacks detailed, documented information from the ground, not even what is found in Heikal's excellent book. And I couldn't find even the Freedom of Information Act used once! The total dependence on British soldiers to stand with GPS equipment near targets being hit with "smart" missiles is similarly missing as is the murder on Abdali Road of hundreds of kidnapped Kuwaiti civilians and the pressure from Riyadh to keep Saddam in power in Baghdad. This book is superficial junk, mildly interesting perhaps for people without a clue. They are better advised to read Heikal's book for REAL day-to-day stuff, Kenneth Timmerman's superlative 'The Death Lobby' for Iraq and David Yallop's excellent 'To The Ends of The Earth' for background.

Zahlan covers the history of the Gulf states with special emphasis on the history of the various monarchical families. Sadly, her attitude is unflinchingly fawning; she seems afraid to say one negative thing about these countries and their economic and political challenges. As well, the writing style is very dry and wooden. Her bias is symbolized by one of the maps showing the UAE as extending westward all the way to Dawhat as Salwa, at the southwest base of Qatar. This reflects absurdly ambitious territorial claims of the UAE at a time when the Saudis have claimed the coast in the vicinity of Khawr Duwayhin, southeast of Qatar. This map is emblematic of the book's flaws. A much better book despite its age (1980) is 'Arabia, the Gulf, & the West' by J.B. Kelly.