I am not a democrat, not even a republican, but this war is ridiculous. Loss of life is not even the reason. America, including myself, has made Iraq the main focus on our war on terrorism. This is no longer a war on terrorism this is a war of economic interest for America. We made our main focus on Iraq when there are far greater threats out there, but we will not mess with these countries because they can bring nothing for us. This is a horrible reason to start a war, but yet again our great country has succeeded at doing it again. Hint....Vietnam!(which this war we are fighting now is just like
a horrible war we fought 40 some years ago)and yes we may not lose as many soldiers as we did in Vietnam, but that one soldier to that one family is reason enough.

It's as good a place as any to start.

Prove that we invaded for economic reasons.

Oh...you mean like Kosovo. Yeah, we got lots of economic benefit from them.

This isnt Vietnam...we've already won. Saddam is deposed. A democracy was installed in his place. These Viet-nam parallels are getting tedious. The whole nation can see the difference...thats why Bush got re-elected.

[color=red][color=red]This isnt Vietnam...we've already won. Saddam is deposed. A democracy was installed in his place. These Viet-nam parallels are getting tedious. The whole nation can see the difference...thats why Bush got re-elected.[/quote]

We have not won yet "oh enlightend one" we are still fighting and taking out saddam was only one of our goals we are still fighting and losing soilders. now we are just sitting ducks helping out a country that we should never be fighting anyway. Iraq has never been hostile to us without us attaking them first.

You dont need to refer to me by my title. Sadistic-Savior will do.

Please post evidence that we are still fighting Saddam. Last I heard he had been captured months ago. His government has been dissolved. He no longer rules the country.

But please feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

We were never fighting the Iraqis. We were fighting Saddam's government.

Helping out the Iraqis was not the reason we invaded.

Non-democracies have no right to exist.

Actually, from this point of view (supporting terrorism) Iraq is a very bad place to start. We have discussed this subject before, and at least IMO there was very weak if insignificant connection with Iraq and Al'Queda.

And what in hell you mean by starting? Does war against terrorism mean a real and continuous war against ME coutries? I thought it was a 'new kind of war'. A war against ideologies and terrorists instead of nations...

But if it will continue, I hope that the next country will be Sudan. It is just my small personal wish.

And now prove that you invaded it for freedom and liberty.

As long mind reading is not possible we have very few ways to verify one's claimed interests, but the cabinet filled with oil industry people, a land floating on oil and U.S traditionally kept interests in the M.E and it's oil raises certain questions. (And then there is the increasing oil prices and the oil produces current inability to support the ever-growing demand)

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

So what? Like Al-Quaeda is the only terrorist netowrk in the world?

It is called the War on Terror....not the War on Al-Quaeda.

Any government that collaborates with terrorists is a target.

Only the ones that collaborate with terrorists. Does that include all ME countries?

When did I imply differently?

I am sure they are on the list somewhere. Non-democracies have no right to exist.

When did I claim we invaded for freedom and liberty?

We invaded for selfish reasons....to remove a threat to us. Freeing the Iraqi masses was a nice side beneift and something we wernt required to do. Carpet bombing the country would have been far cheaper and easier....and probably more effective in the short term resulting in fewer American deaths.

Translation: "I have found the Bush Administration guilty of things that cant be proven".

Sorry, what I really meant 'IMO there was very weak if insignificant connection with Iraq and any terrorist organization' or let's say - Iraq did not posses thread towards U.S.A or West throught terror.

I hardly see connection with Iraq and terrorism. Afganistan - OK. Afganistan was a logical step. Iraq.. what the hell?

If the terrorism link need to be so week as it was with Iraq, I doubt any ME country is safe with the exception of Israel. Anyway - clearly - the biggest supposters for the terrorism are private people and organizations - not goverments. And if goverment can be blamed for private sector supporters for terror, then yes - no ME country is safe. I'm actually starting to feel nervous in here Europe..

I hope you can understand the following.. There is barely ever things in the real life, that can be unambigiously proven - NEVER.

I you claim I don't have evidence - well. What I mentioned was already evidence. It was evidence of motivation and I say, it is very clear evidence. Also there is the evidence of action. What they have done, is that they have invaded the second biggest oil country in the world. There is evidence of motivation and there is evidence of fullfilling this motivation. In a way - it all makes sence..

Tell me.. If a rich old man is murdered, and his only inheritant is a convicted felon desperatly needing money, then - can we blame the felon. He has the motivation and with no doubt he has the ways.. Would you blame the felon?

With this kind of crimes, the murder weapon might be never found. In this way it resembles politics - we might never find the hard evidence. That's why we must have courage to draw conclusions from what we have and what we see. You didn't demand hard evidence with the case of Saddam. Can you demand hard evidence in the case of this?

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

Most of us were unwilling to take your word for that.

Saddam did have a history of collaborating with terrorist groups.

I havnt heard any accusations against Egypt lately.

They can only be blamed if they deliberately sancion it. Refusing to take action against terrorists = deliberate sanction.

Not without evidence.

We dont convict people of crimes based on suspicion alone.

I have already admitted a double standard. Despots are guilty by default...they have to prove their innocence. We gave him that opportunity.

There is no moral equivilancy. You people want to treat Bush and Saddam as equals. They are not equals.

I have to admit, that there has to be double standards. But I have a different opinion about how these differencies in standards must be applied..

There are different standards for different worlds. The other world is the judical world, where we have a society, a leviathan (goverment) and an ideal of moral and justice.. In this world, we may very well demand hard evidence to guarantee that no injustice is made. In this world the crimes are usually very unambigous and clear, and they can be detected and connected to the criminals.. This clarity and unambigiousness is actually a very fundamental requirement for the judical system.

On the other hand, the other world is the world without leviathan, where we are alone as individuals, and where we must make our decisions with the information what we have and the ways what we have.. The reason why the leviathan is not involved might be that there is no judical system that takes responsibility or is able to take resposibilty for the judgement.. The leviathan might simply not be exist, or the justice system might unpractical and unusable to be used with the situation. The case might be ambigous and it might be connected more with the motivation of some action than any measurable and observable action. With the case there might not be any hard evidence exist - at all..

Still we were talking about the actions of the world's only superpower and its leader. This has a huge, huge importance. We - as people - are the ones to judge them for their decisions and actions and for this reason we must be able to make decisions and draw conclusions. If we cannot get hard evidence, we must accept it as a reality. When we see this kind of very clear signs (like oil connections), we should at least start to ask questions and demand explanations. With issues of this importance we cannot simply wait for the hard evidence. For I can guarantee that when you start waiting, you might just wait it to the end of your life.

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]