Nonwithstanding other economic and idealistic reasons (both from US and France and who have you) i stand by the point that
a)the US blatantly lied about their reasons for attacking. Like i said, in se i don't have any problems with the war, but a charade like this is pretty stupid. Now, in his state of the union Bush more or less admitted that it was a big phoney reason, but that there were "components and plans to start producing WMD". Like someone said in the newspaper today: "A mighty vague argument. With a reasoning like that you could justify an attack on Vatican City, there's bound to be some material there that could be used in producing some kinda bomb." I find the Bush administration lying about WMD in Iraq way worse than clinton lying about his blowjob. If it happened under oath or not doesn't matter, that's a formality anyways. Like anyone these days tells the truth cos they have to swear on the bible lol. I'd be more inclined to tell the truth if it were "hustler" than the bible methinks, bible gives me too many wrong ideas.
So: Bush lies about a war which costs many ppl's lives, among which americans/Clinton lies about blowjob which costs no lives and suffering except to his wife.
b)"war doesn't prevent war. It only creates more war. And if we didn't at least learn that from the past, i don't know who or what will ever teach us."
Errol Morris (movie director)
By that quote i just wanna say that the current approach of the US is gonna backfire on no one else but theirselves in the end. And that the apparent belief that democracy can be "planted" in a country is a major delusion. Since there's a few ex-servicemen around here: you should know that every kind of occupation in history with the idea of planting a new government has miserably failed. Besides, Iraq, Syria, Iran and whatnot do not have a similar state structure as we do which makes it ten times harder to rebuild everything. The megalomaniac plan to civilize the middle-east is just totally bonkers and will only lead to móre terrorist threats. (that does not mean that the thought of improving the world isn't nice)
Ever wonder what would happens if the US later on loses some of its power? Think that everyone else will forget about "pre-emptive strikes"? I think not. The fact that it was done now on false grounds will open up all kinds of possibilities for less well-meaning nations to attack, for whatever reason.
India: "look, pakistan has a nuke that can hit us right in the face, let's take them out!" is pre-emptive strike too. And for a REAL reason.
As much as getting rid of Saddam is obviously ok, Iraq happened to be the most secular and structured state in the middle-east before the war, kinda passes by the point of fighting terrorism methinks. There was never any link proven between Saddam and Al quada; moreover, Saddam (especially in the first half of his rule) has always been a big enemy of muslim fundamentalists. Do you really believe he could have built out such a (in M-E terms) well-structured nation and stay in power for so long if he tolerated that kinda ppl to flourish?
