Realist from 170,000 down to 10,000 see the progress we are making. Now remember hun we are still on the museum we need to work through this to help you come back to reality. I can't do it for you but I also know that you can't do it alone. I'm here for you.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-060503B
here are some clips
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is true - that the Bush administration told a big whopping lie about its motive(s). Does this show that the war was unjustified? Not at all. First, motives are not reasons. A badly motivated person can do the right thing (by accident, as it were), just as a well-motivated person can do the wrong thing. That this is so is reflected in a number of common sayings, such as "It's the thought that counts," "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," and "You did the right thing for the wrong reason." The first two suggest that the act is wrong but well-meaning, the third that the act is right in spite of its poor or improper motivation.
Third, suppose President Bush in fact had no reputable motive in going to war. Suppose he had only disreputable motives, such as defending his daddy's honor. Does this show that the war is unjustified, morally speaking? Again, the answer is no. Justification is objective; motivation is subjective. The war can be justified as an act of self-defense or liberation of a people (to name just two of many justifications) even if the person waging the war doesn't understand it in those terms - even if he or she doesn't view those as justifications. For consider: Either there is a justification for the war (objectively speaking) or there is not. If there is, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. If there isn't, then it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush. Either way, it doesn't matter what motivated President Bush.
As far as the justification of war in Iraq is concerned, President Bush's motives are irrelevant. Why, then, has the public debate focused so sharply, to the point of harping, on his motives? Why the constant refrain to the effect that the war is "about oil" or a way to "finish what his father started" or an attempt to "distract attention from the economy"? I have racked my brain for an answer to this question. I believe it is one part hatred of the president and all that he stands for, and one part confusion. The philosopher, qua philosopher, can deal with the latter. Perhaps a psychotherapist will have to be called in to deal with the former.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and Humanities, The University of Texas at Arlington.
Did you read that Bush haters? Psychotherapy is available to help you with your illness. This will clear the way to help you with your confusion.
I would like to add on the above link there is an opinion poll which shows that a massive 87% of respondences state that the US had justification to invade Iraq. Now this should close this matter with Simon for all time the poll states that the US was justified. Case closed.