I was hoping the anti-war crowd would respond in some way. Doesn't look like they have an answer for me...
You got to give us time you know.....1/2 hour?....
Of course it wasn't for Oil, solely. It was for humanitarian purposes, sort of. I mean, Saddam did have a bunch of mass graves of his own people, and only normal that we had to stop him, someone had to anyway.....I can't argue that point. But not only was Saddam killing his people, he was also controlling Iraq's oil, and keeping the cash for himself, just like all the leaders of those nations surrounding Iraq. And since we are in an energy crisis, we can't totally put aside the argument that maybe our leaders, who so happen to be in the energy business, were motivated by gain....and not just the humanitarian side of the issue.
But ask yourself this, when will you realize...as a pro war advocate....that you are generating as many deaths as Saddam has. For humanitarian purposes, shouldn't you side step to save a few lives, sort of like back off, to see what would happen if you did?
It is becoming evermore obvious that trying to fight terrorism with violence doesn't work and doesn't stop violence. So what's the plan now?
As I look at all of this as an "arm chair general", like most of us internet junkies are, regardless of our position, I'm trying to figure out why those people are fighting, and fighting back even more feverishly. Do they know something that I don't? Maybe the donkeys will be able to provide some intelligence on the matter.
This is taking on a dangerous religious twist. Maybe that's what it was all along.
Personally I think it's all about money, and who will control it, and be able to pocket it. And you don't have to be a dictator for that to happen. I don't see any leader on the front lines of this war. They surround themselves with so much security it's almost ridiculous, you have to wonder if they truly believe in their ideologies. Why is it so important to protect the life of any leader, Bush or Blair included? What does it mean for them to give your life for what you believe, isn't it what they ask of their own young men: To show up at the enemies' door unprotected. Why should it be any different for them? Are they so egomaniatistic as to believe that life can't go on without them? And if they really believe that what they are doing is "the right thing to do", well then they should've been the first ones to knock on the next tyrants door to reason with them. And if that didn't work and got killed in the process, well then they would be hailed as a true supporter of freedom, and well just move on to elect another president or prime minister to keep the fight for freedom going.
Because they ask other men to do their bidding, and over protect themselves with your tax dollars, is the reason why I believe their motives are not what they tell us to be. So I have to conclude that they are in it for the money, just like any man who over protects himself is in it for the money, otherwise they'd be on the front lines fighting for freedom themselves, willing to put their lives on the line for what they believe. I'm sure they had a cute little party there in Buckingham, the Queen even cracked open a vintage bottle of wine. They are as guilty as Saddam (having a party in their castles while others get killed). What a bunch of hypocrites.