[imported_Fluffy_Bunny]

Originally Posted by negative

to not support the war is supporting terrorism (at least now, maybe not before the elections)--take note from the Brittish Antiwar leader who resigned on this principle

Saddam Hussein does not support Osama Bin Laden.

The War in Iraq- politically correct imperialism, Iraq has a lot of oil, we take out the Government and ruin the country there's lots of $£ to be made rebuilding it and there would be no economic sanctions to be made against a crackpot dictatorship, the trade would flow freely and the US economy which was in recession can recover. There were no WMD's, this was just an excuse to launch an illegal pre-emptive strike against Iraq. If we were really concerned about fighting terrorism there's a million and one other places we could have invaded instead of Iraq, it just so happens to be that a large number of those million and one places do not have as much oil. There could be terrorists in Angola, the country is floating on oil, and a thousand times more corrupt than Iraq was, it could provide a safe haven for anyone on the run. But Fundamentalist Christians don't think the antiChrist will rule from Luanda, they think he will rule from Bagdad, and neocon Jews don't care squat for Black countries; to them it's all "zululand".

I sometimes wonder why we didn't invade Iran instead as they probably have closer ties with terrorists and have more evidence of WMD. I think I may have accidentally stumbled over Bush's foreign policy with this thought because Bush knew that Iraq didn't have any WMD's so decided to take over. But he wasn't sure if Iran had any, so he was catious not to provocate the disaster.