As athena92 might say, this is my opinion, so deal with it.

First off, Iraq. You really think what Bush did was for his father's reputation and oil? Oh, and NOT the fact that the United States was attacked by terrorists?

Okay, the thing about his father is true, but I don't think Bush would do that sort of thing just for his father right after the USA was attacked; he would have done it right after he got into office. You might say he was looking for an excuse, and 9/11 was the perfect one, but a war in Iraq needed to happen for a long time. This gave him the perfect opportunity, not the perfect excuse. It's the same thing with the oil. The oil was a plus, but that's not what Bush wanted to go in Iraq for!

Weapons of Mass Destruction is next on my list -- the article said that Iraq is way too poor to afford the equipment. WHAT?!?!?! Um, Iraq may have been poor, but Saddam Hussein was NOT. The article also said that if they had enough money for WMDs they would have enough money for medicine and food. Well, Saddam Hussein was evil enough to not care about the health and well-being of his people; all he wanted was to destroy.

I don't care if we EVER find Weapons of Mass Destruction there, I KNOW he had them. Just look at what he's done to people, then think about him having WMDs... it's not a far-fetched idea. Poverty, the economy, people getting laid off... yes, we are in a bad time. The economy is NOT good, and we DO have a big deficit... but what if we conquer terrorism? What will you think of Bush then? Think about it, that's a good use of money.

I understand that there will never "World Peace," but let's get rid of some of the evilness. 

Be thankful you don't live in Iraq (or if you do, be thankful we got rid of Hussein). Most Iraqi people have nothing, and you think WE'VE got a huge deficit? Remember, this is my opinion and you can tell me yours in the BBS (please not through Y-mail). Sure, maybe not all my facts are true, but this is what I've heard, and what I believe.

Lata,
Dream02
 

Editor's Note: Let's make sure we're all clear on this: No link has ever been proven between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists who attacked on 9/11.  In fact, experts on al-Qaeda say Osama bin Laden hated Hussein as much if not more than America, because Hussein ran his government without religion.  The invasion of Iraq is not connected to 9/11, except that the Bush Administration said Hussein was attempting to build nuclear weapons and other WMDs, which could be used by terrorists some time in the future to attack the U.S.

Now, as far as *knowing* something without proof -- do you think that American police should be able to arrest you because they *know* you've done something wrong, but can't prove it?  Should they be able to throw you in jail and find you guilty without having to show proof to a judge or a jury?

Now, maybe that metaphor doesn't accurately describe what the Bush Administration did in attacking Iraq without proving their case to the American public or to the world at large -- but can you explain why it does or doesn't fit?

Another incomplete metaphor: Should you be arrested because you own a gun that might be used in a crime some day?  Should you be arrested because you intend to get a gun some day?  On the other hand, there's certainly a difference between owning a gun and owning a nuclear weapon....  Or maybe somebody like Saddam wouldn't be allowed to buy a gun if he lived in the U.S., and that's a good thing....

Finally, what do you think causes terrorism?  What do you think of people who choose to shoot at an invading army from trees and rooftops?  Does that describe what Iraqis are doing now... or what Americans did against the British in 1776?  Of course the people who kill American soldiers in Iraq are not exactly like the American Revolutionaries of 1776; my point is, however, what's happening is not all black and white in any direction.