My point being that the US is telling the rest of the world we have to go to war with Iraq. Why?
Because Sadam supports terrorism, uses chemical & nuke weapons and is generally a bad guy.
I am just pointing out that the US has a few of the same skeletons in the closet.
The US government has supported & supplied terrorism, run drugs, used chemical & nuke weapons, encoraged a war for profit and rarely cleans up afterwards. You just don't hear about this part of the US's 'war on terrorism' on CNN.
The Machiavellian 'ends justifing the means' is an excuse for not doing the right thing (or sinking to the terrorists level).
In other words exactly what the US tells us Sadam has to be removed for.
I just think that you should see the whole picture before whole-heartedly accepting the validity of this conflict (or we will have another Vietnam).
Violence encorages terrorism, it can not cure it. Terrorism is a just a symptom of poverty. US$6.4 billion in aid, instead of bombs, would have ACTUALLY cured terrorism in Afghanistan without the 6000+ civillian casualties. Its hard to stir up the levels of intolerance and indignation necessary for suicide terrorism when everybody is fat, healthy and happy.
>>we supported Iraq against the commie's
The US supported Sadam against the commies. Maybe the commies would have been better.
And Fletch, silly me.
I should realise that the US is the incapable of doing wrong. The US can never make a mistake and we should sacrifice our children, money and futures, without question, whenever the US asks.
Excuse me for daring to question the US version of the truth. I forget that the freedom to question the status quo is only allowed if it does not make the US look bad.
