I need clarification wrote:

Zebco Fuckface wrote:

Yes, Bush is being a misleading fuckhead about the reasons; but kin the final analysis, big fucking deal. As long as Iraq gets to replace Stalin's Biggest Fan (I'm not making this up; he loves Stalin, and models himself after him) with a democracy, I don't really care about anything else.

It DOES matter why you invade a country, even if the "why" you're giving is for CNN's benefit and no one else's. We have made it absolutely clear to the rest of the world that we want Saddam Hussein out of power not because of the effect his regime has on his own populace, but the potential threat he is to "the United States and our allies." If we really cared about the Iraqi people, we would realize the sanctions we've imposed over the past ten years or so have not impacted Saddam's lifestyle at all, nor his ability to subjugate his people to his will, but HAVE made it impossible for him to build an army capable of defending his country while simultaneously depriving the general populace of even a subsistence-level existence. The message from day one has been that Iraq will bend to US will no matter who is in charge, and it's only if we feel like we're not getting 100% cooperation that we'll invade.

The reason this is important is what happens after we invade. It's one thing to talk about helping form the first Arab democracy in the middle east, but if what you really mean is another US-friendly regime (sort of like how Saudi Arabia is supposed to be), you're just asking for the exact same trouble twenty years from now, or maybe sooner.

So, if the Iraqi people are praying for a war because they think any alternative is better than Saddam Hussein, maybe they should visit South America sometime and see how good the US is at making things better for the various brown people of the world (to crib from George Carlin). I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying it's not at all the trump card you make out to be, the silver bullet that kills all the anti-war werewolves.