posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:18 PM
I have read his posts and to be poilte I find him as confused as most neo cons that are merely walking mantra's.
The war was not needed, the recent justifications from WMD's, to getting Saddam, to spreading democracy, to fighting terror - each one came about
has the previous idea was shown to be a lie, and like a new born reaching for whatever bottle is close at hand the neocon's, and those that were
snowed by them, latched on to each new idea in order to justify their decisions, and or hide their shame from being tricked so easily by them.
Saddam was not a threat, and hasn't been since the US stopped arming him. If he ever was a threat it was because of the US, at the time of the
invasion he couldn't wipe his arse without someone knowing about it. No, I am afraid there is not one legitimate reason to go to war with Iraq other
than oil and a strategic centre, but both are for political purposes and not the official ones, and this too underlines the house of cards the neocons
You were lied to to beleive in a war, and then you were lied to to cover the lies of the starting of the war, then you were lied to about the reasons
for starting the war, and then you were given 5 or six different "possible" reasons(Because really, it was obvious that there was no real reason
capable of withstanding all the evidense) for use depending on which topic is being debated.
The war was wrong, Saddam was not a threat, he had no WMD's and he was obeying the UN directives to the standards that the UN requested(Which is
more than I can say for other countries including the US and Israel, as well as many other countries).