Of course not. We're doing it because we want to secure the safety of Americans (and others--but that wouldn't matter to you, presumably). And because doing so would save the poor oppressed people of Iraq, who, in contrast to Americans, really *are* oppressed. And because doing so would serve our economic interests. There are many reasons to get rid of Hussein. Do we have to have only one?

secure the safety of Americans? You are doing quite the opposite. Hussein has not been agressive for ... somewhat over ten years. Leaving him alone would not lead to agression against Americans. Attacking Hussein on the other hand, will most likely lead to retaliation from scattered groups. Thus, attacking Iraq, has nothing to do with protecting Americans.
Save the poor, oppressed people of Iraq can be no reason. If it were, the USA would have to remove a GREAT number of bad leaders around the world. And I am not claiming that the people of Iraq are not opressed compared to the USA.
There are not many real reasons for attacking Iraq, but there are very many pretend reasons. The only real reason I can see is oil.

And anyway, did you know that the U.S. Congress has (overwhelmingly) authorized Bush to use force in Iraq? Whatever you think of Bush personally, this is not some crusade just by him; most American lawmakers happen to agree with him that Saddam must go. Feel free to disagree with them, too, as long as you realize that that destroys your argument.

I get the impression taht the US congress will agree to just about anything in order to not seem "unamerican", and because none of them want the blame in case something were to happen if you did not attack Iraq.

Your memory is extremely faulty. Bush's father appointed only two Justices to the Supreme Court. One of them voted in favor of Gore. Also, not one of the Justices is, or was, a "buddy" of any President. And none of them was ever high up in any party. Maybe you should brush up a little bit on American politics.

I am sorry, I was in a country where there was really no access to American newspapers or any newspapers who covered the elections, and I base this on things I have read afterwards. If it is wrong, I am sorry.

I did not mean that they were high in any party, though, but that they were ... how to explain it... following the politics of the party in their rulings.

This man does not seem to be aware of the concept of reelection and the possibility of the American people NOT to vote for him a second time.{/QUOTE/QUOTE}

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that he plans to remain in office forever? That he's not actively trying to build up support for his re-election campaign? That there's some sort of plan to prevent elections in 2004? Again, you should cast off your veil of ignorance. Read some *American* newspapers; you might then acquire a clue.

What are you talking about? The comments in aero's link claimed that the only way to get rid of Bush was to assasinate him or make some sort of coup. I merely pointed out that not voting for him next time would also get rid of him. Why did you attack me over that?


Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat
Dissenting voice of wotmania
Frightfully stubborn pacifist

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent