Wow, you are so blinded. Of course it was immoral, just as it would be immoral to object to ridding a country of a ruthless dictator for economic and power reasons.
It would be immoral for you not to object to the murder of over 10000 Iraqis for economic and power reasons. When you agree that it was for economic and power reasons, why do you not object?
How do you know what the Iraqi people wish for? Oh, I forgot! You are the official spokesman! I would suppose many of them are happy that Saddam is gone and now have the possibility to determine some part of their country's future.
I DONT know what the Iraqi people wish for and therefore I keep telling you to drop this issue about the BETTERMENT of the Iraqi people. Let me paste what I have said before:
Drop it because it is not for the US to decide, nor up to you or I. I dont see any betterment of Iraq, and frankly, I wont. Because Iraq is halfway across the world, CNN shows one thing, FOX another, Al-Jazeera another. So you'll never know, nor will I. Thats why, drop it. This point is very subjective. And only the Iraqi people will be the judge of that. And if they thought removing Saddam was for their betterment, they'd have done it. Dont say that they couldnt because Saddam was brutal. Iraqis are now fighting against the world's superpower, on the streets of Basra, Najaf, Baghdad, etc, etc.
Did you read the part about me saying neither you nor I will know about the betterment of Iraq? Your supposition dont translate into facts on the ground. You dont know it. I dont know it. So there is no argument about Iraqis being better off or not better off. For all I would know, all Iraqis might have gold toilet bowls by now. But maybe they wont call THAT being better off.
So you are denying that there are no foreign elements acting as insurgents in Iraq?
Did I? I thought I read you say the Iraqis tried standing up against Saddam?
Your logic is horrendous. You realized that you were wrong and now you have to ammend it to only fit your narrow criteria. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
You are wrong. I never heard an Iraqis cry in unison "Oh America, save us, save us". I have Iraqi friends here, and they're upset at US forces being in their country. Infact, they say Saddam was our problem, we'd have dealt with him. Are you an Iraqi?
Let's say that the US backs with directy military action a group of Iraqis that ruthlessly annihilate the population. Acccording to your wonderful logic, nobody should do anything about it. I love your logic.
Do you not understand that the US went at this alone (or what you call a "coalition")? Rwanda and Sudan had and have causes for military intervention, regardless of economic gain. Face it buddy, this war was for oil. We didnt go into Rwanda. And we didnt and arents doing anything about Sudan. France, Russia and Germany were not the only countries opposing the Iraq war. And they all opposed it because there was no grounds for it.
If (according to polls) 45% of Americans dont like Bush, would you like - lets say - Mr. Chirac coming in and bombarding the White House to please the 45% of Americans? I'd consider a loss of 1000 soldiers as genocide by George Bush. Hey, I bet the world would be more in consensus for that than they were for the Iraq war. And the world doesnt just mean Americans.
And wait till I actually thank you before welcoming me That time has yet to come.