l'problem

classic debate going on via TV, radio, or dinner table. DAD: "getting rid of saddam was good cus he tortured people and stuff." DAUGHTER: "Yeah but that's not why we did it because this administration supports plenty of regimes who violate human rights Uzbekstan, the Pakistanistan and the Saudia Arabia come to mind. Dubya's dad and granddaddy reagan himself used to supported Saddam, and he was no saint even back then." DAD: "So does that mean getting rid of an evil dictator is bad? Of course not, doing so is always good and not supporting the war means your believe Saddam's oppression was OK." That's usually where a commercial break or dessert comes in. Why is it a problem that the us is hypocritical? Anybody? The answer could be a 50 page thesis, so try to expand this stuff internally: bias proves that all the bad shit saddam did was neither a necessary nor sufficient cause for our attacking him. therefore it is obvious to everyone world wide that this is not the cause of the PRE-EMPTIVE attack. since the true cause is not clearly articulated by the president it leaves everyone who already fears the us as a super power to imagine it for themselves. many will imagine that it was a grab for oil, cronyism for bush's friends, religious ideology, or whatever. This is what people worldwide will think, whether or not these are true reasons is, for the sake of this argument, not important. Many people will use these possible causes to galvanize people for their own purposes (to recruit terrorists, for example). in the modern interconnected world where we are still quite vulnerable in many ways this kind of poor statesmanship puts US citizens directly in danger. And for that we're killing out soldiers, and iraqis (how many?) and paying billions.