[widebody911]

Originally posted by cmccuist
These arguments of "where are the WMD's" are valid and should be debated, but are irrelevant to the ultimate goal of defeating terrorists.
Wow, talk about moving the goalposts!
And spare me the arguement that there were no terrorists in Iraq - there were.

Assuming you're correct - so what? I'll bet you could find terrorists in every country in the ME, not to mention Eastern Europe. Conventional military actions are uselss against terrorists. Unless you're prepared to nuke the entire region as a form of terrorist 'chemotherapy', it's it's a pointless excercise.

Unless of course, you want their oil, then it makes perfect sense.

Why can't the left admit that there are positive developments in the region and that the US, Britain, Australia and the rest of the coalition in general and Bush in particular deserve some credit for it?!?
Is it really a positive development when it comes at the barrel of a gun, and said gun is the only thing maintaining it? I can put my 911 up on the lift; that doesn't mean it can fly - it's only in the air as long as I have the lift under it.

Are Iraqis really 'free' with American rifles pointed at their heads? No. Are they really a 'democracy' when their 'elections' take place under American martial law? No. The last thing the US wants in Iraq is a true democracy in Iraq; they'd vote us off the island in a heartbeat.

Is it worth it in terms of American lives and American taxpayer dollars (in the hundreds of billions) to forcibly impose a sham democracy on the unwilling?

Let's be realistic. There are lots of people across the world who want freedom. Always have, always will be. We can't afford to send hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to every corner of the world that wants to be 'free'. So what makes Iraq so deserving of US-granted "freedom"? Oh yeah, they're in the unfortunate circumstance of having their sand on "our" oil.