The world changed after 9/11. Saddam Hussein had defied the United Nations and the international community for years. Even President Clinton had said that eventually we would have to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The international community and intelligence agencies of foreign nations believed that he had biological, chemical, and potentially nuclear material. At the end of the day, the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. At the same time - I think Iran was a bigger threat and think that it would have been a wiser decision to liberate Iran as Iranians are secular, not divided into major ethnic groups like in Iraq, and simply are not fundamentalist like the Arab Muslims. The aftermath of Iran would have been nearly bloodless. The terrorists who infiltrated Iraq from other Arabic nations would not have been able to infiltrate into Iranian society.
And to note: just because Bin Laden and most of the terrorists were Saudi does not mean the Saudi government was involved. The Saudi government was very much trying to get rid of Bin Laden and his Saudi network.
May I ask, have you read Lawrence Wright's, "The Looming Tower"??
Butterfly, I agree with a lot of your assessment. Unfortunately, we made mistakes in the past in regards to our policy with Iraq and other foreign policy decisions; but past mistakes are no reason to delay further action. Saying this, I have said over and over it would have been preferable to liberate Iran as the Islamic Republic is a bigger threat as they are religious madmen and are involved in the most diverse array of terrorist financing/attacks worldwide. Iran would have been much easier as well as Iranians (the populace) are not religious, pro-American, and not ethnically in conflict with each other like that in Iraq with the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds. The aftermath would not have been bloody like Iraq as Arabic Islamists would not infiltrate into Iran for 2-reasons: 1) They hate Persians and Shiites, 2) Arabs can't infiltrate into Iranian society undetected; saying this, the world is a better place without Saddam although Iran should have been the country instead and we would have pressured Saddam into most likely complying with both Iran and Afghanistan having U.S. bases and troops.
I will respond further to the rest of your post hopefully later tonight. I have class soon and I am just finishing up some of my studying. :)
BTW, oil may have been one benefit to conflict but it was by no means the decision maker for the conflict. There were a multitude of reasons involved. And, sanctions were necessary. Blame Saddam for acting fraudulently against the oil-for-food program which was designed to help the Iraqi people.
sassan you are the one who is making a claim that bush was influenced only by foreign policy in his decision to attack iraq. butterfly has shown you evidence to the contrary. if you google it you can find thousands of references to the depth of bushes belief in god. your position is not common knowledge. it is uncommon, and flies in the face of reality.
also please lets discuss idea and refrain from the silly, childish personal attacks.
Third-rate sources from members of the PLO are not credible sources. Bush's belief in god may have strengthened his resolve and as I stated, had a vague idea he was doing "god's work" by liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from oppressors and tyrants by helping those people and bringing democracy to the region; but there is absolutely no evidence that his foreign policy decisions were influenced by his faith. Again, watch the Bill Clinton videos above and see what he states in regards to Saddam Hussein. Was he too a "Crusader" influenced by "god"?
And I apologize for going over-the-top with the personal characterizations but you are anti-American and it is shameful for you calling our nation the "biggest terrorist". That says a lot about you and your values (or lack of).
man, bush expressed his profound and deep belief many many times. further, he claimed to have a direct connection to god and that god directed his every action. google it!!!!
once again, you call me anti -american.this is, as i have told you, an impossibility. i am an american. adding anti or pro to this word makes it meaningless. i am against or for many policies of my government directly because i am an american. if i was not an american i wud not feel any responsibility for the actions of the US government. it is my duty, as an american, to express myself and let my opinions be known. this is known as patriotism.
on the other side, the side of agreeing with whatever policy your government follows, what do we find in the world? there are many governments, as you yourself have expressed, in which everyone agrees with their government. one such government was iraq under saddam hussein.
when i say we are the biggest terrorist, i'm right, we are. this is a fact. terror is the use of indiscriminate force. we, my country is, in recent years, the biggest user of indiscriminate force. i, directly because i am an american, am bound by my duty to my constitution to speak out against these actions by my government. how can this be "shameful". america is not a dictatorship because of me and other americans who have, thruout our history, expressed opinions that some did not like. remember the oft-repeated quote "i may disagree with what you say, but i will die to defend your right to say it"
please forgive me for thinking you meant what you said when you said "pres bush was a secular president who made his decisions based on foreign policy, not religion" for ypur information, the main reason pres clinton didnt use troops against iraq or afganistan was the loud shouts from the republican party that "we are not the worlds police force". it was all he cud do to bomb the serbs into compliance with the UN. butterfly is right about oil being a big reason for us attacking iraq. but the neocons were in power uder bush and they knew that they would be able to funnel money in vast quantities to their friends in halliburton and carlisle etc, in a war, which has caused our near national bankruptcy. of course saddam was a murdering dictator, but so are many of our friends, like the suadi kings and the emirs in the emerites, not to mention the terribly repressive african dictators.
i remain happy we haven't attacked iran and i hope we never do. the thing is my country the US is not good at building other nations, we seem to have developed an idea that all of our national quirks are necessary for democracy, and lost our principles. if the iranian people decide they want a more representative, secular government they will have my support, but i'm afraid it has to be the iranian people who will have to do it, not us
ok sassan so you think our country did not bomb iraq? please just google numbers of people killed in the iraq war.
to return to the topic, actually i havent seen christians granting free passes to paradise to other christians who die in our wars. so i believe i can see an difference there between the two religions