Kerry-Edwards (please no)

[Daevren]

I don't understand why the media and the intellectuals let Bush go with those things. If the people don't know what is going on how can they descide who to vote for?

I get all your points, I just don't get why in a democracy this can happen. And why the Bush supporters don't want to know why Bush really went to Iraq. If god told him Ok, If Cheney/Wolfo/Rummy told him, ok, if he doesn't know, ok. But why doesn't no one demand an answer. He should be forced to answer.

Isn't he responsible?

[xvimbi]

But why doesn't no one demand an answer. He should be forced to answer.

Listen to his speeches; what I wrote in my previous post is his answer. People do ask, and he does answer.

[dinosaurtales]

We invaded Iraq to eliminate one of the key sources of terror activity in the middle east, as well as introduce democracy in that area and hopefully break up the groundswell of UNDIRECTED hate that has been building up for some time.  It would be very bad if all the middle east countries were to band together in a collaborative effort of some kind.  Iraq, being int he middle of it all, and host to Saddam, was an excellent choice to start breaking it up.  It's a long term strategy thing.

[Daevren]

But Saddam didn't have anything to do with Al Quada and he didn't had WMDs. And Bush knew this when he started the war and now we all know it.

And I don't understand how one can introduce democracy. And if they came there to bring democracy only then why didn't they have a plan? Why did they fire everyone in the police and the military?

"and hopefully break up the groundswell of UNDIRECTED hate that has been building up for some time."

What are you talking about?

[xvimbi]

We invaded Iraq to eliminate one of the key sources of terror activity in the middle east, as well as introduce democracy in that area and hopefully break up the groundswell of UNDIRECTED hate that has been building up for some time.  

It would be very bad if all the middle east countries were to band together in a collaborative effort of some kind.  Iraq, being int he middle of it all, and host to Saddam, was an excellent choice to start breaking it up.  It's a long term strategy thing.

There is soooo much wrong with this type of attitude, it's not funny anymore. First of all, it is not "introducing" democracy. It is "forcing" democracy. Furthermore, there is no precedent that forcing a nation to adopt democracy has ever worked, no matter how hard the British (to name one example) tried. In fact, no forcing of any culture on a nation has ever worked. Even if a nation had the desire to adopt democracy instead of their current regime, the transition was extremely painful and in the case of Russia, it is still far from being completed. And those people really wanted democracy; there was no hatred against the ones who were "introducing" democracy to them.
The situation is completely different in Iraq. There are only two conclusions: 1. the Bush administration really was so dumb to assume that it would work. 2. There is a different reason they invaded.

The hatred was not UNDIRECTED. If anything at all, it is now even more DIRECTED. US reputation in foreign countries is at an all-time low. Hatred is now focused on the US, and it has amplified. Israel has just been dragged into the whole mess. Who knows how the Iran situation will turn out. Really nice going. That must be one clever long-term strategy.

[lingshu8]

it is not "introducing" democracy. It is "forcing" democracy. Furthermore, there is no precedent that forcing a nation to adopt democracy has ever worked, no matter how hard the British (to name one example) tried. In fact, no forcing of any culture on a nation has ever worked.

Much of the intellectual justification for the war has come from the writings of Bernard Lewis, a professor at Princeton.  His writings on the Middle East and Muslim culture have inspired neoconservative firebrands like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney.  However, these guys seem to have have skipped over Lewis' early writings, which were much more cautious.  

In the 1950's, Lewis wrote about the long-standing resentment at being overtaken by the West which fuels the Middle East's "Muslim rage."  He argued that the West "should take as little action as possible in the Middle East, since we of the West should beware of porposing solutions that, however good, are discredited by the very fact of our having suggested them."  

In 1991, he wrote about the "age-old autocratic traditions" in the Arab world, and warned that there is "no guarantee that efforts to democratize will succeed, and even if they do, after how long and at what price."

He also wrote: "Democracy is dangerous anywhere. We talk sometimes as if democracy were the natural human condition, as if any deviation from it is a crime to be punished or a disease to be cured.  This is not true."