ANSWER Anti-War Rally -What was the question, again?

[Shinken]

O_O Whoa. It's not fair, James. [i]I[/i] wanted to say those things! (Although I probably wouldn't have put it as well as you, or had so much proof) I'd definitely have to agree with my new best friend James here; Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Plain. And. Simple.

I hate to reiterate here, but the comparison of Iraq as a little kid on the playground just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I don't see any kids walking around with a slingshot loaded with anthrax in their back pocket.

I also fail to see how the United States are the [i]true[/i] agressors here. Yes, we did make a pre-emptive strike, and no, everybody didn't back us up. But even so, wasn't it the right thing to do, getting Saddam out of his position? Just look at the man's record, and see what I mean. (A record which James probably has memorized. ;) )

[Manic Webb]

I'm just now getting around to posting in this thread, so I'm going to give my general views, rather than address any previous posts directly.

First of all, the occupation (because it wasn't offically a "war") happened, and all of the protesting on Earth isn't going to change that at this point. I think most of us can agree that Saddam Hussein was a crappy leader and should have been kicked out of Iraq. My keyword here in "most," not "all." I'm aware that there are some people who think that we shouldn't have kicked him out for some assinine reason. I just want to know why the US [i]really[/i] went into Iraq.

There are 3 pro-war reasons I've heard, why Bush wanted to go into Iraq:
1) Hussein is a tyrant, and should be removed from office.
2) Hussein has "weapons of mass destruction" (anyone else getting tired of that phrase?) that he plans on using on either us or his own people
3) Hussein was knowingly allowing Al Qaeda terrorists to reside in Iraq (leading to assumptions that he has connections to Osama Bin Laden)

These days, I'm hearing #1 more than the last two, particularly #3. While I'm not denying #1, #2 has yet to be found and #3 has been almost completely forgotten by most people who argue on the subject. Maybe these are good reasons. Maybe they aren't. I still stand by one main theory.

We're not being told everything. That's what I think. I think there's some bigger reason for the Iraq Occupation that the general public doesn't know about. There are other countries that are harboring nuclear weapons (that we actually have proof of, to boot) and have tyrants for leaders that aren't fans of the US. Why did Bush and his administration single out Iraq in particular? Why go after them first? This is why I think we're not being told everything.