Response to Endless war is what they seek.

This is beneath you, surely. You said "There were a mixture of motives for the invasion and the overthrow of a vile and dangerous regime was one of them." Surely, these are the same motives as to why the United States supported this vile and dangerous regime militarily and economically to begin with? Why would a country that announces to the world that it's such a beacon of freedom for all mankind support oppressive regimes and fund Saddam Hussein? (And remember please that Saddam Hussein didn't do 9/11, Osama Bin Forgotten did that - or so we're told). Also, please remember that state-sponsored terrorism, especially by the United States which is a leading terrorist country, also counts as terrorism by definition. Defined by the US Department of Defense, terrorism is: "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." So if this definition relates to what Osama Bin Fogotten did, then, without being a hypocrite I'm sure you'll agree it relates to what America has done countless times in the past and is doing right now. Their (the US) arrogance and hypcorisy is so monumental that I don't know whether to laugh or break out in tears. But I'm sure the people of Iraq can handle the tears part. In fact, in case you didn't know, 80% of the PEOPLE, did you hear that, THE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE, of IRAQ don't want the occupation forces in Iraq. They want them out immediately or quickly. I think your way of thinking is too simplistic. This isn't a western movie where there's a bad guy and a good guy. In reality, both parties can be guilty and deplorable (as are Saddam Hussein and the U.S.--once partners, now enemies). As they say, "Love goes out the window when poverty comes in the door." Saddam Hussein was the US's monster. Not to confuse Saddam Hussein with 9/11 (which he had nothing to do with): as a result of this invasion of Iraq, the country is breeding more terrorism than before. Do you think that by going into Iraq it made "the evildoers" happy and do you think they go to bed at night saying "We'll just sit back and take this. We're not gonna bomb anymore innocent people anymore." I think you'll find the opposite is true - the world is a far more dangerous place now (in regards to future terrorist attacks especially in the United States and Britain and unfortunately - possibly - Ireland). Somebody I know may be blown to bits someday on O'Connell street by Al Qaeda - something I don't like to think about, but it's reality. Invading their (Al Qaeda) country (which isn't Iraq by the way!) is not going to make them go away. To stop terrorism you have to stop participating in it -- it's fairly simple. It's not rocket science. And by bombing other countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 you'll just piss more people off. But the Bush Administration can do nothing at present to counter this fact or try and tackle it -- they have priorities ($$$$$$$$$). And it's always innocent people going about their lives that will pay for this in the end (with their actual lives). You also said: "I don't doubt that it was also considered to be the political and economic advantage of the US too and this weighed also. But not in the sense of an oil grab." This line demonstrates that you have no common sense and simply refuse to believe the evidence as it's presented to you on a platter. "Rather democratic regimes are generally more stable, peaceful and make better trading partners not to mention they are a lot more benign to their own people than dictatorships." Considering 80% or more of Iraq's PEOPLE want the occupying forces out of the country immediately and that only 1% think that they're safer with the occupying forces there, then you should have no trouble trying to grasp the concept that the fact the US and Britain refuse to get out of the country shows they have no respect and simply have no regard for the democratic wants and needs of the majority (most of the PEOPLE) of Iraq. If elections don't turn out the way the US wants them to turn out -- believe me, the results will change. If it can happen in America, "land of the free", then it should be able to happen anywhere, seemingly. A democratic Iraq is dangerous to the US and Britain. If there was a democratic Iraq their plans would flounder. It would literally be curtains for them. "Do you folks think there is no limit to how badly a regime can treat its own people before it forfeits its right to sovereign integrity?" I don't think Saddam Hussein should have been in power to begin with and he shouldn't have been supported by the United States. But then again, George Bush's Presidency was illigitimate in 2000 and the PEOPLE of America could do nothing. The US made sure the people of Iraq could do nothing to get rid of their friend and ally Saddam Hussein as they needed him there because it was in their interests. If any regime is treating its people badly and in an inhuman manner then the ruling class (the minority) of that country should do everything in its power to remove that oppressive force (Ireland and England for example, Ghandhi). It's difficult when you're oppressive tyrant leader is being supported by a SUPER POWER. If there is a threat to the people of a country or to neighboring countries by an oppressive regime, only after ALL peaceful attempts have been exhausted, should there be military intervention. So Nolan, before I invite you back to make a fool of yourself again, and before I wash my hands of you please explain this one you wrote: ..."This condemns the victims of such regimes to endless repression but you seem to prefer that to an intervention that may put an end to them." Please present evidence that shows or reads that I, Dr. Raeder Anderson or the Irish Anti- War Movement would like to see people being repressed. Thank you and goodnight. I'm here all week -- don't forget to tip your waitress.

Created By: Richard Finlay