The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

On 22 Jan 2004 08:04:42 -0000, Eagle Eye
] wrote:



snipped

However, I doubt there is any "evidence" that would convince you.

Is there any anti-US "evidence" you'd question?

The US government's involvement with Saddam Hussein and other
despots was shameful in many respects. But if you want to make
that case, don't overstate it with bull**** propaganda. And,
don't ignore the far worse actions of those outside the US
out of political expediency because they opposed the latest war.


No amount of "evidence will convince you that Bush's pre-emptive
invasion of Iraq was "just".

I believe one of the reasons for the invasion was to get control of
Iraq's oil.

Let me pose this question:

Why didn't Bush invade North Korea? North Korea publically announced
that it had operational nuclear weapons. Why wasn't this viewed by
Bush as a direct threat to the national security of the US?

Well, first of all, North Korea has no oil.

North Korea has a HUGE standing army and could wipe out South Korea
and Japan in a flash.

For Bush, that would be too tough a war to fight.

It is easier to go against a nation like Iraq whch had a mickey-mouse
army, no air force, and no navy.