After reading the article in the thread "seems like the protesters only listen to one opinion, their own," one phrase caught my attention-- something like "Bush rule is 1000 better than Saddam's rule" (It was a bit different, but the same idea).
So, what do all you crazy "peaceniks" here think of that? It's been stuck in my head all day.
Should we take the lesser of two evils? I don't think this war has anything to do with helping out the Iraqi people (it may though, if the opinions describing Bush's "messiah" complex are correct), but if we stick it out and build a better government there, things would be better for those people.
I know it's very complicated, with the vacuum effect, the different ethnic groups there, there being no democracies nearby, etc, etc..... But just in general, why shouldn't we take Bush's offer to help them even with all the empire, oil, etc strings attached?
So, what do all you crazy "peaceniks" here think of that? It's been stuck in my head all day.
Should we take the lesser of two evils? I don't think this war has anything to do with helping out the Iraqi people (it may though, if the opinions describing Bush's "messiah" complex are correct), but if we stick it out and build a better government there, things would be better for those people.
I know it's very complicated, with the vacuum effect, the different ethnic groups there, there being no democracies nearby, etc, etc..... But just in general, why shouldn't we take Bush's offer to help them even with all the empire, oil, etc strings attached?