I think the American public would still be supportive of the war if those
were the reasons. I know I would. I don't like being lied to. Not sure if
you saw it, but one of the exerpts from Woodwards book has Bush and one of
his friends joking about "doing" Iran next, and then joking about Cuba being
next. I don't see how any of this is funny. People dying isn't funny.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

OzOne wrote in message news
On 4 Oct 2006 06:40:32 -0700, "Bart"
scribbled thusly:

Have you ever actually read anything about Saddam?
Try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Oh BTW death toll in Iraq has now topped 45,000

This is lower than under Saddam. However, I see your point
he probably would have killed about the same number of people
or perhaps 2-3 times more during the same time frame. We might
have been better off leaving him in power and letting him
continue to kill his people.

You can be either for or against genocide. And the other option,
yours, is to ignore it.

Stalin is proof that this sort of government is stable as long as
people are kept in fear.

It would have been wonderful if the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq
was humanitarian.....at least he'd have an excuse...


BTW have you ever read anything about Saddam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.