You're kidding, right? If Iraq was "broken," clearly we "broke" it more. By the "broken" standard, lots of countries are "broke." What gives us the right to launch a pre-emptive, unprovoked strike against another soveriegn nation, destroy it's infrastructure and overthrow it's government? George Bush is the most loathed and feared leader on the face of the planet. He is considered a "rogue." Does that give another nation the right to "break" us and overthrow our government because they believe Bush is a really bad guy, and a threat to global security?
Did you ever wonder why Iraq, or even why Afghanistan? 911? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. So why not Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or other brutal regime. There are many such regimes in that region. Sharia does not have a great track record on human rights. So why Iraq, and did we have the right to wage pre-emptive war? Personally, I think Iraq was the most cowardly of wars. Iraq was do-able, and after a dozen years of sanctions, Iraq was weak. Saddam was not able mount any defense of Baghdad, but Iraq is a war we cannot win. And Iraq is a war we cannot afford to lose.
Immediately following 911 we were all too shell shocked to question the strike on Afghanistan. We were revenge thirsty, and Afghanistan was one of several countries providing aid and sanctuary to terrorism. We know Cheney had eyes for Caspian crude. Over a fees dispute, Cheney threatened to strike the Afghanistan's Taliban government in July, 2001 just weeks before September 11th. So following 911, we exacted revenge on Afghanistan. How convenient? You gotta wonder.
This administration has needs to be held accountable.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
