War and conflict create a lot of complexities. And as a result, perhaps it's human nature, there's a lot of grandstanding on both sides, and over-simplification and rationalization against what the opposing side has to say.
I just hate it when lies are thrown in, like Michael Moore's "majority of Americans are against Bush" nonsense. One-third does not constitute a majority.
Yes perhaps Bush should have waited a few more months so as not to have alienated the world community. He's taking a big gamble from what I can tell. (But what do I know....?)
So what's more moral -- to take out the leaders / decision makers who torture and mistreat their own people, or to try to fight a prolonged war against thousands of young soldiers who have little choice but to fight for the country of their birth? Saddam Hussein rules through fear, he's a ruthless dictator.
Does that give the world's superpower the right to take them out? Some say no if it's the USA but yes if it's the UN. To me it doesn't matter, just as long as the dictator is taken out.
Is America an imperialist and colonial nation for doing this? I haven't seen America lust for the land of its vanquished enemies. Indeed after WW2 America helped rebuild Japan and Germany into economic superpowers. So for the Iraqi leaders to accuse America of imperialism and colonialism is disingenuous at best, just more propaganda to stuff into the ears of their poor people.
