The stated reason for going to war as I heard was as follows.

Terrorism is a world problem, Iraq is a country that supports terrorism (They did not deal with Al Qeda but they did support other Terrorist organizations), and is a country that is open about defying the UN and the "world governments." Iraq is in the middle of the Middle East where most Terrorism is funded/supported/bred from. Democratic countries do not go to war to eachother. Removing saddam and putting a democratic government in its place will reduce Terrorism around the world and create a more peacefull and more stable Middle East. Oh and there was the WMD aspect which was, if Iraq is able to build WMDs again they will give those WMDs to terrorists to use as suitcase bombs.

Bush's stated plan to fight the war on terrorism is to increase the amount of freedom and democratic regimes in the world. This is one of the reasons that India has been "rewarded" for its nuclear weapons while Pakistan has not been.

Thats just what I've been hearing from Bush, Rice and other government mouth pieces.

But it was proven that sadam never funed any terrorist organisations, does it mean that that reason is also void and another lie just like the womd?

WHAT???

When was it proven that saddam did not fund terrorist organizations, because I clearly remember hearing Saddam announce publicly that he was funding terrorist organizations.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html

Odd, I definatly recall George Galloway pointing out the fact that there has been no evidence provided to suppot sadam and al qaeda links other than media scare mongering. Ill try and find the article

The only thing that was proven as far as Iraq and Terrorism goes, (in the form of what did NOT happen) is that Saddam asked Al Queda(sp?) if they would like him to help them out, and he would be willing to host them for a few things, in exchange for more money, and Al Qada said to Saddam, no we don't like you.

Now, in terms of law this would clearly make Saddam innocent of the charges of dealiing with Al Qaeda, but in the world of reality, this to me makes it clear that Saddam if given the chance would be more than happy to fund and support terrorism.



Hammas and Hezbolah are both very well known terrorist organizations, and neither of them has direct connections to Al Qaeda. (well didn't untill 2003)

Alemania during WWII I think was a democracy.
Israel during their "War of independency" or whatever the name in english was a democracy?
England on their war against argentina was a democracy or a monarchy? Don't know the degree of power the Queen politically speaking.
And the very democratic greeks declared wars to very democratic greeks all the time.

Don't understand your comment, Daganev. Democracy isn't a war proof government system. And USA even being a republic is democratic because the population chooses its representants.



Considering Saddam at the moment was opressing religious arabs, yes, I do understand Al'Queda don't liking him much...

1) The USA is a Republic. The UK is (notionally) a Monarchy. Both are democracies.

2) I'm afraid that that statistic simply isn't true.

First, for clarification the idea is that democracies don't war with eachother, so Israel during its war of independence is not a good example, because A)the nations that declared war against Israel were not democracies, and B. Israel was only really a country AFTER that war.(thus the word independance)

But anyway.. Here is an interesting article on the matter. There isn't enough data to say weather or not the axiom is true.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm




I was looking back to see the context of when I was quoted, and saw this that I must have skimmed over before.

I'm not quite sure what your argument here is so I'll randomly make my points.

1. Having old values, i.e. having a large respect for elders has no bearings on if you are "suited" to have a democracy. Japan for example still resepects their elders, and I personally still have a great revreance for my elders, so what does that have to do with being "suited".

2.No culture in the world is so "messed up" that the people in the culture don't know what they would like for themselves and how they would like to govern themselves. Sure there are problems of physical indimidation and being uninformed of your options, but those are even issues within america itself. I'll refrence here Presidant Nixon and the almost presidant Huey Long as people who did not seem suited for a democracy.

3. Only problem with Africa is that nobody cared enough about them to have democracies (untill recently) And other nations took advantage of africa to help make more money and fund illegal trades.


random cool page from the same website.. (probabbly interesting to americans only) http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/misc/csa2day.htm

Just heard something on the radio that finally explains a few things to me. They were talking about the India and Pakistan situation in terms of nuclear matieral. anways the Pakastan rep mentioned that Pakistan still has as policy the possibility of using terroist groups in the kashmir region, despite all the efforts they are doing to hunt down al qaeda.

This to me explains why Bush and the U.S. has been very explicit about Al Qaeda even though thier policies and actions are more broad... just an interesting thing I thought I'd share.