[Cyrien]

Oh yes. We did indeed attack them from bases in the middle east. And how many other bases did we have in the middle east that we couldn't use because the nations they were in wouldn't allow it? Having bases there would be one out of many options open for the future.

And as for Oil being the only importance? Are you insinuating that the avaialbility of nuclear arms to Pakistan and India and their ongoing hostilities are unimportant? Or maybe that Somalia was set off by a need for Somali oil?

And our support of the nation of Israel is of course based entirely on all the oil wealth the Israelis provide us? Oh... wait. Wasn't part of the whole oil embargo of the 70's and 80's due to our support of Israel? If that was our only motivating factor then shouldn't we have stopped supporting Israel to get our oil? Or invaded some countries then to get our oil?

As I said. Oil is no doubt an important factor. But it far from being the ONLY important factor.

As for convincing a lot of people. Yes well I could also try and convince a lot of people about religion or what form of government is best. I would probably have a hard time with that. Just because a lot of people do something or believe something doesn't mean it is right, correct, or even accurate.

As a wise man once said: Eat poop. Billions of flies can't be wrong.

As for Mr. Rumsfeld... well I think we can let the record speak for him.

Side Note. I am mostly a Democrat but I definetly hold certain views that would not be considered of the Democrat party, and while I believe that the reasons for this war are wrong I believe doing it was right.

As for turning the nation over to Shiites... it hasn't happened yet. And even if it does... ever heard the theory of evolutionary government?

Before you can have a democracy you go through autocracy and theocracy. Don't believe it? Just look at the history of Europe. And where did the US get its history lessons if not from Europe?

Little baby steps... little baby steps.

I am undecided on the issue of WMDs. But let me use this analogy.

You walk into your kids room and smell pot and the room is thick with smoke. You know the kid has been smoking pot or someone has in that room. You have the circumstantial evidence that proves it. But do you have the hard evidence of the pot right there in your hands? Do you automatically know where to look?

Taking out Iraq right now over NK was important because Iraq had already shown the tendency and ability to both develop and use WMDs. In the past NK has done much the same. But we treated NK very differently. We played it nice and they got nuclear reactors and food and all that good stuff... and now look where we are? We had the UN handle NK and look where that got us? I would think NK would be a good reason for justifing the war with Iraq even against the wishes of the UN.

So why don't we take the Iraq stance with NK now? That has already been covered. You can't treat a nation that has nukes the same as one that doesn't. Does Iraq have nukes. I would bet money they don't. Chemical or Bio? Probably. And if not they would be back to making them again as soon as the UN looked away. How do I know? I don't. But history tends to support that view.