[Loser]

Pointing out the weakness in counter-arguments does not make you own argument any stronger. You have started from the position that your position is sound and obvious and, unsurprisingly, have found your way back there in the end.

I am not trying to convince you that WMD or 'freedom' were the reasons for the war. In fact I don't believe they were, I'm much more of a hawk than you might think.

What I'm asking is if you can provide any real proof that the war was over money and/or oil. Just because you can't think of any better reasons doesn't mean they're not out there.

You might check my Posts in the infamous Iraq thread for my own opinions on the real reasons for the war, should you be curious about other alternatives that may, or may not, have been well thought out.

[edit: more damn thoughts.]

Every war has vultures making money off the tragedy, sometimes they're Marshal-Planning the ruined nation back into prosperity, sometimes they're Carpetbaggers and Scallywags pushing the conquered rebels further into economic ruin. Just because someone is making money off the aftermath does not mean that's why it happened to begin with.

Someone always makes money off the aftermath, it's hardly noble but pretty universal. And if someone in power makes room for himself and his friends at this table he has special access to it only indicates he is an opportunist, very human.

I believe the phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc describes that argument. Surely you can come up with something better to support your position.

[ December 13, 2003, 04:24: Message edited by: Loser ]