Colin wrote, and Mack responded: "> quite right. so why are we not invading Saudi arabia? Iran? Zimbabwe? > and numerous other countries.
I don't imagine those that are against war would be any happier about attacks against those countries. And who knows, they may be next. I opposed going into Iraq but now, after witnessing what the beast has done to our soldiers, I can only support our troops and look forward to Saddam Hussein getting what he deserves. As for world sentiment, it is as jaded as the coverage of Al-Jazeera." Mack, this misses the point that at least some of those standing in opposition now are not against all wars, but against *this* one in particular. And part of the reasons we're against this one is that the stated rationale of the U.S. government seems inconsistent with its prior action, or inaction, in other nations under similar circumstances. If one of our supposed reasons for the invasion is to separate the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam Hussein, then why haven't we taken similar action in the countries Colin mentioned, not to mention scores of others? It doesn't make sense--unless, of course, the "liberation" of the Iraqi people is not the real reason for the war, but one that our elected officials know will be infinitely more palatable to the American public than the true motivation. And that is exactly what many of us strongly suspect. Take care, Mary P.
