LOL.

No, the hawks have been very specific about what the war was about. You just choose to select different things.

Here's a good link written way back that puts the "hawk" position into light: http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Deadlymushrooms.shtml

Basically, after 9/11 the world changed. The United States had to do something about Islamic fanatacism or else it would do something about us. To that end, it was decided that Saudi Araba, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran were the primary targets for the war on Terrorism. They needed their cultures transformed into ones that were more open and liberal.

Iraq was chosen as a target because it was low hanging fruit. It was also a luxury the US could no longer afford to have. After 9/11, having an active enemy in the middle east, one who supplied funds to terrorists (whether related to 9/11 or not is open to debate but he openly funded suicide bombers), was somethign we could no longer tolerate.

So Iraq was, after Afghanistan, the next piece to be taken off the board. With all those UN resolutions against it, the US could have the legal reason it needed. Iraq had not abided by the terms of the 1991 gulf war cease fire. Therefore, the US was free to act. The WMD argument along with many others (that he was a monster, that he was a friend of terrorists, etc.) all were provided as supporting evidence. But the bottom line was that he had not complied with the UN resoltuions that were required of him and that was all that was needed.

And so we invaded. The goal there is to establish a liberal, stable democracy and provide a staging ground, if necessary for influencing Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria (which Iraq is happily in the middle of).

The war on terror requires a fundamental change in the Islamic world. Making Al Queda less effective by removing the Taliban from power was the first step. The second step was to remove an active enemy while at the same time providing a geographically strategic position to influence the problem countries.

This reasoning has been posted, ON-LINE, for over a year now in various places.

You see, the difference between conservative hawks and liberal appeasers is that hawks actually are trying to solve a serious problem. Appeasers, such as you, just want to sit back and bitch without offering a coherent alternative.

Thanks for your comment. A few thoughts. The comparison outlined in your link between Germany in WW2 and Iraq in 2003 seems entirely specious to me. First of all, Germany declared war on the US, Iraq did not declare war on America. Secondly, the Germans had a long-standing pact with the people who actually attacked America (the Japanese). Iraq had no such pact with the people who attacked America in 2001.

I'm interested in your description of Iraq as "an active enemy". In what way was Iraq targeting America or Americans? Even Bush has now publicly stated that Saddam had no hand in 9-11. You seem to be the last diehard on this point.

"But the bottom line was that he had not complied with the UN resoltuions that were required of him and that was all that was needed" Where in international law does it say that failure to comply with UN resolutions is justification for war? If that is the case then Israel should expect an invasion sometime soon.

Finally: "The second step was to remove an active enemy while at the same time providing a geographically strategic position to influence the problem countries." You're actually supporting my argument that Iraq was invaded because it wasn't pro-American or as you might say, it was a "problem country". The only difference between you and I is that you think being anti-American is a good enough reason for invading a country and I don't. But we both agree that this is why Iraq was attacked.

It's really quite simple once researched.

First off Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction because George Bush Senior gave them to Saddam to fight Iran. Secondly Oil is the principle reason this is going on with opium being the secondary purpose. France and China were opposed to our invasion of Iraq because those two countries had huge oil futures in the works with Saddam at the helm of the negotiations. What is funny is we praise democracy but put a dictator back in his seat in Kuwait ~smirks~ The reason anything happens with capitolism is because there is something in it for someone which usually equates to financial gain. This country is not a democratic country and regardless who you vote for they are most likely got their hands into something dirty. This is a capitalistic beauracracy and the illusion of democracy is transposed upon our country to passify the masses. I vote everytime there is something to vote on. We voted two stadiums down here in washington state and both were built on "bonds" that we the people wouldn't have to pay for, but we are paying for it now ~snickers~ MONEY = Action if you can do something for us then we'll give you weapons if you help us out when you get on top blah blah yadda yadda.

I'll say it again. Unless you have some monitary value to our capitalist country we don't care about you and your suffering, however, if you have oil, diamonds or some form of financial gain we can strip or abuse you for then we will be there with the entire force of america to weed you out.