There was no war, as Congress never declared one. There was an unwarranted invasion of a sovereign nation without causus belli, no different than China's annexation of Tibet or Hitler's taking of Austria and Poland. You support Mao Tze Tung's and Adolf Hitler's doctrine and you still claim to be morally superior to us?

The March 20 bombing of Baghdad was in fact less justified than Japan's December 7th bombing of Pearl Harbour, as in the latter case Japan had made an official declaration of war before the bombing while in March the United States still claimed to be respecting a ceasefire. You support actions more nefarious than Pearl Harbour and you still claim to be morally superior to us?


For one who claims to support Truth and Facts, you are quick to pull out cartoons based on Falsehoods and Lies to support your absolute lack of an argument.

On the first count:

Iraq has not been Liberated. Iraq has gone from one dictatorship to another, from an Iraqi dictatorship to a foreign dictatorship. Liberation will not come until there is an Iraqi government founded of, by, and for Iraqis. The only thing being liberated is Iraq's oil supply, the burden of whose extraction and sale is being helpfully lifted from the backs of the Iraqi people and granted to Halliburton.

The invasion was for oil. This has been proven by lack of alternative, by the old Holmes method: the failure to secure suspected WMD sites belying the claim that it was about WMD, the failure to prepare provisions for the people and the reappointment of Baath party security officials to their old jobs belying the claim that it was about saving the people from Saddam, the early date belying the claim that it was a reelection campaign stunt, Bush's continued support of Yasser Arafat and his earlier support of al Qaeda's allies in Georgia+Chechnya and his refusal to do anything about Ansar before the invasion belying the claim that it was about terrorism, the Bush policy of devaluing the dollar belying the claim that it was about keeping the Dollar strong against the Euro. Instead, we have the United States securing oil fields and returning them to production before more important strategic military targets are taken, and the grant of oil production rights to a handful of US companies. The Communists might be morons on most political issues, but they got this one spot on.

Bush is still wrong. The invasion's military result has no relevance to the morality of the invasion. Example: Given that Hitler was wrong to invade Poland; If Hitler's success in invading, nay, "LIBERATING" Poland did not make his invasion morally right, then nor did Bush's success in Iraq. Therefore, to claim that military success alone makes an invasion morally righteous, as you have repeatedly claimed, you must logically support Hitler's rampage across Europe. Which I wouldn't be surprised if you do.


On the second count, we see the same error as the last. There is no need for the condemned to "eat crow" becasue they are still right and Bush is still wrong.


If the entire occupation force is struck with incapacitating flu and run out of the country by a small mob, will you say that the invasion was really wrong for the sole reason that it was not successful?

If Bush is shot down by an assassin tomorrow, will you suddenly eat crow and declare that the invasion was really wrong because Bush did not come out ahead?


Such absolute lack of morality, absolute lack of integrity is what you are demanding of us, and you condemn us when we show signs of morality, intelligence, and wisdom, for our morality, intelligence, and wisdom show bare your own lack of said attributes.