Just some questions: Why does the US government think it can decide for the iraqi people? Why hasn't it ever supported any internal movement against the dictator (more likely the contrary: remember north Iraq, 1988, and US helicopters?)? Why Saddam, whose military power was completely weakened, as it has been seen, instead of, for instance, Theodore Obiang, from Equator Guinea, whose people suffer as much as the iraqi people with Saddam?

It doesn't. /// Because they simply don't have enough power to make it cost effective. /// Because he's a convenient target that we can do something about.

"Jumping the gun"
 

Rucita, I think perhaps I can do a better job of explaining the idiom "jumping the gun" -- all levity about small Walther pistols aside. :)

The term comes from footraces, and it means "starting too soon" -- jumping out ahead of the sound of the starting gun; not only not the right thing for you to do, but it messes everyone else up somewhat also.

What is your native language, Rucita?

Since there are no polls, we have not a clue - not even speculation - as to whether Saddam is more or less popular than the conquering army. All we can do is speculate from isolated example after subjected to news filters.

Re: "Jumping the gun"
 

Spanish.

I guess we'll have to wait for all these embedded reporters to write their books.

There are several answers. One, because we have a president that believes that America must sieze upon the fact that we are the sole superpower - to gain control of the main energy reserves of the world. Two, because the administration thinks it can intimidate other nations using an overwhelming show of force. Three, because more terrorist activity in the form of blowback will take years to come to fruition and he has to lay the groundwork for Jeb's round of world domination. Four, because we are America and we think the rest of the world is just a bunch of backward brown people with funny names. Five, because Saddam Hussein is a prick - and you have to admit that even if you hate Bush. And Six, who is going to stop us?

America bases it's foreign policy on maintaining access to cheap resources. Often our predation is opposed by the people of the nations we suck resources from - so it is convenient to have a dictator in power that will crack heads to keep things "stable". If you look through history, we have supported tons of really evil bastards - that were willing to play ball with us. The few squirrely potentates that did not agree with our policies were dealt with the way Hussein, Allende, and Mossadiq were.

Are you under the misguided notion that America cares about humanitarian issues? If we did care, we would not be supporting Israel's oppression of Palestine, we would not be fighting a drug war, and we would have signed the Kyoto Protocols.


But who cares about people. The world has got billions of em.

thanks for your answers...
Hope you're being sarcastic!
If so, terribly funny, hopelessly funny, I'd say...
If not, well, nice to share this space and time with you neo-Hitlers: Owners and proprietaires of the world, unite! (This was sarcastic, actually)