[Hank Kerchief]

Why should even one American have to die to free even one individual in Iraq?

How could an evil tryant like Sadam exist if the people he tyranized truly wanted freedom, and were willing to die to secure it? He could not. Since the Iraquis were not willing to die to secure freedom for themselves, why should any American have to die to secure it for them?

Hank

[Godfollow]

The main reason we are there is to erase the threat of the nexus between Saddam and terrorism. The bit about freeing Iraqis is pap for those who live in the region and particularly the Iraqis that we are trying to win over to our side. If there were no connection whatsoever between Saddam and terrorism, I guarantee we would not be there.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Why should even one American have to die to free even one individual in Iraq?

Because the alternative (keeping Saddam Hussein in power, and protecting the Saudi regime from him) also, if somewhat indirectly, resulted in Americans dying. "No Americans dying as a direct or indirect result of the Iraq situation" was not an option on the table. Would that it had been.

Since the Iraquis were not willing to die to secure freedom for themselves, why should any American have to die to secure it for them?

Because keeping Hussein in power (which is the approach we were taking) was causing us problems, and was going to cause us much worse problems in the near future, when the political will to keep up even the facade of a blockade eventually collapsed, as it was going to.

In a sense I agree with you, I could give a rat's ass about the freedom of Iraqian people if that's all there had been to it. But I don't believe that it was. Best,