[LaraCroft]

You make no sense. You say you have no problems with us being there for economic reasons, but then denounce the war because it is for 'humanitarian' reasons.

Why would you care what the official reson was if the outcome of it was the same? And economically, it is a boon, any idiot can see that.

I think you are speaking with forked tongue. May I ask who you voted for in the last election?

[Cacophonous]

You say you have no problems with us being there for economic reasons, but then denounce the war because it is for 'humanitarian' reasons.

Because we are not there for economic reasons, we are there for "humanitarian" reasons. That's the official line.

See, it's a matter of precedent. A war for "humanitarian" reasons opens an awfully huge can of worms; if we were to use "humanitarian" reasons as a justification for war, we would be fighting through eternity.

Economic reasons, however, have an endpoint, a goal, and limits. We wouldn't invade France because, as satisfying as it may be, there is no money in it. More to the point, we wouldn't invade Ethiopia for economic reasons, but we might for humanitarian reasons.

It's the precedent I'm concerned with.

I voted for Pat Buchanan. So what?