*To clarify: When I say 'America,' I mean American government. I hold nothing against Americans, especially because I know, contrary to what the TV polls say, that the majority of Americans do not agree with the war in Iraq. And I have friends in America whom I love dearly. I am not anti-American. Just... at the moment, vehemently against the American government.

* * *

Bush really has no case against Iraq that justifies attacking solely Iraq. Everything Iraq is guilty of, in his eyes, many other countries are also guilty of.

"Well, there are terrorists in Iraq. Branches of al-Qaeda."

There are branches of al-Qaeda in many, many countries, I'm sure. I bet if you looked hard enough, they'd have connections in Canada and America, too. This is Bush's lame attempt to connect his hatred for Iraq to September 11, and hence, drum up public support for what he's doing.

"Well, Iraq has these big weapons, and they might be pointed at us!"

Oh, like Bush doesn't have weapons capable of five thousand times the damage Iraq's greatest weapon could do. American government has just long thought that it was allowed to have weapons while other countries couldn't, as it thinks of itself as the world's "loving" father that may need them for discipline and maintaining order, and every other country as potentially-rowdy children. And anyway, do the research. America sold those weapons to Iraq. That's why Bush was so certain the country has them, even when the weapons inspections turned up nothing.

"Iraq's leader is cruel to its people!"

Half of the world's leaders are dictators, excessively so, I'm sure, including, I bet, a bunch of the leaders in Bush's poverty-stricken, bought-off-slash-bribed, distant therefore unattached to the consequences of the war they are supporting, "coalition of the willing." These countries just don't have the dual misfortunes of having been hated by America for decades, and possessing rich oil wells. Furthermore, if Bush was so concerned about the liberation of people in Iraq, he could have made it his campaign cause, or at least, one of the first orders of business of his presidency. But no - American presidents sat around and let Saddam be president for thirty-two years. Bush is just pretending to be interested now because he's found a different reason to attack, whatever that may be in his little peanut brain, and again, he wants to drum up public support.

Just look at what American troops did in Afghanistan. Yeah, maybe they liberated the people from the Taliban. But how exactly was Afghanistan connected to September 11? Quite frankly, it wasn't. Bush declared, "Osama's hiding there!" and bombing commenced. But did they find him? Nooooo. And then they gave up, left the country in ruins, I'm sure, put in a new, not-elected-by-the-people government - the Northern Alliance, who some Afghans claim are "the Taliban without the turbans" - and hoofed out.

If you want my opinion, America didn't need an excuse to get rid of those Taliban bastards. Go look them up if you don't know shit about the restrictions they imposed on women when they took over Afghanistan in 1995. But the fact is, they didn't go in to do that; they hid behind an excuse, making it appear to the world as though they only cared shit about Afghans because of their own ulterior motives - American homeland was attacked. America let Afghanistan suffer under the rule of the Taliban for six years before they made a move to do anything - and they made that move only because someone blew up a bunch of buildings in New York. When that happened, the word from Bush was, of course, "Don't worry, innocent people of Afghanistan, we're not going to hurt you. We're going to liberate you!"

And they think they did. I don't know, maybe they did. I don't have connections with Afghans, so I can't ask them whether or not they feel liberated. The point I'm trying to make here, rather roundabout I'm sure, is that American government didn't give a shit about liberating Afghans before it became America's problem, and the same is true of this war in Iraq. I bet American government has never once thought, in the thirty years Saddam's been running his island, to get him out and "liberate" the people. And personally, I don't see what Iraq has done to make it America's problem this time. I'm not saying Saddam should be left to lead the country - but really: What has he, or anyone in Iraq, done to Bush, or anyone in America, lately?