Your analogy is flawed. Hitler was invading Europe: Stalin was not. England anf France only declared war on Germany because they had a defensive pact with Poland. Although a simlification, the US only entered war with Germany because the Germans were silly enough to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour.

Now, in comparison, Iraq was an aggressor in the Gulf War. But not in 2003: Saddam was just an old windbag sitting on top of a lot of oil.

Why Iraq, then? If liberal whining is always focused on not doing enough (and here I was thinking that you just said it was focused on not doing anything), why choose Iraq, of all the many places with a bad human rights record? Why Iraq?

This new-age-hippie-tree-hugging-help-the-poor-Iraqis fervour of our Republican friends here is an odd fit. It was never about helping the Iraqis: it was about WMDS (and - shh! - oil). Only when WMDs were not about did it invasion-supporters start wearing flowers in their hair, and started becoming concerned with human rights.

My argument was that it was always about human rights, and I didn't give a rat's arse if there were WMDs or not. Saddam is an evil bastard and he needed to be taken out.

It was lonely out there on my little leaky raft. Everyone was either on the big luxury cruise ship S.S. Neo-Imperialism Sucks ("Let Them Eat Cake!"), or the warship USS WMDs Suck (except our WMDs, which are good).

But suddenly everyone who was on the warship seems to be trying to get on my raft, and saying they were on it all along.

Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com