Actually, this whole exchange began because the US and Britain were accused of tyranny, and when someone attacks my nation and my nation's closest ally I don't care for it. Bush may represent the US, and may sometimes do that poorly, but Bush is not the US though that's what many believe. I started out defending my nation and you turned it into a debate about Bush & Cheney.

I'm no fan of Bush & most of the people in his administration but I think he was the best option when he was elected. Fortunately, the American people have the ability to change their leadership periodically which is what I pointed out originally - that is not tyranny.

But while Bush is not the greatest of leaders, I do believe he and his advisors were and are at least smart enough to begin a war with things other than personal gain as their reasons. In your previous posting you made Bush avenging his daddy into the number one of the top three reasons he took us to war but now you've relegated it back down to "one of the reasons." I'm sure he has thought about that, who wouldn't, and it could be one of his reasons, but I think he's man enough to make it one of the smallest of reasons when there is so much at stake for so many other people - I don't think he's that selfish or foolish whether I really like the man or not.

As far as Cheney lining his & his friends pockets from government contracts, that is quite possible but I don't believe it as a reason for going to war because, again, I think the administration is better than that. He may make money from this war but though I reeeally don't care for the guy I don't think that was his objective. I work in a place that supplies plumbing products to contractors. If I need something done at my house, I call one of those contractors I do business with and the company I work for makes money from that contracter so I can get a paycheck. Do I call that contractor because he will be providing my company and me with a profit? No, I call him because having done business with him I know he knows how to do the job and that's who I want working on my house.

And I definitely don't have a problem with making Iran think really hard about carrying on a nuclear weapons program. Nuclear weapons are a dangerous thing in anyone's hands, even America's, and more nuclear weapons, especially in the hands of a group of people who think of most of the human race as infidels who should be wiped (or burned) from the face of the earth, just makes the world a more dangerous place. I don't think for one second that the majority of Iranians (or North Koreans for that matter) would choose to use those weapons but the likelyhood of those weapons getting into the hands of someone who wouldn't hesitate to use them would be far greater than it is now.

Why do I think we went to war in Iraq?
I think our administration and congress asked itself the following questions.

What if someone had invaded Nazi Germany in late 1938 or early 1939 before the blitzkrieg began and so many millions upon millions lost there lives?

What if Hitler or Hirohito had had the A-bomb?

And as far as that war where the US and Britain "had it right" - what if we waged war in Iraq the way we did in Europe? It would have long been over as everyone wishes it was, and most of the insurgents would be wiped out or afraid to do anything, but so would a lot more innocent people. I wouldn't say we were wrong in WWII, but we waited too long to start which made it far too bloody to wage. We're all just very fortunate that the allies prevailled in a cause that was just. It was waiting for the proof that it was absolutely just that caused it to be a world war. Is that a mistake we want to make again?

PS - It was asked if I'm still in third grade. No, I'm not, and it seems to me that calling someone a moron or a fool is more along the lines of third grade behavior even if that person is a moron or fool, which I am not either.