Byron Forbes wrote:

> To me, this is complete bull****. NATO is in IRAQ to remove a madman in
> the name of self defence - this is a legitimate reason anyway. Unfortunately
> probably most of the reason NATO is there is for U.S. retaliation for 911 -
> and Iraq fundamentaly had nothing to do with 911.
>
> The message is simple - allow yourself to be represented by a madman
> (Hussein) and this is what will happen. Unfortunately this message is
> polluted with political agendas and the complete bull**** notion that NATO
> is in Iraq to do the Iraqis a big favour - utter bull****.

- NATO didn't go into Iraq, the so-called "coalition" did

- The Iraqi people didn't allow themselves to be represented by the
Ba'ath party - the CIA put them there and the people had no choice. Now
the US took him away and put someone else there - if I was an Iraqi I
ight be more than a little concerned that he would also upset them, and
a load of us would get slaughtered again in the sake of our own freedom.