>Something to add about the people of North Korea? Just because they have no oil? US was sending "humanitarian aid" to NK. Why? Send it to Iraq, too.

I believe we are already doing this under the United Nation's oil-for-food plan.

>So the war against Iraq should be interpreted (also) as an "humanitary action of the US government to help Iraq's people"?

It will help the Iraqi people, but its primary purpose is to prevent Saddam's weapons of mass destruction from being used against us or anyone else in the world.

>Everybody knows (even the rocks in the streets of Bagdahd) that this war has economical motivation. If the US government can't swallow France and Russia as being the next big partners of Iraq (of Iran, Saudi Arabia...).

The latest estimate I read is that a war will cost the U.S. taxpayers 95 Billion dollars. That's billion, not million. After which, the oil belongs to the Iraqi people.

>Select better "negotiators" (they have the CIA, the M-5, the M-6, the Mossad to give information about what is going on down there!) but, please, don't let them kill LOTS of innocent people (americans troops included) just to excuse their incompetence.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

>The "war game" is all about who will rule the middle east, not just Iraq. Euros or US Dollars? Sorry, but as Dylan (Bob) once wrote: "...you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone... 'cause the times they are achanging".

How will us getting rid of Saddam help us rule the Middle East? Especially after we leave there?

>Things must be put in clear words, not disguised as "freedom fight", "humanitarian issues", "restoration of democracy" etc etc... That is the speech for the masses.

Our words are very clear. We are going to get rid of Saddam, stay as long as necessary to help the Iraqis set up a government, then we are going to get the hell out.