The reason we are still arguing about this just proves that it is not a simlpe question. I don't think anybody is black and white on this. I don't think anybody is 100% sure that this war is just, or 100% that this war isn't. I actually think there are probably a great number of people that sway between opinions almost every day. I think it's normal.
Listen, nobody can argue that Saddam Hussein is a tyran. Nobody can be pro-Saddam. On the other hand, this is not the 1991 war, or Afganistan. Nobody has been attacked. There is no clear reason for this war. The reasons cited for it don't quite cut it for everybody. Saddam has dangerous weapons? Some can argue that the UN inspectors were doing a good job and should have been given more time. A lot of people said that war should be the last resort and that everything had NOT been tried to avoid it. Saddam is a tyran? Everybody agrees with this, but there are at least a dozen other such dictators in the World, so why specificaly this one more than another?
Sure Saddam Hussein in a cruel man. But the problem is that there are too many questions, too many doubts. The motives for this war are nothing obvious and that why countries and people are divided on it.
One thing I find interesting about Al-Jazera. Did you know that while America considered them Pro-Saddam, the arabs thought they were actually too much Pro-American? That's why they were quite happy with the job they were doing, convinced that the fact that both parties thought they were unfair proved that they were doing a very good job taking no side.
