Before we had officially gone to war with Iraq, I was thinking. (ohhh shocking and dangerous I know). I was thinking of almost how convinient it was. We have had a slumping economy since Bush became president. He has tried a few different things to get it to perk up. Even cut taxes and sent us all the difference from our previous tax return. I can't even imagine how much money that cost him. WE anyway, he tried these different things, to no avial really. Here we are, more than halfway through his term in office, and still having trouble. Economists say that war is good for the economy. This is not something they keep as a secret. Now I am not saying that the only reason we declared war was because of a slumping economy, as all wars are extremely multifaceted. I am mearly saying that it is yet another reason for prowar from the governments standpoint. Talking this over with a friend, and antiwar person, she said that it takes years for anything to show an affect on the economy. Even war. I believe she was wrong. We were officially at war for maybe 3 days when I heard it on the news brief..."The stock market is seeing its best week in over 20 yrs." "Oil prices are dropping, have dropped more this week than they have in any one week ever, it won't be long before we see the results of those falling prices at the gas station" And then they asked about what other great affects the war would have on our economy. Years to affect the economy... It looks like all of 3 days to me. So I am not "Prowar", but I am not "Antiwar" either. Do I like the idea of being at war, or of killing a bunch of people, or of our government over throwing the government of another country. Nope I don't. Do I like the idea of a countries government led by someone who will have his own son assisinated, or that uses torture on its citizens for no reason. (Torture is wrong in any light, but is slightly more forgiveable in certain circumstances, such as when the person is a criminal and the life of other innocent people hang in the balance, although I am still not for it) Or of a governement who is not going to go along with the UN, not because they feel they don't need the UN, but because they don't like the rules of the UN, such as getting rid of weapons of mass destruction? No, I don't. I don't know the right answer. One smart thing Bush said, (again I know, Shocking) is that we will be foolish to assume that Sadam will change from how we know him to be. I use the term know loosely. I am all for giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, even if they show that they don't deserve it. But the average person doesn't have control of an entire country of people. Of an arsonal of weapons that can harm or kill hundreds/thousands of people. Do I think Sadam should be dead? I don't have enough information to make the decision. But I do believe that he should not be in charge of a snail, never mind an entire country.