>>>>I think explanations work better with an example, what about this one?
>>>
>>>Let's see...;)
>>>
>>>>>1. Create or exaggerate a problem.
>>>> Iraq is part of the Axis of Evil
>>>
>>>Iraq had been a problem long before that phrase was used. See UN violations, see Clinton presidency, see Kurdish massacre, see draining Mesopotamian marshes, etc...Frankly I think his threat was understated for over a decade.
>>>
>>>>>2. Create hysteria over something that you know is not a threat and will never happen
>>>> Iraq has WMD and they are willing to use them
>>>
>>>"Know" is the operative word. To be frank, no one seems to have "known" anything important. Our intelligence was based on technological sources at best and dubious human sources at worst. Ditto for the rest of the western intelligence agencies. We simply did not have the human intelligence sources in or near enough to the seat of power to honestly "know" anything. There are a lot of accusations regarding "shaping", however, in the end those accusers were no more in the "know" than the accusees. Even Saddam's front line commanders thought they would have WMD to defend with, right up to the point they were overrun.
>>>
>>>>>3. Claim that you have the answer to solving the problem that isn’t even a problem
>>>> Invade Iraq to take control of the WMD
>>>
>>>Here you've chosen only WMD from a list of multiple reasons cited for invasion.
>>>http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-2.html
>>>
>>>>>4. When the threat, which never had a chance of being real, doesn’t materialize, claim victory that your contrived solution saved the day and be hailed a hero!
>>>> WMD were not found, but we brought peace and Democracy to Iraq
>>>
>>>Here you've drawn a false connection between the reason (WMD) and the solution (liberation).
>>>
>>>Seeking Iraq's liberation had been the policy of the US since 1998 as expressly cited in the Joint Resolution cited above.
>>>"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; "
>>>
>>>Also, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the US or W are being hailed as heroes. ;)
>>
>>Regime change is not the same thing as liberation, is it?
>
>In and of itself, no. Of course the policy was not limited to regime change, see bolded above. The policy was called the Iraq Liberation Act.
>
>>IMO we have no business trying to change regimes even if we don't like the regime in charge, unless they pose a threat to us.
>
>IMO Free people have a moral obligation to seek liberty for the tyrannized. This does not imply that we should strike militarily as a first response, nor should we remove the military option arbitrarily. Others liberty is in our national and international security interest.

I think I have gone a little isolationist as our troubles at home have grown. We couldn't fix all the broken countries in the world if we wanted to. And all it seems to get us is near-universal dislike anyway. We are not perceived as liberators but bullies.

Does Cal play today or tomorrow? The one downside of being employed at the moment is I can't watch basketball for four days straight ;-)