>I must admit, Mike, that I'm still very confused at the motivation for attacking Iraq.

Two possibilities (or a combination of):

A. Oil. Which means Iraq is first, not last. With the precedent made that we can attack anyone who "maybe just might possibly be a threat someday", Syria, Jordan, and Iran are next. The funny part is the plan to overthrow Saddam was in place before Sept11, and even before Bush "won" the presidency in 2000.

B. Bush wants to get back at Saddam for trying to Assassinate his father. Don't laugh. He's stupid enough to do it.

>Now I can't believe that your President or Vice-President would throw the world into a chaotic state just for some "personal grudge". Maybe they can/will, but it sure seems totally counter to history, especially of the U.S.

I disagree. Take Dick Cheney, who in King Bush I administration fought hard against Saddam, and when the war was over, turned around and did billions of dollars worth of business. Now with King Bush II, his old business partner is aparently "the most evil person in the world" again. What will happen when Saddam is ousted? I dunno, but it would probably be wise to invest in Haliburten or whatever oil company Dick goes to after he looses the next election.

>But most importantly, in my opinion, is the straight outright aggression that it represents, being a first for the U.S. EVER.

Actually, second. I think we attacked a South American country once.

Good post, thanks!