>>Well, I think there's gotta be a better middle-ground between the foolish isolationism that led to WW2, for example, and the equally nutty imperialism that led us into Vietnam...
>
>I don't think this is a case of imperialism. We do not want to be there any longer than is necessary. Although we could certainly use it, we are not going to take the oil there.

Chris, I didn't quite come out & say this is now imperialism in Iraq. And, there may well have been US imperialism in the case of the Gulf War (oil). But OTOH, back then I felt we were totally justified, due to Iraq's Kuwait take-over, a much worse Iraqi imperialism than anything done by US in recent times.

So, I would add that imperialism isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to doing the world good, the two can work in tandem, in benign fashion, if done well.

This time around, though, we are much harder-pressed to make the case of war with Iraq, and I say this not only because Iraq has invaded no one lately, but also because: it is reflected by numerous allies that are very critical this time, and weren't during the Gulf War. That speaks volumes, I think. It's the world's moral conscience at work, and declaring that this time, we are treading on much thinner moral high-ground than at the Gulf War time.

Though I must say, Hussein is a major jerk we should've taken out when we had our golden chance. Perhaps we agree on that?