>
>But Paul... wouldn't you agree then that you (the U.S.) have a huge job on your hands?

I'd say (probably) a never ending job. Personally, I'd love to just ignore the rest of the world. However, that's not really an option. Been there, done that, still got attacked.

>China, North Korea, Myanmar and several other countries have similar things going on too. Is it the job of the U.S. to >clean those up too? According to your logic the clear answer is yes. And I believe that Wolfowitz et. al. see it that >way for sure, so you (the U.S.) will surely be busy for a while to come.
>Please, pick CHINA as the next one so that we can all be put out of our misery real quick by nuclear annihilation of the >world.

You seem to be assuming that I think war in every case is the solution. I don't. In this case, however, I think it is. Each situation is different.

In general (not specifically Iraq), what would you propose? Do nothing and hope nothing bad happens to >you< and say the hell with everyone else?

I haven't really gotten a feel for what the rest of the world would like to do in these situations (there probably isn't even a consensus). I'd love to hear a good, well thought out plan (and, at some point, I think when all other options have been exhausted the only two options left are war, or just ignore situation). Most people, however, just say "I don't know" then continue to criticize any decision that someone else makes. That has always felt like I cop-out to me. You can disagree, but you'd better have a reason for disagreeing and an alternate, workable, plan.