As I would expect from a Babylon5 fan <s> your case is reasoned and sincere. I would disagree with the "arrogance" and "thumbing our noses" part. Sometimes leadership means doing things you really, sincerely believe need to be done. Churchill's position in 1936-1939 certainly was "arrogant" and thumbed its nose against the conventional wisdom in England, France and the U.S. Reagan thumbed his nose at European popular opinion with the Pershings and at the nuclear freeze advocates ( including Senator Kerry ) in Rykavik - and yet we know now these were two pivotal acts in bringing down the Soviet Union. ( which Reagan had arrogantly called what it was - evil.)

I take issue with a lot of the way the post-war was handled. But I believe the mistakes were based on good intentions. The Iraqi army and Baathist infrastructure was dissolved primarily because people like Cheney and Wolfowitz - real war hawks - believed the war was about democracy for the Iraqi people. That certainly flies in the face of public perception of their roles and motives. (I would say very few people are aware of Wolfowitz's role in getting Marcos out of power)

I believe most American and European opposition to the war and the administration's policies in this regard are sincere and heartfelt. I also believe that there are those who use the admirable sentiments that motivate that opposition for less than noble purposes. This was true in the 30s. Stalin used to chuckle about "useful idiots".

I'm afraid Dan Rather is our Walter Duranty.

Regarding terrorists: Zarqowi was operated on - and then operating in - Iraq for at least two years before the war. That had to be with Saddam's blessing. Abu Nidal - the Bin Laden of his day - received shelter in Iraq after he was expelled from Syria ( my god what kind of terrorist thug would you have to be to be unpalatable to the Syrians )

The issue with Saddam was who he was - a Stalin wannabe with demon spawn.

He was our avowed enemy, he was rich, he was buying off our "allies" and he was going to get out of the box. And then Israel was going to turn Baghdad into the surface of the moon (except it would glow) and there was going to be a war in the middle east that was going to kill a lot more people that even the blood-lust so common in the region would find acceptable.

Of course, we will never know about the bullets we dodge. And because of the way intelligence works, it will be a long time before we know about the bullets we may have already dodged. The final chapter on WMD hasn't been written yet. Let's wait to see how the Syria/Bekaa thing plays out.


>snip
>>Well, even though you're wrong about the Kerry/Bush thing ;-)
>>
>>(BTW - how do you get the s in arrow brackets like we used on CIS? I keep getting it rejected as they say it is a formatting tag or something???) TIA
>
>
>< S > or < s >(without the spaces) = <s>
>
>I like many others think that Bush's rush to war in Iraq was a result of a desire to depose Saddam at any cost and was on Bush's to do list long before 9/11. I'm sure that after 9/11 there was a concerted effort to find any shred of evidence that Iraq was involved. America was so united to back the new "War on Terror" that this administration was able quickly push through legislation like the Patriot Act that previously would have never passed and to shift the focus from the real War on Terror of capturing Bin Laden and disabling Al Qaaeda and other terrorist organizations to Saddam is an imminent threat to the US and was aiding terrorists and capable of providing WMD's to them. That premise has been proven to be untrue.
>
>Is the world and the US really safer when by our arrogance and disregard of international relations and cooperation we have alienated and angered a large portion of the world population? Certainly Saddam was a bad man and the Iraqi people are better off without him in power, but I'm concerned that our arrogance and thumbing our nose at the rest of the world may be planting the seeds of more hatred and a new generation of terrorist who will be intent on striking us at any opportunity. I think that Bush has a very narrow view of the world and somehow believes that god is on his side, a very dangerous thing IMHO. Anyway, there are many bad men in power in this world. Are we making it our job to remove every dictator and bad man in the world when US policy and actions have supported and propped up so many of these guys in the first place? The US certainly didn't think of Saddam as such a bad guy when he was killing Iranians. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policies that has
>existed in the past has helped to keep many of these bad men in power in the first place.
>
>I believe that this administration's ideology and policies are not the way to make the world a safer place nor has it done much for the US domestic welfare. You obviously believe otherwise, and I can respect that and I think we can agree to disagree. Neither you nor I can say who is right or wrong. History will provide that answer.