You write:

item: Yeah, Saddam's done this before. It wasn't a weapon of mass destruction then. It still isn't.

It was for the fish, the birds, the mammals and anything in the food chain that depended on them... If spilling thousands of barrels of oil into the sea is no problem... Understand your point, but this issue you are marginalizing.

item: I don't know in the context of your post who you think is desperate to hate America. I further have no idea who you think is supporting Saddam. You should note that objecting to a person or country being robbed at gunpoint does not necessarily imply support.

Those that are opposing the war because of guilt for being a part of the American empire or those that are knee jerking opposition to any war for any reason. These are the people who are desparate to hate America. Because they hate themselves, I being one of them. I'll leave you're "being robbed at gunpoint" statement alone... There's a lot of robbing going on by all sides... OPEC, use of Palestinian issue, etc...

The U.S. finds itself in an unique epoch for it's history. It is no longer a part of the British Empire, yet has modeled itself (from it's courts, government, even recreational activities) after it's former empiricist founders. What else would it do?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the last century, America's military power is almost without compare - the disparity, that is, between the might of the US and the "rest of the world". The odds of a country or countries successfully invading the US are almost nil (not even considering the nuclear stalemate "if you try to take us over, we'll make the world uninhabitable for anything living".)

To wit, America builds empires very much like the British did, through economics. The only difference being that we do not "officially" control the occupied nor do we usually have to invade them - we're usually invited in. One of our territories, er, "trading partners" has not been cooperating with us well and we will keep them in line. Make no mistake. The majority of Americans will go about their merry way and allow people of conscience like you to make up the euphemisms for them.

The history of mankind is the history of empires. No matter what euphemisms that people try to banter about, the United States can do "what it wishes" because noone can stop it except for it's own citizens, and for the most part, why would it's own citizens really be interested in paying $5 to $10 a gallon for gas and heating oil? It would bring the economy (it's the economy stupid - Pavlovian salivate to politicians - Americans pay much less attention to world politics if the economy is either good or bad :-)) to it's knees at a time when it is most unfortunate (and unnacceptable - regardless which party where in office). In other words, which hedonistic element of American society would stop this war? Republicans? Democrats? Green Party? Transgender Electricians Union 403? The Iwantmysuvforchrist Brotherhood of Hedonisticcapitalistpigsfornomatterwhatisay Illstillwantmysuvthankyouverymuch?

Seeing that Doug started this thread and shares the same basic history (former British territory) and the same basic setup of all things British (government, legal system, etc.), I can only conclude that if his country were in the same military position as ours, and ours as in Australia, we would be voicing the same concerns about Australia... "Where's your conscience, boys?" When he damned well knows where it is. "It's in our own hedonistic self interests, Mate. But by the way, we'll make oil cheap for you too 'cause you're our buddies - wink." I'm sure that the conscientious people of Australia will not take a price break on petrol and stand on their own impeccable principle?

No Doug, you'll find a few bleeding hearts to pay you lip service in a bb, but I'll tell you what I see, in the last twenty years in this country we don't even fucking pretend to care about the rest of the world anymore... Our political discourse has to do with Our OWN economy and Our OWN "rights to more shit". Period. Sorry Mate. I truly wish it weren't so. It's getting tedious. We know we have no moral high ground, we just don't even fucking care anymore... So give it a rest?

item: We (the citizens of the US) do not have any right to decide to do anything to citizens of a different country without some kind of provication. What their ruler does to them does not enter into the equasion.

Number 1 - See above.

But just where is that "without provocation" clause written down? Somewhere in the US Constitution? Somewhere in a UN Charter (probably is, but we created the UN anyway and seeing that the next passenger plane/plain old bomb is targeting it's building in NYC...) What gives you the right to tell me (another American) what right I have if it ain't on some old piece of paper signed by a bunch of old dead dudes? I am just as entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of more shit as you are... Our votes cancel eachother out.

By the way, we're all in this together. You'd think that with all that human history shit and all written down, that maybe this empire would learn from the mistakes of the past... Hubris. My SUV gets less MPG than the Concord... It's the economy STUPID... ad nauseum. 'nuff said, hnick?

On the one hand, the post above was my interpretation of the current macro view of American culture and political debate. I, of course, cannot speak for all Americans but I believe that it accurately represents a general trend that I have seen over the past 20 years (drastically accelerated after the fall of the Soviet Union). Of course, the rhetoric is filled with euphemisms, etc...

As per my own personal view, this is my way of protesting. To state what I believe is the prevailing "truth" underlying the euphemisms about "just wars" and all the other bullshit.

And who really knows, maybe the rhetoric is correct. If the US can stabilize the oil markets, it could lead to greater prosperity for a larger number of people. The people in Afghanistan (who were not injured or killed) are most probably better off because of our presence, most probably moving forward. After oppressive Soviet and then Taliban regiemes, our (US) biggest threat posed is that we will leave them alone...

Whether "the world" understands it our not, we are moving to a globalization (driven by technology and economics) and cultures will be enhanced and cultures will be destroyed. I honestly believe that W. does get it... I would even go as far as to predict that English (via the defacto standard of the Internet) will be spoken by most people on the planet by the end of this century. I view this as generally a good thing, in that it will allow people the opportunity to work with eachother more easily if we can tear down some of the cognitive dissonance created by ethos, mythos and plain old differing language.

To me, to say I dislike a person because he is French or Australian, is just as demeaning as saying I dislike a person because he is black or because he is an orthodox jew... It should be irrelevant, "do you dislike the man?". It isn't, but should be. I suggest that you give a look (or another look) at Toffler's The Third Wave or War and Antiwar to give you a better idea at what I basically believe is happening in the macro sense.

To get even more to the heart of this particular matter, even though I do not agree with the rhetoric out of Washington, the UN or the "world", I think that Iraq will indeed be better off after this is finished, if we follow the pattern of the past (see Germany, Japan, Afghanistan). Note, the wars that we lost... Vietnam and Korea... Those areas are certainly better off... At differing times during the Roman and British empires you were better off being with them as well.

So as for being a "good Nazi", maybe. Only time can determine that. My own conscience is somewhat appeased by my conviction that this current administration is generally doing the right thing (if not for their stated reasons). The key is that, America must follow through with reconstruction and demanding democracy in the places that it engineers. As long America remains a democracy, there is hope and this how I differentiate the "tyranny of America" versus the "tyranny of a third world dictator". There is no hope in a third world dictatorship in the global economy/world.

Us and the British et al and (by proxie) the Russians. The end of WWII and treaties signed then and the ensuing cold war brought about many strange bedfellows... You brought up the harm we did to Iraq, but, how about all the neat military shit we gave them when they were our friends and fighting the barbaric Iranians?

I would go even as far as to say, we helped create Sadam. Sadam's Iraq is perhaps the most progressive of the Arab countries (based on the general quality of life measures - roads, radios per 1000, etc.)

Even more interesting than NK in Asian politics (to me) is the continuing "alliance" with Pakistan against (?) India (the second most populace country in the world).

By the by, I think the US has already hinted at playing the South Korea/Japan/Hong Kong card with the Chinese (arming them with nukes that is). And, in a military sense, it would be the correct move on the US part, putting really only Hawaii (and unfortunately Australia and the whole of Asia) in immediate danger.

To wit, if you check out [link|http://www.prb.org//Content/ContentGroups/Datasheets/wpds2002/2002_World_Population_Data_Sheet.htm|http://www.prb.org//...on_Data_Sheet.htm]
and download the PDF, it will gives a summary of current population (2002) and projected to 2050. Notice who is no 1, 4, 5, and 8 in 2050. Do you think this in any way effects political planners in any countries? I honestly believe it might, but I'm just curious...

To answer one more anticipated question, yes, there are some really smart sons of bitches that "think that way" in the intelligence agencies and gov think tanks. And yes, I believe that the British (by proxie) Empire is continued through US foreign policy. I've even noticed that foreign press is even no longer including the words "and Great Britian" after "the US"... It does kind of negate the expression "the US and UK, unilaterally decided etc."

Random thoughts...