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...