What makes you think that the United States wouldn't attack a country that has a few puny nukes, especially on neutral soil, if provoked?

I truly did understand your statement from before and it really has little to do with a desire for nukes for anyone. You want this president out of office in the myopic fantasy that the US would be "loved" if it weren't for the "cowboy". If you'd like to live in that denial, go for it... But recognize, that your denial of what happened on 9/11 does not change the fact that the US is going to continue to lash out at any perceived terrorist threat.

Your wishing for a utopian world does not jibe with history. The World Trade Center bombings were in the planning stages long before your "cowboy" was king. It is not even "enlightened" to think that the "world" would like us if only Bush weren't the president. It's okay, I guess, if that's the kind of denial you'd wish to live in. But it is a state of denial (sort of like - we could have prevented 9-11 denial - blame the CIA, the FBI, the President. They SHOULD have known! It helps the psyche to think that we were somehow in control and just blew it...) You and many of the other posters on this forum sound like the teacher on the playground, "play nice, boys and girls". Walk away. See what happens? Tell me about human nature...

Even hacks like me predicted on these fora on 9-12, that Iraq was next... It doesn't take much grey matter. Or, for that matter, as soon as Iraq is "settled" that we will go after North Korea - with their puny little nuclear threat. This president telegraphed his intentions (no, he fucking flat out stated) towards these countries in his "axis of evil" statement. In fact, this president has done exactly as he's stated he's going to do, dry alcoholic or not. He's not taking on Korea because it's not NEXT on his list. It will be after Iraq.

I'm sorry that I seem a bit "rough" in my posts, but I don't have much time these days to coddle. I'm sure as hell sick and tired of all the utopian "peace, man" fucking nonsense. It was old in the 60's and really old now. I wish we were a different species, really, but we're not. Laws exist to keep people from doing what they otherwise would do naturally. This includes stealing, raping, murdering, lying, and yes, Margaret, warring with other "tribes" - a time to be born, a time to die, a time of peace, a time of war...

and perhaps some of the vitriol of the last post was directed elsewhere. ;-)

I also do not wish to put words in your mouth so I retract much of the last attributed to you. I assumed from your post (where I joined this thread), that you may be a part of the "Democrat" crowd and were implying that Bush's hidden agenda was to wag the dog indefinately (or at least until the next election cycle). Although this argument is not without precedence, I firmly do not believe that this is the case in this instance (although it is impossible to objectively determine Bush's "motives"). I really think that Bush and the current government are reeling from 9-11 and "winging it" as far as the implications for the security of our country in the new world order. They are completely changing the intelligence community and security of the country. They're also lashing out. They were pissed that Sadam was paying suicide bomber's families in Israel... Let's face it, he is a poster child terrorist - a convenient (and probably justifiable) target.

For much of this past few months, I've been allowing myself to ask, "what if the US is really wrong on this whole thing?". Recently, I had arthroscopic surgery which allowed me the luxury of time off to recoup and watch the UN hearings. My impression - I've allowed myself to ask "who gives a fuck what France thinks?"... The only real governmental archetype for response to terrorism is Israel. I've noticed that they have tried appeasement at various times with varying degrees of success. FWIW, they tend to respond to terrorism with escalated terrorism nowadays as it seems to be more effective in reducing their body count.

I think that the reason I have been so much on the fence and not "flying my flag" so high is that I have been getting caught up in the "justice" argument. If we (the US) attack in a terrorist fashion, are we any better than any other terrorists? This has deeply bothered me. I have come to the conclusion that this question in and of itself is condescending to the people of the Middle East and those organizations lashing out against the West... Of course we are no better than them, nor worse. We are all human beings, first and foremost. We're all capable of extreme compassion and extreme cruelty.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe that Bush et al. are setting the stage for a world government. One that has an "or else" clause attached to it's proclamations (laws). From watching the UN hearings, it was hard to escape the Dilbertesque PHB simile. "Dear Mr. Chairman, I most gratiously congratulate you on your totally meaningless temporary appointment to grand poobah of this superfluous hearing... Ladies and germs, Iraq blah, blah, blah." It was a mockery. A travesty. A mockery of a travesty of a sham... I am not willing to place my security in the hands of these dickheads... sorry. Not the way the UN stands now. No way.

My hope is that we do stay and rebuild what we destroy and offer the people of Iraq hope for a better future and ultimately - independence. It is also my hope that this might send a clear signal to the other dicktators/tyrants that there is no longer any place in the world to hideout and set up shop and there will be a strong "or else" attached to non compliance of terms of surrender (notice that it is not "just" that they have weapons of mass destruction - as do many nations - but they were required by the terms of their surrender in '91 and numerous UN proclamations/ultimatums to disarm). If the UN is meaningless, it is meaningless. Maybe we should form a "League of Nations" instead?

Sorry for the purge, but I've been thinking a bunch and not posting much at all.

With a number of your stated positions. Primarily the assumption that we will be hated more or less no matter what happens with Iraq.
I was in Germany in the early 80's (France too) for just shy of 3 years, with many German friends and acquaintances. They "hated" our government then (probably rightfully so). What is happening now is a shameless exhibition of we aren't joining this bandwagon 'cause we can't afford the reconstruction. We don't want you there because of the oil. Mind numbing hypocrisy on all sides.

As far as the Democrat thing, it was alluding to his original premise of wagging the dog, a purely political innuendo. Opportunistic too!

I truly have grepped many of the headlines, parsed them and piped them to my own conclusions, and, unfortunately for our current discourse, humbly agree with the US position. If that makes me an apologist for the current crop, so be it.

I highly respect you and many of the others who post on this board, but wonder if maybe you aren't being a tad reactionary and joining the counter-cabal yourselves. A possibillity?

Where do you stand?

The war... are you for it or against it and why?

Are you a pacifist?

Are you a Democrat?

Do you think Bush has the mental capacity for the job of President?

Do you think that 12 years is ample time for a country to comply with terms of surrender?

Let's just start there and see how many blanks I've already filled in for you...

Yet we are about to attack a country with those... Even easier (at least equally) to sneak out of the country and inflict damage. Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)