From: ssake@goldthread.com   
      
   Well, it's two separate issues, whether there was an imminent threat (and   
   hence pre-emptive self-defense was justified), and whether we should play   
   "world cop" as you say. Inherent in the "world cop" issue is just how   
   destabilizing a force Saddam Hussein's government was in the Middle East and   
   in the world, i.e., it's not just a matter of what he was doing to his own   
   people.   
      
   (FYI an action in and of itself is not necessarily arrogant. Arrogance is a   
   motive, and that gets complicated when you are talking about governments.   
   Which is not to say it isn't an important issue, just that it's   
   complicated.)   
      
   I personally feel that I don't have enough information to judge either of   
   the two issues cited above, the "imminent threat" issue or the "world cop"   
   issue. My gut tells me that the CIA intelligence was good, but that they   
   can't reveal all their sources or means. I don't think the current apology   
   about bad intelligence is quite right, I keep feeling that the intelligence   
   was good or they wouldn't have done it on that timetable. I could be wrong,   
   of course. I know the theory that Bush wanted to invade and made the facts   
   fit what he already wanted to do. I know Bush has a cocky personality. But   
   somehow, this theory still doesn't wash.   
      
   I also don't think it's necessary to find stockpiles of WMD in order to   
   conclude imminent threat. It's only necessary to find quick and ready *means   
   of production*, whether these means are disguised as civilian applications   
   or not. Then, you have to find the *intent* to convert those means to   
   military uses. It seems to me they found both of those elements. Though it   
   would be very difficult to make a convincing case to go to war because of   
   this finding, the potential consequences for the US and the world if you   
   didn't go to war would be identical to finding mounds of weapons.   
      
   Think about it--wouldn't it be the ideal solution for Saddam Hussein be to   
   destroy all stockpiles, disguise all means of production as civilian   
   applications, but have a system in place so that they could be converted   
   very quickly? Or, instead of destroying all stockpiles, destroy the bulky   
   stuff, but retain the things that can be hidden in one room somewhere, just   
   the things which can't be manufactured quickly, like biological agents. That   
   way he would look innocent but still have the capability. This would exactly   
   fit the profile of a psychopath--to take pains to look innocent (since they   
   are inordinately concerned with their outward image, and like to take on the   
   innocent victim role.) He's not dumb, of course he wouldn't leave huge   
   stockpiles of weapons where they could be found. He also knew it was a   
   propaganda war, and that the US and allies would lose credibility by this   
   move when weapons weren't found. He knew he could twist and manipulate the   
   moral sentiment of society to his advantage, despite being a despot himself,   
   and come out looking like the wronged party. I've seen this dynamic a   
   hundred times in personal relations with sociopathic people, i.e., what are   
   commonly called "players". Magnify this principle to the level of the   
   psychopath on the world stage, and how this whole thing played out would   
   make perfect sense. The sociopath somehow manages to steal the victim role   
   and the moral high ground despite having no morals himself (like Hussein   
   invoking the cause of Islam), making the person with integrity look like the   
   persecutor and himself look liked the innocent, wronged party. As in the   
   microcosm, so in the macrocosm.   
      
   What's sad is that US credibility has so erroded since Vietnam, and probably   
   because of the behavior of various corporations in the world arena, that the   
   world was more suspicious of us than it might have been otherwise.   
      
   Steve S.   
      
      
      
   "Crowfoot"  wrote in message   
   news:bunt6k$dvs$1@iruka.swcp.com...   
   > In article ,   
   > KimbaWLion_aol.com@127.0.0.1 wrote:   
   >   
   > > Optional  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > >There have been governments just as bad as Iraq in   
   > > >Asia and Africa, and the world did nothing as millions died.  I hate   
   > > >war, but when millions will die without war it seems to be the best of   
   > > >two very bad options.   
   > >   
   > > It's better to let the cruelty continue unchecked?   
   >   
   > Sometimes it seems that way, and most times there's no choice about it.   
   > But it strikes me that unless you are invited in -- and not by a bunch   
   > of exiles who haven't been home in decades and who have a stake in   
   > following you in and taking over for their own benefit, either -- I   
   > think it's a bad idea to decide to be judge and jury about somebody   
   > else's situation, particularly when you have ulterior motives that   
   > cloud your perceptions so that you make atrocious blunders with the   
   > lives of other people.  Playing world cop is a very, very dangerous   
   > and arrogant thing to do, as our current quagmire illustrates.   
   >   
   > C.   
   > --   
   > Crow   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)