LH:

Like individuals, nations have their vectors of rationality, dramatization, psychosis, and thir stock of cultural attitudes for and against optimum future well being. The content of these things -- the names of gods or the characters in the myths -- do not weigh much in the scheme of things; what does weigh much is the impact of beliefs on actions and decisions in selecting futures for individuals, coimmunities, nations, species and the world as a whole.

We have pretty well settled on the notion that criminal conduct by an individual sharply impacts their rights as a member of the community -- felons cannot buy guns and rapists are generally shunned by their neighbors.

Nations are not exempt fromt he constraints of fundamental human sanity, which below a certain threshold is not just a cultural idiosyncracy bit a core global value. Those who have demonstrated abuse suffer consequences imposed by the community of nations; Japan has no Army. Iraq has sharp constraints on its economy. This is not just the USA forcing people to see things their way -- it is a natural pattern of development in groups of people. Churches excommunicate, nations imprison or banish, and counties move their offenders across the county line.

Saddam Hussein, by this line of reasoning, does not have the same right to develop weapons of mass destruction as any other nation. He has demonstrated the ability to take unilateral destructive action against other nations on a large scale without provocation.

While I grant you the US has done some really awful and stupid things over the last century or so, including the Indian, Mexican, Spanish, and Vietnam wars and countless smaller-scale manipulations, this doesn't change the merits of the argument as regards Iraq. It makes it less tenable emotionally, sure; but the merits of the case are still pretty plain.

I share your abhorrence at the contemplation of invasion of foreign soil if the truth is that it is unilateral. But there seems to be a strong argument that Hussein actually is not a non-aggressor; that he is raising the capability of mass destruction in his labs (possibly) and that he participated in the aggressions of 9-11-01 -- this generation's 'day of infamy' -- with financial and logistic aid,.

I don't know the facts about these accusations. They are consistent with his history as a maker of war, against Iran, Kuwait, and the U.S.. But that doesn't make them facts.
If they are facts, hwoever, it seems pretty clear the nations of the world have a psychotic renegade on their hands, not just someone exercising their national prerogatives. If this is the case it would be extremely unwise not to deal with it as it is.

A