troll,

Looks like neither or us could sleep so continuing from dinner.......

Realistically, the question is moot. More appropriate, I think, would be what are appropriate conditions for us to get out? Just leave? Oust Sadaam and leave? Oust him and rebuild Iraq?

So I am "for" only in the sense that we are there and the dangers inherent in not successfully finishing this (by pulling out) would seem to outweigh the costs of continuing (at least in the long term). Doesn't mean I have to like it (or plan to) but we are there and barring action by Congress (such as de-funding the war) we are there to the bitter end.

That the rest of the world isn't going to love us is a far cry from saying we don't need their support - whether specifically in he case of Iraq or in general as part of the global economy. We remain (last I heard) the nation with the largest foreign debt. Not an enviable position to be in. And while some may not like us, that doesn't seem to be justification to write them off.

The argument for preemptive strike is appealing on an impractical level, though it has the benefit of generally being non-falsifiable in the final analysis. Ethically, it's part of the vigilante argument and seems to fly in the face of at least one of the basic principles that are claimed as founding principles of this nation. (That we are a nation of laws)

As you note, certain countries seem to have a financial stake in Sadaam remaining in power. Conversely, as we have seen from the recent series of bids (issued to a 'select' group), the US would benefit financially from Sadaaam being out of power. Thus at least one element of your argument cab be turned around - that the US has a financial interest in overthrowing Sadaam and thus our position is not based on moral principles. Neither argument is valid but the latter seems to better illustrate one problem with the former.

Yes, Sadaam is the worst (or near the 'top" of the list of worst) of a bad lot. But then the President of Malaysia has problems too, and we count him as an ally. Whether others of our erstwhile allies are as bad (or worst) is arguable. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Their press is very controlled and solid information is hard to find. Is that sufficient reason to attack Sadaam. Or anyone else. It seems a very slippery slope argument as the repercussions from such a policy are frightening (if speculative).

Is it your argument that we should become the world's policemen or embrace neo-colonialism as our foreign policy?

The justification to attack were:

The UN resolutions and requirement to disarm - essentially a non-argument as whether the new round of inspections would have succeeded is a moot point. Whether or not the inspectors could have succeeded will remain the great unanswered question. Bush made the determination that they would not and I suspect this question will haunt him.

Possession of WMD - not yet proven - though still a possibility - if so, it becomes and "ends justifying the means" sort of thing which makes me very uncomfortable. That some of the "proof" turns out to be faked and we didn't recognize that doesn't give me lots of warm fuzzy's about our reason's for being there.

He is a monster and needs to be removed - unarguable as to the characterization (and I'll add that in some ways he was our monster and that when Britain and Germany in the late 80's pointed that out and called fro sanctions, we wouldn't go along) And maybe we need to clean up our own mess.

Support for al-qaeda - Proof of which seems at best a hastily erected structure of circumstantial evidence and not a little wishful thinking. Though a significant number of Americans, according to some polls, think he was directly involved in 9/11.

Regards

John