"Billy Preston" wrote:

"Dana Miller" wrote

Saddam had been filling those graves for decades before we took action.
What changed? What REALLY changed?

3000 dead, billions in losses. The US can't afford to sit around and wait
for threats to mature.

North Korea, Iran, Sudan, etc, are certainly targets, but the threat isn't as
great as Iraq. As we see in Iraq, as we saw in Afghanistan, their are
numbers of groups who care very little about anything, unless it is out of
a barrel of a gun. We need to kill them in large numbers.

Well, as daunting as someplace like the Balkans can be
regarding war and stability, there is a pragmatic aspect and a
humanitarian aspect to US intervention abroad. Taking a stand and
actually DOING something in Rwanda, the Balkans, Sudan, etc can
literally be described as protecting Muslims from genocidal murders.
That *has* to be powerful stuff if applied properly. It's a lot harder
to be hated by Muslims when you are all over the world saving them. A
lot of the problem has been inaction, and not properly using the good
acts to generate goodwill - our P.R. is pretty awful. Ironic
considering the size of the US ad and media industries.


When the Marines surrendered in Falluja, I decided then and there, that
the Bush regime had failed us, and I will no longer vote for them. The war
is lost, and we might as well let France dictate the next era.

The Marines don't appear to be in a surrendering mood these
past few days. I also wondered about the previous cease-fire, but it
appears to have been a "biding time" play by al-Sadr's militia. I
doubt there will be a second cease-fire.