I find this situation tragic.

Although Elie Weisel made one of the better arguments in favor of military intervention ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/12/ED98744.DTL ), i was equally struck by an article written by Susan Estrich, a law professor at USC. In it, she states, "I do not think i am alone in being far more terrified of attacks at home by terrorists provoked by an increasingly unpopular American war than i am of Saddam Hussein...But imagine Bill Clinton was still president and doing the same things. Imagine he had lost the support of our allies; the European coalition was falling apart; a nuclear North Korea was a fait accompli; the economy was stumbling; 200,000 soldiers were halfway around the world, hoping their chemical warfare suits don't have holes; anti-Americanism around the world was at a fevered pitch; and we were told to buy duct tape. Would the president's critics be as civil as i have been? They would have been calling for his impeachment."

This paranoid overreaction is being unleashed for many reasons, few of which i can support with any percentage. Destroying those who are actively trying to destroy us is necessary - but that's al Qaida. We can't find bin Laden so we're going after another of the bad guys while we're in the neighborhood. The belief that all should be allowed to live in a free, equal and perhaps even democratic society is a noble value, but it has not exactly been a historical cornerstone of the GOP platform, so i cannot believe them when they make this claim.

The up to $200 billion to wage all this destruction and 'nation building' (GWB, the modern day Shiva) comes out of our taxes, while our economy, schools, social services, medicare, social security, etc etc etc go straight down the crapper. If i sound a bit isolationist, it's because in this instance i am. America first - and don't give me that tired old saw about this being in our collective best interests/national security. Iraq is not much of a threat to us, and never was.

Follow the money. There's simply too much of it involved in this scenario to do otherwise.

This is being done not only to eliminate an evil man. It is also being done in the name of a family fued, for possession of the giant oil reserves of another country, for the rebuilding contracts given to friends, and most importantly, for the heavy regional influence to be gained from having US military bases in the nation formerly known as Iraq (and hey, Iran, you're next). Imperialism was bad when Japan did it, but now it's okay because of 911/Osama/insert excuse here? Horseshit. The blowback will be horrendous, and duct tape ain't gonna cut it. "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam," Bush said. "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." That day's arrival will only be hastened by this coming slaughter. This is not a necessary (world) war (yet) - it is the ambitious (read: paranoid & greedy) actions of men from secret silken worlds, but too often all we the people can see are those towers falling; 911's horrors seem to have blinded us to the ulterior motives of those on high who can see farther than security or simple revenge. Only when the Lower 48 become bright with the glare of vengeful explosions will there finally be enough light to see what has really happened. It'll be far too late by then.

unfortunately, while my optimism has been dashed many many many times in this life, my cynicism rarely has. still, i really hope i'm wrong.