Hi mark.

Feel free to ignore any quewstions that don't apply to your beliefs...

 ml> The recent Frontline Report is perhaps the best exposition of
 ml> where this Iraq deal came from.  It derives from the unhappiness
 ml> of certain "Hawks" in the Bush I administration who belived the
 ml> failure to finish off Saddam and to support the Shiite/Kurdish
 ml> rebellions in 1992 were a disastrous mistake.

 I hear the kurds are pissed off too (saw it on the news) now that Turkey's
 going to send its army in to deal with them if USA invades.

 They have it rough in that part of the world...  nations divided up along
 seeming arbitrary lines.

 The kurds aren't the only "nation" thats divided by borders that
seem to be
 in the wrong place, but I can see that putting the borders in the right
 place doesn't help either if one of the nations decided to "expand".....


 ml> but also an opportunity to attach Saddam to the anti-terrorism war.
 ml> Their theory (which has NOTHING to do with oil)

I don't see how involves terrorism either.

 ml> is that now that the US is the only superpower and can act
 ml> unrestrained by other states,

Russia seems to be elf confident at the moment too.

 ml> it has both the ability and the OBLIGATION to advance human rights,
 ml> democracy (& maybe free markets, too)

free markets, I've yet to see any evidence of that.

 ml> to places governed by violent, dictatorial regimes.

Ah, so spreading free markets to USA isn't part of their agenda,
greedy bastards.

 ml> Also, democratic regimes never make war on other democratic regimes.

Churchill declared war on Germany. Hmm I preceive "make war" is
different to
"declare war".  But how is it different?

 ml> Therefore, the spread of democracy spreads peace and reduces the
 ml> costs and liklihoods of war. Moreover, Saddam, is a persistent
 ml> impediment to peace between Israelis & Palestinians. Removing him
 ml> would advance peace there

how is he causeing trouble there?

 ml> This position seems to me to be similar to the Victorian "white
 ml> man's burden" argument for Imperialism.

yeah, I've heard os that,  that about sums it up.

 ml> That is, the obligation to compel others to act rightfully follows
 ml> from the power to do so.  It's an evangelical argument that may not
 ml> be shared by all of us but it is understood by Evengelical Christians
 ml> --including Geo Bush AND Tony Blair

Attitudes like that made a real mess of australian race relations, prolly
didn't help much over there either

 ml> this makes sense...

It explains their motivation, yes.

 -=> Bye <=-

---