Barak,
While I fully support you and will fight for you to believe what you want, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of GW Bush and America in the strongest possible terms.
If Baby Bush didn't have 150,000 troops in the Gulf with fingers on their triggers, Saddam wouldn't even be thinking about disarming. If the politicans in our country and the rest of the world would unite behind Baby Bush, there would be no need for continuing the hostilities (they have never ended) we have engaged in with Iraq since 1991. A united world--even a united US--would force Saddam to go into exile and would allow a peaceful regime change and for the first time in a long time, the Iraqi's could live free from tyranny and oppression. On top of that, we take out one huge terrorist threat. However, the buffoonery liberal politicans and the leaders of France and Germany are engaging in only worsen the situation.
No, I don't want to go back to the armpit of the world again, but I want a world safe for my children, and such a world needs to be free of terrorists and the dictators who support them. After Iraq, then we have work to do in North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. Terrorist and the countries that support them must understand in no uncertain terms terrorism is not acceptable and the punishments for engaging is such activities is severe.
The US is not imperialist. We want is peaceful relations with our neighbors and mutually beneficial trade. We do not desire the whole world to be under US rule, as we would if we were truly imperialist. Calling the US "imperialist" is like saying Bush is a Hitler and Saddam is a victim. While we are not perfect, we have more tolerance for those who hate us, are exceedingly generous, and do our best to improve the lot of the rest of the world. No one else even comes close.
The only way we have ever secured a peace is through strength and engagement in the world. As much as I'd like us to be isolationist, that is not a viable option in the 21st century.
Off my soapbox now.
Blaine
