Hi Fox,

You're right. Supporting anti-unilateral war efforts do not equate to being pro-Saddam...however...

If I were Saddam I would appreciate and foster as much dissension around the world as possible. I would pit one side against the other over technicalities. Saddam is clearly a student of history, his own and the world's.

Here is a comparison you wont see often - Iraq as Japan circa 1932. In 1932 the Lytton Report was issued - a report which condemned Japan as an aggressor nation for invading Manchuria and implementing atrocities upon the Chinese people. The League of Nations, led by France and Great Britain refused to act to check Japan's abuses - even after Britain led the US to believe it would support the US in holding Japan accountable to the Kellogg Pact of 1928. The US tried to hold Japan accountable to her treaties regarding China - and was rebuffed, indeed Britain took Japan's side in the matters! The same double-cross is happening today, except now the doublecross and appeasement to dictators is being performed in the UN.

This divisiveness - though often justified from one point of view, helped lead to the greater conflict of WWII. The French were brutally occupying the Ruhr - leading to Hitler's easy rise to power. Today the French are knee deep in Iraqi business transactions - helping to keep Saddam in power.

I find the concept of avoiding unilateralism - a deceptive ruse often used by those who have no real desire to see Saddam ousted.

If a carjacker steals my car - I am not opposed to a single policeman unilaterally apprehending the criminal or a whole precinct tackling him. The crux of the matter is that he is apprehended.

Right and wrong are not determined by numbers. I find no particular discomfort in the fact that the world does not want to fight along side us, risking terrorist assaults pointed against them, no more than I regret the US having to almost singlehandedly liberate Europe because other nations resources, will, or both are weak.

No, those who are opposed to war are generally the good guys. I understand this for I am opposed to wars as well.

But Chamberalin was a good guy too. He must've found himself in some pretty strange waters dividing Czechoslovakia to the Germans, Poles and Hungarians in the Munich Pact.

The moral of the story - sometimes wars are necessary. Sometimes they're not.

The Saddam situation will not get better, it does not lead to resoulution of the Israel/Palestine conflict or to the development in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or even Iran.

Dictators seem peaceful and harmless enough - or "contained enough" - that is until they make their moves.

Being anti-war is not being anti-American - even if a select and vocal number of the most devoted opponents to the war are exactly that.

Being anti-war is not being pro-Saddam - anymore than being against the US entry into the world war was being pro-Hitler or pro-Kaiser Wilhelm.

However, in each instance, in retrospect, had we acted sooner - been harsher in enforcing treaties - millions of lives would have been saved.

The new "dangerous dictator" era is upon us. N. Korea and Iraq being the most obvious examples, but other despots too are working on nuclear programs in a race to join the club. In my opinion strong measures are needed to achieve a semi-lasting bit of global security.

I'm sorry if my post offended - I don't think either you or Mary Anne are anti-American at all. Rhetoric needs to be kept to a minimum on both sides in the media and here too - and replaced with real debate on ideas, actions and consequences.

But you already know that.

;-)

SDAI-Tech1