What will you be playing to celebrate?

Ah, but Gunbei, the money to conduct the war comes from your tax dollars. Haliburton may not even pay any tax??? The money to rebuild Iraq will also come from your tax dollars and make Haliburton and its owners even richer than they are now.

GWB and his buddies may simply be trying to ensure that the conditions for winning re-election are in place for 2004. Money wins elections, among a small number of other things. Corporate contributions make up a huge proportion of funds available to run campaigns, no? How do you ensure you get the greatest corporate contributions? Its all pretty abysmal...

In the end, all of this may be about a small group of people wanting the power to rule the strongest nation on Earth for another four years. Daddy Bush only had one term - a humiliation to be erased by the prodigal son? Although its arguable about how far he could have gone in 1991, Daddy did not really finish the job in Iraq at that time. Is the son being driven to redress a wrong, one that was obviously not of his Daddy's doing? I really don't like to sound so skeptical.

Hey Slappy, you better be shakin' in your boots, 'cause the Canadian Navy has these Sea King choppers that could really cause havoc if they were unleashed on the US... That is, by falling out of the sky onto unsuspecting Americans. :-) The Canadian military is a shadow of its former self, and may be another reason why this country didn't commit to the coalition of the willing in Iraq. However, there are some 2,000 Canadian troops on the ground in Afghanistan stationed near Kabul.

It may be that a lot of the UN's indecisiveness during the '90s had to do with the intransigence of Security Council members and dues owed to the UN by one of its strongest and wealthiest members. It may appear that some leaders sit idly by, but what you don't see are the diplomatic efforts to bring about change in countries that have less than democratic leadership/government.

How does one decide who should be invaded and toppled and who should not? What of the sovereignty of nations or the international/multilateral agreements in place all over the world? If, for example, Great Britain decided to invade France because it felt the President or the regime in power needed to be deposed, the rest of the NATO membership would be obliged to come to the defence of France.

Sure, Saddam is evil incarnate, one of the worst seen since WWII, but lacking proof positive of WMDs, should he have been deposed in a more or less unilateral fashion? Looking at it from another angle, even if the existence of WMDs were proven, who's to say Iraq should not have the capacity to develop nuclear capability, whether for military or civilian purposes? Well, perhaps the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (not sure if Iraq was ever a signatory), which may not have existed if the UN did not.

Sure the UN has a sketchy history, but it is the member nations, and particularly those on the Security Council, that make the decisions. Right or wrong, the US and its coalition members failed to convince other Security Council members of the case for invading Iraq. Should the UN and the Security Council simply acquiesce to an influential and powerful member simply because the latter says so?

If you don't like the way your neighbour treats his child, what do you do? Do you go over and beat him senseless? Or do you call the cops and appropriate authorities to investigate? They investigate and maybe lay charges. Those charges are presented before the court and the judge or jury decides whether to punish. Kind of like the UN, except that if the members of the UN can't agree (e.g. on the results of the investigation/weapons inspectors in Iraq) or if they don't provide the UN with the means to act (e.g. a clear mandate and sufficient means/forces in Rwanda), well there's not much it can do.

Bravo, Treyhoss and Mghcanuck! It never ceases to amaze me how complicated, yet at the same time how simple affairs like these are.

I agree as a whole and without the advantage of knowing the alternate outcome [if we had done nothing] that it was a very good thing Saddam has been removed. Just think what might have been if Gore was President when 9/11 went down and how events would have played out afterward.

We may be viewed by some nations as being quick-on-the-trigger cowboys, but the way Germany and France acted has left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't blame the Bush Administration for freezing out those countries from the post-war rebuilding contracts that tried to prevent a UN mandate for invading Iraq. It sure seemed that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder let his personal dislike of Bush dictate Germany's stance on this issue. I thought French President Jacques Chirac liked GW? I heard that prior to giving a speech blasting the US position that Chirac's people would contact the Bush people and let them know what was going to be said in advance. With strong French public opinion against the invasion, it probably would have been political suicide for Chirac to back Bush.

So what are these Sea Kings and should I worry about them falling on me in California? Oh, and Mghcanuck, I heard the US military was VERY impressed with the Canadian sniper units stationed in Afghanistan.

Middle Eastern real politik goes back to before the Old Testamnt. In 50 years,we might know if invading Iraq was a good thing or a bad thing.

To answer the thread's question,I suggest piping into the holding cell, "Don't Get Around Much Any More" by Ellington.

I think the CIA should pipe "It's an itzy bitsy teeny tiny yellow polka-dot bikini" into SH's cell 24/7. On every tweny-fourth hour, they should play "They're commin to take me away, ha ha".

That will make him talk., Or should I say....'sing?"