> i don't favor an invasion, so i don't feel the need to address that.
> incidentally, that stuff is far from worked out in afhganistan, either,
but
> that apparently doesn't affect your view of that situation.
Of course it's still a mess in Afghanistan, and may be for some time. What "affects" my view of the situation is that a fascist terrorist network slaughtered US civilians while being protected by the tyranny of the Taliban. To do nothing would have doubtless brought on more attacks, so there really wasn't any choice, morally or geopolitically. I would have preferred Security Council approval, which Bush could have easily gotten (and we know why he bypassed the UN), but overall I think the choice to hit back was the right one. Obviously.
> well, that's what i'm getting at and that's where i have a hard time
> understanding any alleged "difference" between AQ and saddam as anything
other
> than imperial vengeance.
I've stated what I think the difference is. If you reject it or otherwise can't see it, what more can I say?
> you're arguing that the US military won't be able to manage the
> situation, and then you hope that the people he's gassed in the past or
ther
> starving millions will rise up and overthrow him?
>
> unlikely.
Maybe. Who really knows -- you?
DP