why we are so weak

[Dennis Perrin]

> "...Personally I think the world would be much better off minus
> Saddam..."
>
> given a choice, which do you think "the world" would prefer being rid
> of, Saddam or Bush? Who is a greater threat to "the world"? Which
> population - U.S "progressives" or Iraqis who don't like Saddam - is
> more or less helpless to do anything about their threat to "the world"?
>
> fs

I believe that quote is mine, so I'll take this.

Why make a choice? The world _would_ be better off without Saddam -- the
survivors of his terror would be the first to tell you -- and the world
would also be better off without Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gore, Lieberman,
Republicans, Democrats, most of the left, most of the right, Hollywood (the
bad, garish parts of it -- 97 % or so), MTV, corporate news channels,
academia, drug laws, Anna Nicole Smith, and on on on on on  . . . . .

That all said, I think this war on Iraq, which will happen, I'm afraid, is
gonna be awful. Not that snuffing Saddam is keeping me up nights, but the
sheer brazenness and anticipatory bloodlust of it is sickening, especially
when we have a legitimate enemy to destroy.

Like the Bush gang it so often mirrors, the Soft-on-al-Qaeda Left can't wait
for an invasion of Iraq -- it will serve as cover for the dreadful way the
Softies wrang their hands over Afghanistan, something many of them, if they
are old enough to remember, didn't do when the Soviets ripped up large parts
of Afghanistan and killed a million people. The US intervention, so far, is
nothing like that, and has, despite the hopes of the Softies, made it harder
for al-Q to regroup and attack.

With Iraq the Softies will be right, though for the wrong reasons.

DP