In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



allows for such searches if the potential for harm is great enough. Saddam
opened the door to that with his threats and his uncooperative behavior.
But once we established there were no nukes, that should have been the end
of it. A search warrant in the US legal system gives the right to search,
but not the right to burn down the house being searched if nothing named in
the warrant is found.

Problem with that theory is that by the time the lack of nukes had
been established, the damage was done. I don't see anyway that we could
have patted SH on the head, dusted him off, and left quietly.


I agree. Let the blue beanies do it.
They have been successful over the years. About the only time when
the UN has functioned as a true peacekeeping force is when the US
(Korea) or NATO (Kosovo and the area). Other than that, their record has
to improve substantially to make it to abismal.


Policing by an international force
makes sense for a number of reasons. Most importantly it makes us less of a
target for madmen bent on revenge. That's the common theme of many of the
recent bomb plots - revenge for the invasions.

Not the ones here. Underwear and shoe as well as the Times Square
(attempted) bombers all said it was jihad.




because of a war almost 150 years ago. We engage in magical thinking when
we believe the countries where we're killing by the dumptruck load will
remember us as saviors rather than invaders. Friends come and go, but
enemies accumulate.

Especially since if you total up the score, we aren't even doing most
of the killing. Just getting credit for the bombing done by their
friends and neighbors.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke