"I am no nationalist at all. I don't see borders or nations. Just people. Some of us live under opression, and some of us live in democracies. I think we should help our brothers and sisters if we can. Saddam and his Baath party where opressing innocent humans and the only viable solution I can see was an invasion. Never mind WMD's if there are people to help.

If you share my world view, (which I'm going to assume most do). Here's a question to all of you who where against the invasion. How else could we have helped the Iraqui people get rid of Saddam? Iraq wasn't going to go anywhere with him at the helm, where they?"

Please don't take offense, but I don't share your world view, Tom. I do see borders - they imply that those within the borders share some things in common - perhaps culture, religion, attitudes toward women, attitudes toward family, etc., and, most important - a common identity. I cannot save the whole world, so those borders give me a framework within which I can focus my attention. It is not my country's obligation to help all people who suffer under a dictator's oppression. It is my country's obligation to act in the best interest of its citizens. Often, that means helping a fledgling democracy or helping people to establish a democracy. But not always. We certainly don't overthrow every oppressive dictator - look at Cuba, North Korea, etc. However, the key word is HELP not "invade". Surely we have learned that a democracy is not an easy system of government. The people have to want to work together and be willing to compromise and often overlook their differences. A successful democracy cannot be imposed upon a people. That was another major screwup on the Bush administration's part - they failed to recognize that there was no internal rebellion in Iraq. The Iraqi people do not appear willing to compromise. They do not appear to share the common identity as Iraqies; instead they appear to align themselves religiously.

"I still think Iraq will come out on top and be a stable democracy. It might take 10 years and a civil war. But the truth is that democracy is still the best way to control beligerent neighbours and of the three ethnic groups in the country, none has majority all by themselves, which is the perfect setting for a stable democracy."

Unless I've been misinformed (which isn't impossible), the Shites do hold a majority - and they are dominating the current "democracy" that has been establised. Personally, I believe the Shites are suckering Bush into providing as much equipment and training as possible, so that they will be well positioned to prevail in the civil war after the Americans leave.

"It's allready getting better. Trade is up. Universities are getting more aplicants. I'm sure the insurgents will stop blowing people up. Simply because they have nothing to gain from keeping it up. People aren't evil, just stupid. "

History shows people will do evil things in the name of religion, and we are dealing with factions who have religious motivations for fighting each other in Iraq. This has been a chaotic region for thousands of years. No reason to think people will become reasonable now. In addition, it has been reported that fewer children are going to school and women who were professionals under Saddam's regime have been losing their rights and freedoms under the Shite-led democracy.

"That doesn't change that Bush and USA could have dealt with the situation better."

I wholeheartedly agree with you there, Tom.

fantassy