[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

True. But the people picked, from a ballet that was pretty long. Could you possibly fit 200 different parties, all from the same political spectrum on one ballet?

Sure, they had great range of choice... but only within the pre-selected political spectrum.

I guess when I see, say, the Iraqi Communist Party running in the election, I take it with a grain of salt. A big piece of me does not believe that the US would allow the Iraqi Communist Party to take power in Iraq, and would take steps before that even happened to ensure a different winner (by supporting them financially, logistically, socially). Whether they've done this or not I have no idea... but if I were the US looking to instill democratic-liberalism I certainly wouldn't allow a non-liberal party to win.

Well maybe you should quit trying to compare me to HOZ.

Wouldn't dream of it; I was comparing putting words in people's mouths (HOZ) with suggesting or outlining the other person's ideas.

Not what I meant. I never said history was not important, but am kinda ****ed off that everyone that opposes the US in their struggle to install democracy in Iraq, will always go back and mention how the US, 20 years ago supported anti-democratic governments in Asia, or South America. This is a different era, different war.

I hear you. But at the same time plenty of people all over the world remember vividly the events of 10, 20 years ago. Its not like the US since these activities has publicly apologized or claim an entirely new international philosophy. Its easy to 'just forget and move on' when you're looked upon as the guilty party.

It really doesn't matter whether or not the UN was right. What they should do now is get into Iraq and help the people rebuild the country. Forget about the reasons for going to war, what happened and who did it.

I guess it all depends on whether or not they 'win' in the end. If they don't, then it does matter who was 'right' or not before the war started. If the US loses, and Iraq turns into a debacle, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd 'wished' they'd never gone in. But obviously we'll have to see whether or not they're successful or a failure. I think as long as US troops are there the mission is 'going to be successful'. Its not until they've all pulled out that the country fully realizes from the top down that it lost the conflit (as in Vietnam).

The UN also didn't agree with invading Rhwanda during the genocide. What does that say of their credibility?

Neither did the US. What does that say about their credibility? One could argue that the US, not the UN, had the power to prevent the genocide. Where was US interventionism then? And yet the US is surprised when people call them hypocrites for enforcing interventionism against Saddam, but not against Rwandan killers (and I do understand that Clinton is different than Bush... but US is US). If the US is going to pursue a policy of intervening in illiberal state's policies, then it can't just pluck one off the map (especially suspicious given its incredible natural resources); it has to hold the same attitude toward all of them.