I trust democracies more than I trust dictatorships. No democracy has ever gone on a warmongering rampage across the globe. By contrast the record for dictators is not very reassuring.

It's a pity that some people would fear the United States, whose government is elected every few years more than they fear the potentialities of a nuclear armed dictator in Iraq who has a long history of invading his neighbors and using every weapon, no matter how banned and cruel, as part of his effort.

Brad, Hitler was elected.
Of course, I do not compare Bush to Hitler, not at all. But I was just saying that even in a democracy you don't know what can happen.

I'm pretty comfortable with the scenario I provided. It is a scenario that is similar to others that have been presented by foreign policy experts.

If you find my scenario unlikely, perhaps you could start by asserting where you think it's wrong?

That Iraq would invade another country? They've done that twice in recent years.

That France and Russia would argue that the sanctions should just be lifted and the inspectors removed despite Iraqi obstruction? That happened throughout the 90s.

That Iraq is trying to obtain nuclear weapons? That's already a documented fact.

Also, you apparently are not familiar with how Hitler got into power or at the very least not familiar with US electoral politics. The Nazi party never received a majority of votes in Germany and they had no constitution like ours to protect them from abuses by their leaders. Hitler wasn't elected Chancelor of Germany. He was appointed it. And as someone else mentioned, the different radical parties had out of control militias that could intimidate the legislature.

But what you say is illustrative of the left's views. They tend to have a blind eye to the horrible behavior of dictators because their dislike, their distrust of Bush blinds out everything else. There is, in the view of the radical left, no evil deed that Bush is incapable of while at the same time Saddam is seen as a victim by them. As Moshi's post shows above in that article, there is no deed that the left can fail to IMAGINE Bush capable of doing either.

That's why the left is so impotent right now. Most people aren't that into this sort of thing but they have enough common sense to see a spade for a spade.

They can see a series of events in which Iraq, nuclear armed, once again moves on its strategy to dominate the middle east. But there is no credible series of events that leads to a WW3 due to US intervention in Iraq.

Ironically, no one seems to have the same concern about the French, who are currently, at this very moment, unilaterally involved in the Ivory Coast.

"There is, in the view of the radical left, no evil deed that Bush is incapable of while at the same time Saddam is seen as a victim by them"

Having many, many friends among the radical left - I have to say, uhm.. no? Not a single one of them sees Hussein as a victem - they may see the Iraqi /populace/ as victims, yes, but I've not met a single one who believes that Hussein is a victim, or that he should even be in power.

Just my experience though - oh, wait, I know intelligent left-wingers though - they do exist, ya know - just like intelligent conservatives.

Brad...'aliens' HAVE invaded...many a time.
They invaded what is now the USA, decimating 500-odd Nations.
They invaded Terra Australis, decimating the oldest existing civilization.

Etc, etc....

And besides, you yourself said you wear a tinfoil hat.....[I'm sure it's not as a fashion statement]...

Grrr....'none HAS'.....

Yes, actually, I make a /huge/ distinction between radical left and simply liberal. Most of my own views tend to cause me to fall towards the liberal side of the fence - but at the same time, I make my own decisions on issues instead of blindly following any form of party-line, so while I tend towards liberalism, I also tend towards a moderate form of liberalism - since we humans, are so concerned with pigeonholing and classifying everything.

Hrm - I'm rambling again aren't I? Sorry, I tend to do that. Oh! Yes, hard-left versus merely liberals. Well, considering many of them are hard-core socialists who consider the Democratic party to be 'too conservative' in their views - I'll leave that decision up to you.

(Gads, sorry for my typing in all of my posts tonight - I am /so/ not feeling good tonight, and typing on this stupid notebook keyboard is even more of a pain than usual.)

Okay, here's a litmus test:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID60/32263.html

Are these people liberal, or part of the "radical left"?

Soooo - I'm reading through said link, and first, I need to say that I'm surprised - the spelling and grammar useage is better than you see on most web forums (Wincustomize excepted, of course.) - but that's beside the point.

The best classification I can come up with, I'm afraid is: Paranoid Conspiracy-Theorists.

Please, never send me a link to that site again. ^.^

Intellectual nincompoops. Very scary.

Yes, boss....

I didn't hear THIS http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/012803-SOTU.asp version of the State Of The Union address.