Martin Hotze wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote:

Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
stranger definition of 'winning.'

at best there will be a corrupt democracy, at worst it will be a religious led
country.

All democracies are corrupt. Who was it that said "democracy is the
worst form of government in the world, except for all the others"? Do
you REALLY think Iraq will be worse than under the Baathists? Wow.

The outcome will be more terrorists and more terrorist attacks. And you
will enforce more "security" and "defend your country" in other parts of the
world because of the rising terrorist attacks.

Here's a news flash - the terrorists don't hate us because we take
action against them (note all the attacks under the Clinton
administration). They understand force. They hate us because our
values are different from theirs, and because they don't understand
us.

They don't understand us because they're fed a non-stop stream of
propaganda via their media. If you've ever seen coverage from Al
Jezeera, you may be shocked to realize that many Arab countries won't
allow it to be broadcast because they consider it TOO LIBERAL. Yikes.

Having a "real democracy" (warts and all) in the midst of that area
can only be a good thing. Witness the pro-democracy protests in Iran
that happened after the fall of Saddam.

And then you will sit back and will wonder why less people like the way you are
acting.

I don't wonder at all. It's only human nature to want to ignore tough
problems, and hope they "just go away". That was a viable option
before technology got to the point where a small group of terrorists
can kill millions instead of hundreds. Now we deal with it, or let a
handful of murderers set international policy by intimidation.

Not the kind of world I want to live in. YMMV.

Mark Hickey