> > How are we supposed to act against despots if we don;t use military action?
>
> What happened to diplomatic action?

Umm... Hello? A guy who sends men to BLOW PEOPLE UP is not likely to be swayed by diplomacy. One wonders if you've even read the rest of the posts on the subject.

> > Perhaps Iraq should just be allowed to do as it pleases? This is NOT just American embargoes, this is an internationally sanctioned embargo. So this is not an example of US foreign policy, but world policy against a dictator who will hopefully be shot before this whole mess is over.
>
> Refresh my mind: Why was Saddam not killed at the end of the Gulf War? Was it because The American President decided that any alternative would be worse, as I have heard?

Oil, oil, oil. We try to take them out; they shut off the oil valve, and (mode=sarcasm)of course, a few oppressed people who will die anyway if we do nothing isn't near as important as whether we can drive to our preferred sports games.(/mode)

[snipping bits I'm not responding to, for now]

> Why is arms supply vital to supporting democracy?
> Democracy is characterized by openness, armament ultimately results in closing.

Lessee... Try this. There are people who want to rule with military force. No arms, and those people take over. Worse than a democracy with arms, wouldn't you say?
>
> I personally think that there is a great deal of hypocracy involved in US (in particular - many other countries in general) policy towards China. Some might even say that the US supports China just as much as it does Israel.

It's possible, but sad if true.

> There is no country in the world who has never betrayed allies, allways been on the right side of conflict, etc, and therefore, all countries have created enemies. The more powerful the country, the more threatened the enemies feel, and the more eagerly they will try to get back at this country. It's simple logic. There is no Good Guy. Just lots of baddies.

> julian

Nyperold