I took some time to reread more quietly what you posted since I thaught I'd profit from it... turns out I was right... so now to debate... ;)

You seem to mention Bush as a paladin of a dismissal of church and state separation... although I agree with you that some religious right extremists are trying to revert this basis for modern government I hardly think Bush qualifies as such...
Things like removing the ten comandments on the wall of courtrooms are not separation of church and state... the founding fathers were mostly very religious... with Bush I think we have a return to balance... he is president but he does not stop being a christian... in fact if he said he would preside without taking his christian beliefs into view I'd be wary of him being an hypocrite... as it is I think he's one of the most direct politics today... church and state separation is making sure institutionalised religion isn't directly involved in politics... like is the case in Iran for example... it is not some utopian idiotarian ideal that politicians should be atheists while in office... (french are good (bad) example of atheism as official religion)

As a conclusion I admit that the US is a country where it's people still live it's religion with more faith and fervor than in Europe... I don't have the knowledge to know if that's increasing or diminishing... or the regional variations... I do believe that the fact that your dominant christian doctrine is protestant and not catholic, and that it is more influential in the whole of society than in Europe is one of the basic cultural differences contributing to your better economic performance.


I don't contend with your overall assertion that the US has very large tendency for isolation... but even in WW1 and WW2 there were more assertive undercurrents... be it for idealistic humanitarian purposes, for commercial safety and freedom or purely out of a very pragmatic strategic movimentation in search of power.

I can find a nice couple of essays detailing these Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Wilsonian trends in american politics...

I feel it is very neat that all of these marry with the even more pragmatic survival instinct that you should be experiencing post 9/11 as motives for your intervention in the ME. It's not so often that history presents us with such a stark contrast between right and wrong... so I'm even more amazed at the constant bickering over details that the anti-war movement shows.

I do contend that the good guy never wins... as you clearly state even with different means (although frankly if you look at the details the means are always the same... shades of grey) the Cold war was a victory for those I think were the .. well let's say best guys, so as to not be absolute... and it was won as you very perceptively put because you had more money... one more reason to praise capitalism...


Hmmm... democratic ideals are pratically inherent in every human... just give it time and we'll see about the spread of democracy... actually if you do look at it already in historic terms you will see that democracy, if supported by non idealistic power (price of freedom blah blah...) has slowly spread and improved.

Until something better develops... as long as we continue to defeat the worse alternatives that persist in resurfacing and challenging us, for it is clear the current war is against both religious fanaticism and fascist authoritarianism... both old enemies... and I for one know sitting it out is not an option and which side I'm on.

Also you'd do well to read a bit about the constant famines that plagued Russia during Stalin's rule... if that was better than Krutschev, Gorbachov, Yeltsin and Putin I do not wish to debate.. but if it was it was terrible enough...


I think you're also a bit misguided regarding the why's of France and other opposition to the invasion... the US had the support (military only of those that actually have military, sure) of 4 of G7 countries... 10 of 15 EU countries and if you go for Eastern Europe the percentage of europen multilaterality increases... and I think I may be wrong in that 10... might have been only France Germany and Belgium to object... anyway then counting the rest of the Commonwealth... with Canada outside... in what I think was probably one of the worst foreign policy moves in Canadian history... you would be hard pressed to find a serious country not supporting the US... and I think you know what I mean by serious...

So what were the reasons for the opposition to war... well those that are pointed at america for starting it by the opposition... (quite a suave move... gutsy even...) endemic corruption and involvement in oil schemes in Iraq... a lack of morals regarding making deals with tyrants... heck it's all very documented actually... not like the baseless myths that continuously surround Bush's administration.


So to sum it up although I don't ignore the obvious reality that the ME has a strategic importance due to it's oil deposits that was true long ago... what propped America into action is terrorism... and since terrorism is not resolved through violence alone... (it could be but it would be much more violence and americans are surprisingly moral adversaries... Bush included) you chose to democratise the region... since it's your ass on the line I'm betting you'll manage it...

kudos then for the world will become better, and I think you can see it already happening :) although the risk is always there I'm glad because I believe I will witness in my lifetime a great increase in global quality of life.