Here is the difference between the two. Disorderly freedom has a pretty good chance of leading to ordered freedom (remember Iraq was liberated in April, I still have tomato plants in my garden old than that!). Secured dictatorships, especially those like Saddam's, have a tendency to remain secure dictatorships. Libya just celebrated it 34 year under the little col.'s rule. In addition, Saddam was no Pinochet, so Chile was no model for Saddam.

Yes! But more than 10 thousand Frenchmen would have died anyway in the "Heat of August" (Guns of ....?).
The French would still have gone their own way, spitting on Maastricht! So would Blair still be willing to go for the Euro?
Come on!

About 5 years ago, I had lunch in Beijing with Chinese graduate students who wanted to practice thier English. They claimed America was chaotic and dangerous because there was no order and security. They were hardly radicals, but they were good little socialists. However, the shadow of Tiananmen hung over them.

I think the division between the sides is more a matter of vision and courage than anything else. I have always thought the reason so many on the left whimper (even loudly) for the UN is because they are afraid. Multilateralism is just a cover for shaky knees. That is why the average soldier in Iraq knows more than any of the Democratic candidates, and more than any diplomat.

Actually, from reports I heard, the electricity and water and sewage never worked right in the first place-- Saddam used them as a way to reward and punish neighborhoods. And don't forget the third world attitude toward such things, too. (If you've lived in such a "developing" country, as I have, you know what I mean.)

So those outside Iraq who complain about the state of the utilities there are whining because we can't build an working infrastructure in a matter of weeks, something which under normal conditions would take a lot longer, even in peacetime or even at home. (There's a construction project just down the street from me that's taken all summer, that I'm tired of dealing with. Should I blame Bush and the US Army for it not being finished?)

Similarly, Mussolini's ability to make the trains run on time was overstated.

No, it is not just that simple. This is a delusional article.

If we had never gone to war with Iraq;

Saddam would still be writing checks to the families of suicide bombers.

Coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zones would still be fired on every day.

Hundreds of terrorists would still be alive and spread out throughout the world. Many civilians die.

Syria's little terrorist supporting dictator would still be cocky.

Millions of Americans would think that Bush isn't any better than Clinton. Powell's diplomacy would be a farce.

The people responsible for Iraq's murderous dictatorship are the same people responsible for the current attempt to bomb it into anarchy.

The same people who benefitted from billions of Iraqi petrodollars.

Lovers of Iraq, no doubt. They and those that support them.

Today I saw a car that had two bumperstickers: "KENNEDY" and "START A HOLY WAR: INVADE IRAQ". Finally, I thought, a liberal who gets it.

Costs, anyone?

We never hear the costs (dollars-wise) for us had we not intervened. We hear various figures, $4 billion a month, $1 billion a week, et cetera, for the occupation and re-building. But how much did the quarantine of Hussein cost us? The no-fly zones? The costs of maintaining troops in Saudi Arabia? Fleets in the Persian Gulf? Support for our allies? The drain on the local economies as a result of the (admittedly porous) sanctions?

SMG

jim:

That's very much the point--people who are insecure in themselves must naturally find regimes that promise security more attractive than those that promise freedom.

So the ends justify the means. Just checking.

SMG-Nice point about costs. Overlooked in all of this. Underfunded at $1B per week still seems like an awful lot of dough to me.

Jimmy:

Ends can, of course, justify means, as when the passengers took down the jet over PA.

SMG:

and what about all the children the embargo was killing?

Mr. Judd:

We only heard about the victims of the sanctions when it was a cudgel to beat the U.S. with. I listened to enough Democracy Now broadcasts to know the line well.

Buttercup:

Yes, it's almost as if the war has resurrected them, eh?