This is what I fear the most. The religious/military fanatic level seems to have risen quite sharply in recent years, and moreso in recent months with the N Korea crisis.

If I could characterize fanatics of the past decade (at least those I think we should be most concerned about), I'd say that they come from Egypt, Yemen, the Phillipines, Saudi Arabia (and other places) and that they have spent time in all those places and countries such as Spain, France, Germany, Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. among others.

I'm not exactly sure what the recently-commenced war against Iraq really does on this front (or how exactly this relates to another, very serious, issue with North Korea).

What I would like to think is that when the German, Kenyan, or Italian police uncover terrorist intelligence that has implications for the U.S., that they will promptly tell their good friends here in the U.S. about it, and that we would do likewise.

This is a simplistic example, but my concern is that in a near-sighted pursuit of "the right thing" we have sacrificed "the good".

I think that the governments know a lot more than they are letting on about capabilities of the fanatics in the world.

I try not to be any more jaundiced than is warranted, but I can't say that I share your confidence. I just finished reading The Cell and I have to wonder just how much our "humint" (human intelligence) capabilities have improved. Also, when Colin Powell offers such limp proof in front of the U.N., and when the Bush administration is reduced to *fabricating* evidence (aluminum tubes and bogus IAEC Iraq report), I can't say that I am willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

Given the fact Saddam has had 12 years to disarm and the UN keeps giving him "more time," he'll keep dragging his feet and laughing all the way ot the bank with his billions he makes selling oil outside of the UN sanctions and moving his missles and alleged WMD all around his backyard like an 8 year old kid with his toy soldiers. He's playing the UN for fools and he's winning.

It may not seem like it, but I do appreciate this point of view up to a point. Well, the balloon has gone up. We'll see what unfolds.

I support Dubya in his decision, but I really think his old man should've taken the crazy bastard out in 1991. That's where the mistake was made originally. War is not good, but neither is Saddam and he has to go. Just MHO here...

All of my bombast aside, I stand prepared to be wrong. I have been wrong before. For example, in 1991, I thought we were grossly overestimating the ability of air power to turn the tide and avoid coalition/U.S. casualties, when in fact events proved that, given the unique, open desert battlefield and a very well executed, limited campaign, coalition casualties were amazingly low (what, 200 as compared to __K Iraqui casualties?)

I don't think what is unfolding is predictable. The 101st may stroll into Baghdad and all may be sweetness and light with all of Iraq's liberated factions/minorities....

I am *still* jaundiced, though, in a way that I think is justified. CNN toadies like Lou Dobbs touting how 50, yes *50*, countries now support our invasion --- I want to know how many of them came on board in the last 24 hours...and how many of them are commiting funds or (more significantly) young men and women.

Oh, and about 2 days out from the deadline, Bush announces a "Roadmap" plan for peace in the Israel-Palestine debacle (a situation he seemed pretty inclined to ignore). How much of this was to give the impression that invading Iraq will somehow improve the chances of solving the Israel-Palestine problem -- or how much of this was to help Tony Blair?

I heard a guy say something on TV tonight that I thought summed up the whole "right/perfect" versus "good" issue, and I was surprised to hear it from someone who I might have considered a hawk in other circumstances. It was Zbignew Brzezinski. To paraphrase:

"It's not Saddam that is the issue. It is whether America can lead...and lead in a way that other nations can respect."