"What is wrong wrong with NK selling weapons anyway? Is there some rule stating only the US can sell weapons worldwide?" Why yes, there is. The rule is, don't sell weapons to nations that might use them on me, my family, or my friends. That's the rule. There is very little to fear from a US weapon- or a Canadian, or Norwegian, or Australian, etc etc etc weapon. They don't aim in my direction. Or yours. Weapons in the hands of screaming mullah nations, on the other hand, bad news. Old rule "so what" is out, new rule "get them before they get us" is in. Welcome to the 21st century.

So the US has the right to choose who these 'right' guys are. You did forget to mention the US also arms states like Israel. The US is the real terrorist state.

MTS: Don't be ridiculous. No one claims that the US has always made the right decisions; but, anyone that claims that the US has botched the job worse than anyone else or has a particular hatred of any one group is out of thier mind. And regardless of whether you believe that, that is also beside the point. The point is that Israel, Norway, Jamaica, Netherlands, and heck even pansy France is not directly threatening the US. So long as any nation seems willing to work out their differences by non-violent means, and is inhabited by largely content and educated people willing to let me live like I want to, I could care less what weapons they have or develop. My personal feelings with regard to the Palestinian conflict and history of the region have to be tempered by the fact that only one side is trying to kill me, and that that side which is trying to kill me professes openly that there is nothing I could do which would change there mind about wanting to kill me except to embrase a luddite, medieval philosophy, and a religion I don't adhere to. Democracy is not about pacifism. The price of Freedom is not cheap, it only that the cost of tyranny is much higher. Where I must step in and cast my vote toward committing violence against my fellow man is when he evidently has made his decision to threaten me, my family, and my fellow Americans. Maybe I don't have the right to choose which side is right, and maybe I'll even be wrong on occasion, but so long as you continue to threaten me my choice is clear. If you feel that the choice is clear to wage violence against the US, I'd at least first like to hear some sort of statement about what I might could do to prevent that violence. So far I haven't heard a single rational request. Rather I see alot of people blaming the US for problems of thier own making. And I give you this last advice. No war that you can't win is moral, for to fight and kill for a cause you cannot win is to murder someone for no reason and you would be better swallowing your pride and chosing some more rational course of action. I ask you to look at history, and the wars that the US has fought and honestly answer these question: "When the US defeated its foe, which side won? When the US failed to utterly subjegate its foe, did the other side actually win?" Or in other words, would it even be in anyone's best interest to thwart the US through violence? We utterly crushed Japan and Germany. We have defeated in war Britan and Spain. Where would you rather live, Japan or Germany, or North Korea or Vietnam? The fact of the matter is, is that history approves America's conduct, for win it wins, the defeated foe also wins. And when it loses, the victor finds only ashes and defeat. I pray to God, not for America's sake, but for the sake of the Arab world that the US finds a swift victory in Iraq, for the consequences of America pulling out too early will not be nearly so grave for Americans as it will be for Iraqi's.

The only losers in WW2 were the USSR and eastern europe. Japan and West Germany and France all were included in the Marshall plan and Mcaurthor's reconstruction.

It is not Bush's call for a war, congress has to approve it.

So why do they bother going after Iraq? Perceived threat? Or rather a need to bully the weak?

Where would you rather live, Japan or Germany, or North Korea or Vietnam? Are you trying to say it is the result of US military action that made the first 2 better places to live? Most people would choose to live in a place which maximises their overall wellbeing, in this case it is Germany and Japan. But Vietnam could also be a rich country even though the US never won.

So we can be clear on these points: You said: "So the US has the right to choose who these 'right' guys are." Yes, that's it, exactly. The UK, Australia, Denmark and other ethically enlightened nations are also entitled to make these choices. Even Canada. Maybe Sweden. You said: "You did forget to mention the US also arms states like Israel." Forget? Heavens, no. Israeli weapons are not pointed at me, or Brits or Aussies or Canucks or other good people. They are pointed at the screaming hate-filled killer monkeys who would kill every Israeli, and every American, and laugh and paint their children with the blood. Israeli weapons are pointed at the people who danced on 9-11-01. They can have all the weapons they want. Bombs, missiles, helicopters, whatever they need to kill the islamobombers. You said: "So why do they bother going after Iraq? Perceived threat?" That and the fact that Saddam celebrated the 9-11-01 attack. Big mistake on his part. Plus, we now have a chance, a slim chance but a better than zero chance, of remaking the middle east into a place no longer ruled by lies and hate. And, we are now better positioned to go for the throat, and eventually close in and destroy those who are the heart of islamic violence. You know who that is. It's the people who consider themselves so holy that they will not allow a church in their country. Their time of hate and bigotry will end.

"You might as well say no country can threaten the US full stop." Well, yes, that's what I'm saying. Or rather to put it more clearly, threaten the US at your peril, for I and my fellow citizens will act to defend ourselves and our liberty. That isn't to say that you couldn't have just grievance against the US, but that you'd better think long and hard for trying to force that grievance to be addressed through violence and you'd better think long and hard about how I might percieve the case you make against me - for if I think your threat does not match the percieved grievance, I'm likely to get pissed. For example, its true that we arm Israel. It's also true that we have armed and supported Egypt and Saudia Arabia. Significant aid passes from my wallet - with or without my blessings - to all the countries in that region. So it cannot follow that the US is a hater of Islam, or that we have chosen the Jews over the Arabs out of racial preference. Get your facts straight here. Your comment that the US acts because we like to bully the weak is so childish that it hardly deserves reply, but I will say this - if the US wanted to be a bully, we would done so with much greater aclarity and force of purpose than we have ever demonstrated in that regard. No other nation having had our ascendancy in economic and military power for so a long period has ever dealt with the world with so light a hand. Tribute poors out from the US to the rest of the world, rather than the reverse, and on that tribute is written, "Disturb us not." And even so, we spend our blood trying to kill as few of our enemies as we can possibly can. Heaven help the world if we actually take the gloves off. As for why we went into Iraq, the answer is complex, but 'Percieved Threat' will do for a two word response. "Are you trying to say it is the result of US military action that made the first 2 better places to live?" No, I'm trying to say that if US military action had failed, and the Axis had won, that its citizens would live in far worse circumstances than they live today. I'm trying to say that the brave but misguided patriots of Germany, Japan, North Korea, communist China, and Vietnam were all fighting for the wrong cause and the success of that cause for which they fought would (and some case did) ultimately mean there own defeat. And by defeat I mean not military victory, but rather the attainment of worldly success - prosperity, security, freedom, and all the other blessings of a moral political system. And the same thing is going on today in Iraq. Some of those that fight and kill Americans are like the proverbial drowning man attacking the life gaurd; should they win, they and the whole country are going to sink and God alone knows when or if they will ever recover from the misery and tranny they are fighting to defend. "But Vietnam could also be a rich country even though the US never won." Had North Vietnam lost the war, then they would have through there defeat secured for themselves the very freedom, dignity, and prosperity that they through fighting hoped to obtain. Because they won, fighting for the wrong cause, they obtained only ashes, poverty, and starvation. I can speak of this contridiction from the heart, because such a contridiction is a part of my heritage. Most of my family died fighting for the wrong cause in the US Civil war. They were brave. They were fighting against an aggressor. They carried themselves with every martial virtue. But they were still fighting for the wrong cause, and I can thank God that they did not win. For I, having the benifit of hindsight, can clearly see that my circumstances should not be improved had they won. Rather, I would be living in a world not nearly so bright and prosperous as it is, and who knows where we would stand if the moral issues of slavery and civil rights where many decades behind where they are now.

All those so-called allies you listed are just nations which don't say no to the US. Some of them are just plain lackeys. Moreover, they all have open markets so you see, America is just one big business. Forget ethics, profit is the bottom line. Today, the US would never go to war with China or Vietnam, do you know why? Because they market is open for selling things! America will always side with whoever offers the most money, that is my explanation for the Iraeli conflict. Saddam may or may not have celebrated 911, so what if he did? Was he a threat, so far the evidence says no. Let me give you a statistic, the US spends more money on the military than the next 8 biggest powers put together. How can anyone be of threat to the US? We have basically moved back to 18th century western imperialism. "a slim chance but a better than zero chance, of remaking the middle east into a place no longer ruled by lies and hate" That is the US. You are like the average American citizen who buys all the lies the government gives you.