[Abcdxxxx]

Okay look, it's not an either or situation. It's no a popularity contest. Afghanistan certainly was worse off before our bombing then Iraq, but you could also say that Iraq waas functioning in some form before we got to it. Then again you could also say that about Rwanda, or Bosnia too. I think it's becoming pretty obvious that our hatred for Bush has clouded the judgement of even our most outspoken humanitarians. It's embaressing. You see, even if Bush pops up and makes his dog the president of Iraq, turns the place intoa big golf range, and pastes his face all over Baghdad... if it means getting Saddam out of there, then their lives will improve. I'm being sarcastic of course...I'm just saying that even at it's worst... if the US begins to "occupy" Iraq, life will improve for the citizens of Iraq. It's not wishful thinking if you know what life there has been like. As for afghanistan? You can't compare the two... like you said, even the drug trade wasn't working as an economy... the place was nearly rubble before we got there. I know of a 250 bed hostpital with 85 female doctors that was set to open last month. I know about 75,000 girls allowed to go to school now. That is an improvement isn't it? All of the "ifs" only matter if you hate our government more then you hate the benefits of fair human rights. Now you can say "oh Bush is taking OUR human rights, grumble grumble" or "he's not doing it for human rights" but that's again...an American sitting cush and putting their perspective, and lifestyle expectations on things.

"There's something else I was wondering about..... This alleged threat Hussein poses. We know damn well he can't attack us directly. "But he could attack his neighbors," I've heard some say. Well, how come we haven't heard anything in the news along the lines of "Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Iran are openly supporting US military action out of fear that Iraq poses a clear and direct threat to their safety"? As we all know, the Bush Family Show pulled out every conceivable angle to support their case for war, and I never heard anyhting like that on the news. And if that happened, I'd sure like to know how the hell I missed it."

Well they're not going to openly support it for several reasons.

1) public opinion within the Arab League itself.
2) Nobody wants to be seen cohorting with the Bush's
3) Let the US do their dirty work. All the nations you mentioned have either been at threat with Saddam, or been at war with him 4) These same nations double deal. They all have secret trade agreements with Saddam AND Israel or the US
5) Saudi, and Syria both have a lot to hide, and appreciate the divergence. Jordan and Iran have flip flopped on their stance and worry more about inner turmoil within their own borders. "Jordan first" is the new rally cry. Yet we have troops stationed there.
6) Even if they support the removal of Saddam, why would they support a democracy in the center of the region? It's the totalitarian governments worrying this will shake up the whole area. Gee, why? Was Saddam really a lightening rod of stability in the Middle East?
7) Aside from Iran, and Syria, most every nation in the area has assisted the Allies in some form. Iran and Syria were on our axis of evil right?
8) When Iraq falls, there is talk of giving some of the rebuild contracts to Jordan and Israel. That's right. Jews in Iraq. Gasp. That would put Americans, and Israelies on both sides of the Jordanian, Syrian borders, and open up new borders where Jews could cohabitate. They're not exactly fond of a possible Kurdistan either.
9) Saddam took the blame for a lot. He was a good cover. While Saudi's were involved with Bin Laden, and Hamas actions , we focused on Saddam. It forces them to act responsibly or hide it better. In the case of Saddam, he had his hands in every cookie jar. Where's the "poetry of suicide bombing" involved in protecting Sadddam? That's not about land or desperation, that's just about money and manipulation inspiring some poor kids to kill themselves. They are a threat to the whole world, because you can suicide bomb anywhere. The other nations have never made threats to attack the US on our own soil, even if due to 9/11 some of them actually already have.
10) The US will be less dependant on relations with those states. Again, not because of oil, but because of tactical reasons. You can attack the US through our interests, or our allies. You can attack democracy as well, and we do get rather precious about our little democracy concept and how it fights "evil". Look at the cold war for examples. It means we can remove our base from Saudi...we no longer have to pretend Syria belongs on the UN security council... Jordan can't be wishy washy on it's stance....and Iran needs to find a stable government that represents it's own changing progressive population.....we no longer have to sit on pins and needles treating the area like it's a powder keg. Really Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi are FAR more dangerous then Iraq, but it's an emporor has no clothes situation. How else did Israel fight off half the Arab world at once? Not through brute strength.