Last attempt to keep it on track, thank you.

thats sorta like "if a plan is stupid, but works, it isnt stupid" .. in the same vein, if you got a good result then it wasent a bad act?

Goodwin's Law aside...With that  method I can easily say that the exploitation of the Jews as well as their mass slaughter was a GREAT IDEA! It helped dig the German economy out of a bad slump, and helped Hitler's rise to power, it was a win win situation for the German people, and it worked! therefore it must not have been a bad act.

However, a country with no government and a small police/military force will inevitably collapse. We should keep the troops there, just so that there is an enforcing presence in the country - even if it isn't their own - until they can be self-sufficent as a country again.

Agreed, unfortunately with the amount of censorship and stupidity (like a lack of education in arab customs) found in the conduct of the Armed forces will mean it'll be a very rough ride for the US as an occupier. The harder the US tries to apply its assimulationist policies (which didn't even work at home) to the Iraqis the harder they'll hit them back.

Continued support of this effort depends on one thing, whether or not they continue shooting, and whether or not US citizens continue seeing black bags coming off of the back of planes (which is footage Bush is enforcing the ban on currently). Since it'll take at least 5 years to get that country into a stable economic situation, 5 years which are doubtful to be peaceful for American troops.

As a cynic my prediction comes as follows, it depends on whether or not they can get a stable flow of oil from the region soon. If the oil wells continue being attacked and production continues fluctuating the effort will most likely be abandonned. You'll see a repeat of the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan, where a light local regime was put into place that only lasted 6 weeks. If the production does continue and at a relatively stable rate, there will be extra incentive by the white house to remain in the region and tap the resource it has. Unfortunately I seriously doubt this is going to shift the Iraqi economy back to pre-1990 standards regardless of what happens. But then, if your going to be a slave, you might as well at least be the slave in a house with better food, and the US is offering the only good tasting food at the moment.

Heh, good point.  
However, the US isn't under an obligation to prove so.  Iraq was, under the Post Gulf War treaty they signed.  It's not enough that they say they did what the treaty told them to do, they needed to prove that they did.  
Continuing the human rights in the US thing, I'd say yes.  If we really couldn't prove out record of human rights, then I'd say that the UN would be moraly obigated to do something about it.  But we do have records that we attempt to improve our treatment of people, and we don't stonewall any human rights inspecters who want to come and look at what we do.
I wasn't saying that Iraq should have kept better records of their crimes - I'm saying they needed to keep records of what they agreed to keep records of - the elimination of their known stockpile of WMD.  This alone was reason enough to elicit military action.  
I'm also curious to know your views towards Britain and the other countries that supported this operation both in words and deeds.  The US wasn't alone over there, but there doesn't seem to be any reaction to any other nation.

I would like to know one concrete instance where the "International Community" has done squat to improve human rights around the world with any lasting effect.

The courts that are set up all over Africa that are trying War Criminals right now, the Peacekeepers that were sent to the Congo, Angola, Rwanda and many other African countries. The ineffciency of the system is mainly the result of the United States doing everything in its power to ensure that no country signs on to the Rome Statute and join ICC. The international community is at least trying to develop a basis for an order on human rights rather than sovereignty.  I had a really good academic article on this particular topic, its lying somewhere in this great pile of mess, If I find it I'll put it up.  The point of interest was that the current administration told Belgrade that if they have the capability to extract Milosovich they should do so since its in their mutual interest. Unfortunately Serbia is in no position to pull their version of the Hague Statue (which is the act that allows for the invasion of Hague in case an American is tried for War Crimes).

However, the US isn't under an obligation to prove so.

It has made quite a few obligations in the field of human rights. Maybe not the Geneva Convention (if I remember correctly the US didn't sign the whole agreement just parts of it) but it does have that obligation, and if we start to live in a world where people prove negatives, people would be spending more time proving the fact that they've met their obligations than actually doing anything else.

It's not enough that they say they did what the treaty told them to do, they needed to prove that they did.

The resolution you refer to said that they Iraqis had to provide the documents regarding their weapons program. They did so before the war, they didn't have to prove their own disarmerment since that was up to the international community to decide on the basis of the provided documents. In this case the international communities decision appears to have been the correct one, that Iraq did indeed disarm.

I'm saying they needed to keep records of what they agreed to keep records of - the elimination of their known stockpile of WMD. This alone was reason enough to elicit military action.

No, they were supposed to turn over the documents that they had destroyed them, not create them. Kind of hard to make documentation of something you've already destroyed or sold off. I could see the accusations of falsifying records now...

I'm also curious to know your views towards Britain and the other countries that supported this operation both in words and deeds. The US wasn't alone over there, but there doesn't seem to be any reaction to any other nation.

Blair screwed up, and he's going to pay a high political price for it, since he required the conservative vote in order to get his call for war to come through, his own party voted against him. Blair is as responsible for this as Bush, and the UK has a track record thats similar to the US in the middle east, its not good. The rest of the support was rather inconsequencial, Spain's leadership can look forward to not being relected in their next election, Burlesconi[sic] has Italy by the balls so its not likely he'll lose. Poland has always been pro-US and they needed debt relief so its no surprise they sent troops. The rest of the countries offered moral support some of which was coerced out of them with threats of cuts to economic aid, about the only country that resisted those threats was Turkey but they know they are worth more to the Americans than could be lost over something like Iraq.

If the United states of the united nations were to try him i think the real issues would fall victim to the mentioned groups political interests.

For once I agree with you, Saddam should be tried publicly and without any help from either the UN or the US. Of course that isn't a possibility since he knows too much about too many politicians dirty laundry. The ICC is still a viable option since it is an independent body, but it should be convened in Iraq, the same way that they are doing for War Crimes Trails in Africa

Further more i dont believe any international court is necessary or politically realistic given the circumstances.

Well if you want to continue producing Saddams and not having any capability of dealing with them, then by all means drop the international courts. War Criminals run wild protected by a 500 year old traditions of Sovereignty of state heads. But then there would be quite a few Americans on that chopping block too if it was signed

Thanks

The reason the US will not sign onto the ICC is because it would become a kangaroo court in which Communist, Socialist and Totalitarian regimes would bring charge after charge after charge against the US for no other reason than to inflict harm.

So far no totalitarian/communist government has signed on to the ICC, only democracies have. China was going to sign last year but they wanted it to be on NEW war crimes commited in China after the signing, the court didn't agree to it. The reason why the US doesn't want to sign isn't because its the only superpower, China within 5 years will have an economy and a military larger in both areas, its because the US is the only super power that still throws its weight around. The throwing of that weight leads to the support of men like Saddam Hussein, or currently the monarchy in Saudi Arabia and Kuwaiit (which are both brutal monarchs). The American government, especially the pentagon is worried that signing it on to the ICC would result in massive charges (rightfully) of war crimes from the developing world.

The US started out as a colony, where it was taxed and oppressed by a foreign power in which it had no representation.

Now it does it to others, mild irony of the modern world.

The idea of a foreign government or governments dictating to the US what to do or arbitrarily bringing its people to trial for crimes they may or may not have committed, depending on who's pulling the strings at the court, is in complete opposition to the principles the country was founded under.

Depends on which founding father of the US you side with, if your like me and side with Jeffereson who was a firm believer in Human Rights this is a good idea. Also its not a foreign government, its a mass of judges which would include US judges if the US decided to join. The idea is you delegate the responsibilty for trying people for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to a larger body because these are crimes that affect everyone not just specific states. You are innocent until proven guilty in the court

the US will continue to be the lone superpower, and exercise its will as it sees fit, be it for the good or ill of others.

Thus perpetuating violence against Americans all over the world. I'm not sure whether or not your stating that, that is your attitude on the topic but I hope not, since that is the attitude that gave you the first world trade center attacks, oaklahoma, the lebanon attack, 9/11 and virtually every other terrorist attack on Americans since the end of the second world war. The sad thing is its the people that suffer for the idiotic behavour of their politicians, but as long as your politicians keep acting the way they do you shouldn't expect any change in this reaction. We can only hope that the terrorists start aiming at the legislatures rather than at civilians

I do hope you are not including me personally in this statement; if so you misunderstand me.

That's what I was trying to get a clarification on. From your clarification I see that the difference between you and I is the difference found in most political literature on the topic of morality in international order. In that regards we'll never come to an agreement, but that's okay

As for the attitudes of the US causing violence to be perpetuated against it, I find it very interesting indeed that since the "War on Terror" began no attack has been carried out on US soil since 9/11.

There weren't may attacks on US soil in the last 70 or so years. 5 I can think of, one was done during the end of the second world war by the germans as a last ditch effort to attack the harbour (I can't remember where exactly, if anyone does please let me know), then there was Oaklahoma, the WTC in 94 and then 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks. North America due to its location has been relatively free of attack regardless of the war on terror, Bush did not solve the problem, there wasn't much of one to begin with. Now American targets not in North America has been under constant attack and those attacks have no relented since the War on Terror, most recently the Saudi Camp bombings. I doubt you can give this administration the benefit of the doubt on ensuring international safety, you just got lucky and are in a strategically sound location far from the people you exploit.

The footsoldiers of terror know nothing of political ideals, and those who command them care only for their own aims.

That too is a less than accurate picture. The reason they sign up to blow themselves up in markets isn't because of some incredibly complex brainwashing campaign, its because of the situation in which they face themselves in their day to day lives. If you see your homes being destroyed by people funded by the US, with bulldowsers and tanks that are made in America, your bound not to be overly pleased with the US. If you live in a country that has intentionally been trapped by dictators taking out loans that you now have to pay back, even if that dictator is gone, your not going to be too happy with the people who are charging you interest. These people aren't blind, they may not have full knowledge of the political ideals of the people who are plotting, but they sure as hell are aware of the depths of depravity in which they live, and who is partially responsible for that depravity.

Last Time I checked most Islamic Terrorist just wanted Americans out of their countries

Furthermore, I don't think the US is a country that is racist and hate mongering, since both those ideas require a blind stupidity, some of which is found in those attacking you. The US on the other hand is self interested and greedy, yet unlike the majority of nations for which this is also the case, it has the power to accomplish any self interested and greedy goals. For that reason it gets what it deserves.  Almost 500 years ago the father of Political Realism, Machiavelli, stated that a prince can be feared but he should never be hated. Once you become wealthy and powerful, maybe you should stop and think, "maybe I should be nice too?".  Once you reach a level of good living, you should try to share that standard of living with your neighbour, not hire a bunch of thugs to rob your neighbour to only add those extra pennies to your patronage.

Why don't they move? Maybe because they love their country but they hate what the politicians have done to it.

Check the Annual Growth Rate for China and compare to the Annual Growth Rate for the US, they're in the double digits as far as growth, the US is not. As far as Political reform, that isn't likely, they are far more likely to go the way of the Asian Tigers (Taiwan, Sinapore, Thailand, etc) and take a much freer economic stance while retaining political control (Which contradicts Freedman's Theory of Capitalism). So they are going to be the largest economy if they continue their current growth by 2008 (Douglas Lemke "The Continuation of History", Journal of Peace Research, Vol 31 (1), page 31). Also with the current slum in the North American markets and the falling dollar it wouldn't surprise anyone if this happens sooner

I should also point out, this isn't good for anyone. Thanks to Globalization, the Chinese will now be able to squeeze the hose so to speak whenever any other power threatens them. Kind of like what OPEC did during the 80s, except worse.