Hi Simon - War is a bad thing, and somthing I wish could be avoided. However not being willing to fight means those who are have a terrible advantage. I'm also glad there are people willing to stand up and object to their governments decisions, that's healthy - and somthing one couldn't do in Iraq.
But yes, I think a track record stands for somthing, but isn't enough to justify or condem current actions. Else Russia, China, France and Germany's conduct in the last century would have to be considered when reviewing their blocking of action against Saddam's Iraq.
"Officer ... I stopped at the last two red lights like I was supposed to ... I should be allowed to go through the third" Is that how it works?
I think it's more like Iraq saying, 'Officer, don't flash your lights at me you bastard! I'll sue you for harrasing me when all I do is run red lights...' and the Policeman being told to tear up the ticket by the Security Council coz Iraq's driving hasn't hurt anyone they know recently...
I'd disagree about them not taking territory though ... vast amounts of the world are now under their economic control (the real weapon of the 21st century).
I'm not sure that economic success can really be equated to military or direct political control... different beasts. If it is economic imperialism, then it's the most free and benevolent empire yet established. I don't think it is that, but if it is then I'll settle for it given the alternatives. But that's me.
Freedom sure aint free.
And thanks for the forum...
Max