A99,

Your analogy is basically ok when applied at the local community level, but applying it here showcases a few flaws:

1. We have laws to deal with the "Joes" in our country.
2. Dealing with Joe involves a limited number of people in a small sphere of influence

On the World stage:

1. There are laws to deal with "Joes" and we ignored/bypassed them
2. Dealing with "Joes" in the manner we did sets the stage for a lot of little "Bob's" to fabricate reasons for invading "Joes" they don't like. They can then point to us and say "But THEY did it.."

Also, using your analogy..we not only put Joe in jail..but we took his house, business and Family and handed them over to strangers to administrate.

Additionally, you illustrate the completely specious reasons (well..the reasons we are being given NOW) as to why we invaded Iraq. To wit, Hussein was a bad man. Undoubtedly he was/is. However, if you are going to use this excuse...then admit the hypocrisy of not applying it to all the dictators, juntas, "generalissimos", etc around the World. The only difference here (since we didn't start this war to take out WMD's right?) must be Oil. If we are so altruistic as to spill blood (American and Iraqi) to liberate a suffering humanity, then why are we not liberating all the opressed around the World?

Because they don't sit on the worlds 2nd largest untapped oil reserve that Bush's campaign donors dearly want.

I bring all this up because I love my country, and like you and others, served in it's military. My country, however, is populated with millions of people who think uncritically. People who believe whatever the TV tells them to believe. They believe their Gov't despite decades of proof that it will lie to them at the drop of a hat. It's disturbing that a country so religious and moral (by it's own admission in polls) can forgive it's President of lying if it means they get to pound on somebody in revenge.

I bring all this up because I find the current McCarthyistic Patriotism deeply disturbing. I am disgusted by people who, wrapped in a flag and humming The Battle Hymn of The Republic, gleefully send their fellow American's off to die in the service of the country, while having decided long ago that military service is something "only the lower classes do". Beware those who happily commit souls to battle and death without having served themselves. People who support War because they know they will profit by replacing all the hardware expended in battle losses. If I'm not mistaken, only on Senator has a family member in the Armed Services of the US. If this doesn't expose them for the frauds they are, I don't know what will. They will gladly send other children off to die "for freedom and democracy" but they'll be G.d damned if they will let THEIR kids die for the US. It's a demographic fact that the higher you go up the salary/socio-economic scale, the less likely you will find military service in a given background. So the higher you go, the less connected with pain and suffering become the people who will most profit from War. That's a bad thing.

I find it repugnant that a contract was awarded to Haliburton, a company the VP was CEO of, and therefore should NEVER have been given ANY deal, much less a sweetheart deal. This is clearly conflict of interest, yet America just goes along with it. I'm deeply embarassed by an Administration that acts so childishly in it's dealings with others. Instead of accepting that other countries may not agree with us, they rename the French Fry. This is childish behaviour suited to Kindergarten, not the most powerful country on Earth.

An unthinking populace, a press establishment doubling as the Office of Propaganda, and an administration bent on fulfilling campaign promises to corporate donors is a recipe for disaster.