Wow. My spelling last post SUCKED. Yes, I'm relearning how to type, and all, but you'd think I'd self-edit better. In my defense, it was late after a loooong day. [whine=off]

More silliness from the media today. NPR said "this war has been a roller coaster of ups and downs but it looks like the US will win".

Roller coaster? Huh? Its been 20 days and we have control of Baghdad. TWENTY DAYS. In WWII there were battles for flyspeck islands in the pacific that took far longer than that and we've taken Baghdad. That would be like Mexico invading California and taking San Diego and L.A. in 3 weeks. This war has never EVER been anything but horribly one-sided in favor of America's overwhelming military might. Yes, a few of America's lighter divisions are overwhelming military might. The Marines, the Army's 101st and 82nd Divisions are light infantry. The 3rd Infantry is mechanized. We didn't send the real powerhouses like the Armored Cavalry Regiments, or the Armor Divisions.

So, do I support the war? No, I do not. And for many reasons.

First and foremost, America should not be fighting a war of aggression, which this is. From Thomas Jefferson on down America avoided all "foreign entanglements". Even Korea and Vietnam were seen as helping nations defend themselves against invasion. This is invasion.

Second, the buildup of troops and start of hostilities was in violation of the constitution. Only congress can declare war. And setting up 150,000 troops on a border, telling the leader of a foreign government you are going to unseat him, and then bombing the political center of a sovereign nation is certainly war. And the vaunted War Powers Act is to permit the president to respond to being attacked, not to pulverize an enemy in their home territory when they haven't (and can't) attack us.

Because of this, Bush should be impeached and prosecuted for violation of the constitution, dereliction of his duties as president, and the violation of federal law. Period.

Of course, that won't happen.

I'm also against the war because it wasn't needed. Yes, Saddam had defied the inspectors for years. But that was because we didn't help the inspectors. When we felt it was important and pressured the IRaqis again the inspectors got right back in. A few years of inspections, maybe combined with American intelligence efforts, and any weapons of mass destruction would have been found or destroyed. IF any were left. After all, keeping them was an open invitation for America to invade with the blessings of the world. If Saddam was smart (and he often seemed to be) he would have destroyed them so he could beat his chest about persecution when none were found. So every American who has died in this war was an American who didn't need to die. Same with every Brit, Iraqi, foreign journalist, etc.

Was Saddam a nice guy? Hell, no. He's an inhuman monster. BUT! If we decide that "we don't like Saddam, so he must go", where does it end? We don't like the leaders of a lot of countries - do we just keep going? Iran? Libya? China? France? Russia? And what if all those countries agree that they don't like our leader? What if they were to all team up and oust our (unelected, constitution-violating) president and "restore American freedom"? What moral defense could the current supporters of this war muster?

Maybe next time I'll discuss hegemonic political theory and Dr. Organski's power transition model. Maybe, we'll see.

In the meantime, ask yourself - how does America benefit from the ouster of Saddam? He did not have the military force to attack us, his prestige in the Middle East was fading, and he was nearing the end of his life. Did we just spend billions of dollars and perhaps a hundred American lives (not to mention hundreds of Iraqi civilians, British soldiers, etc.) to prevent possible terrorist attacks that might have taken dozens of lives and cost millions of dollars?