To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (99463 ) 5/29/2003 10:12:18 PM From: carranza2 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 300,000 U.S. soldiers, to eliminate that threat. 20,000 dead Iraqis. Seems a bit of a disproportionate response. Not really. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead at Saddam's hands wouldn't think so. If they could speak, they'd thank us for preventing Sadam and his insane kids from chopping off a few tongues, breasts, committing a dozen or so rapes, and killing a few hundred thousand more Iraqis. They'd say that the cost-benefit analysis is heavily tilted in our favor. Of course, their voices are not heard. I'm increasingly convinced that the whole Iraq gig was about something else entirely--redrawing the ME in a way that protects our oil supplies and precludes the Islamowackos from doing too much more damage domestically. An interesting strategy I'm not sure will work. There is perhaps no alternative manner of diverting the rising tide of Islamism and terrorism so Bush is playing rough as the natives get restless. His Administration has evidently decided that the Islam in its present and future form is too dangerous so it must be attacked. Will it work? Will the tactic result in democracy and constitutional liberalism? After reading Zakaria's book, I doubt it. But I'm not sure there's a better alternative so long as the Iranians, etc., keep supporting terror, suicide bombers, developing nukes, and fomenting a religious view that hankers for our grisly deaths. Until that changes, they probably need to be shown what American power can do. On a regular basis. Even the worst dog learns to behave eventually if he is whipped for his misbehavior. Even the dumbest of Pavlov's pooches eventually got the message.