I said "shaping" the world. And whether it is in the "business" of doing so depends very much on the people making decisions, doesn't it? There's hardly anything written in stone about it, although I suspect you think there is and that the answer is "no, we aren't". Furthermore, if you buy the line that "the business of America is business" then it is certainly in American interests to see the world adopt the most important aspects of American culture -- most importantly those to do with attaining economic well-being. With respect to your tired old N Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia comments, dude, just because you can't do all doesn't mean you don't do any. I can't be bothered explaining the intricacies of each to someone who I doubt as truly interested, suffice to say they aren't all one and the same and there exist varying priorities and various approaches. You'd be wrong to assume that "shaping the world" requires "invasion", it does not. In fact, war really is a last resort here, but a very necessary last resort that should not be one we shy away from. (See --> Iraq)
Lol. Um, er, uh..., yeah jack, you really stumped me there! The "connection" is in the "changed world since 9.11". One in which you don't let a major security threat like Sadam's Iraq remain Sadam's Iraq. One in which you decide it's high time something is done to set a workable example for other Arab states to follow so that we permanently minimize the risks of another 9/11. (Not the 'appeasement model' liberals offer. They tried that one in the 1930s in umm... what was the name of that place....Europe.) One in which you accept the harsh reality that there exists a sociopolitical ideology that is very much at odds with yours, that offers its adherents the attraction of a dirt poor life with little prospect of ever improving that leads to some of the already antagonistic amongst its members (thanks to the tenets of aforementioned ideology) to become so desperate they mercilessly attack your ass for doing nothing more than being yourself. And one in which you accept the equally harsh reality that dealing with this problem is going to be "messy" for, perhaps/probably, a lot longer than anyone of us would like, but hey that's life. (And one in which not everything is going to go perfectly but that's hardly a reason to change horses midstream.)
So I guess Iraq had nuclear ballistic missible capability and our Country was in immediate threat by an intercontinental missile strike frrom Saddam??? That's strange because the CIA could not find any evidence of Iraq having any current evidence of WMD, let alone the ability to strike our soil. They sure has hell don't have a Navy and they couldn't get one measily fighter jet up into the sky during the War. So please explain to me how Iraq was an immediate threat to our Country? How was Iraq a "majority security threat" as you say? Please explain that one. And also please show me how Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor for George Bush, Sr., must have been a liberal that offered the "appeasement model" that you mentioned? http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/000504.html
Face it. The War against Iraq was not integral to the Global War on Terrorism, but rather a detour from it. Moreover, most of the Global War on Terrorism's declared objectives, which include the destruction of al-Qaeda and other transitional terrorist organizations, the transformation of Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy, the democratization of the rest of the autocratic Middle East, the eradication of terrorism as a means of irregular warfare, and the ( forcible, if necessary ) termination of WMD proliferation to real and potential enemies worldwide, are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security. As such, the Global War On Terrorism's goals are also politically, fiscally, and militarily unsustainable. People like Senator John McCain have already been quite vocal about how "thin" we are running our military and the dramatic effect that the war on Iraq is going to have on the resources of our military, and the budget for future weapons programs. Currently, over 370,000 troops or 75% of our total force of military is spread across 120 countries worldwide, and we only have about 100,000 troops availible to defend our country from a hypothetical attack and safeguard its borders. One military analyst has called the massive scale of this unprecedented US military deployment the equivalent of "civilization building", resulting in a serious and costly overextension of our ground forces. Furthermore, for the first time in contemporary US history, there are no active US Army brigades available for deployment in the event of a crisis. Operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans have stretched the Army so thin that when Lt. Gen. John Vines, the senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan, recently requested one more Army battalion be deployed to that country, service leaders could not find one in the active force. In an emergency, the Army National Guard, which has the equivalent of 14 divisions, could be called up. But as of July 21, 74,551 National Guard soldiers had been mobilized and sent overseas, along with 61,590 Army reservists. "One of every six reserve soldiers is on active duty now," said John Hillen, a decorated veteran of the first Gulf War who served on the congressionally mandated U.S. Commission on National Security Structure for the 21st Century. "It's pretty hard to see how [the Army] can strain this stream even more." Specul8or, you must be doing some pretty serious drugs to think that our military is able to sustain even more operations that it is currently capable of. You are living in a dream world my friend, and are extremely naive to what our military is capable of. Nation-State building has been the downfall of every major civilization . . . But I guess you fail to understand why that is. Scroll back above and re-read some of the facts that I listed above and maybe you will be able to figure out what could actually make us even more vulnerable than we are now.
Yeah, any time Waggie is unable to counter a post (which is most of the time), he responds, rabidly, with "what about Iraq's connection to 9/11?!?!?" I think he goes to sleep muttering "Iraq...9/11....Iraq....9/11...Bush bad....Kennedy good....Iraq...9/11."