The once brief response now presents the pseudo-brief response!

I agree that 'fundamentalists' is an erroneous and misleading term for Muslim terrorists.

The 'Saddam had to pretend to have WMDs to appear strong' assertion does not attempt to excuse Iraq's insubordination or give Saddam license to do anything he pleases without consequence. That's taking my statement far out of context. Though it always appears to touch a button when one tries presents a rationale for Saddam's behavior that rises above such subjective and juvenile theories like 'he's evil.'

I was addressing: why Saddam behaved as though he had WMDs, when he had none; why unyielding, open submission to American demands would a) impose the ignominy of Iraqi sovereignty rendered irrelevant by a foreign power (the Iraqi people are not exactly unfamiliar with the shackles Colonialism), and b) arouse in those surronding neighbors' the dormant hatred, contempt and greed for the new, enfeebled Iraq. Perhaps some diplomatic agreement might have been reached without the brazen, national humiliation or brandish exhibition of the country's vulnerability.

As for whether we were obligated to act against Saddam Hussein's alleged WMD program, I say we were not. Truth be told, I actually lean more towards isolationism, among those wary of foreign entanglements. (don't bring up how isolationism 'failed' during World War II or infect you with polio for believing everything you heard during your middle school history lession). In fact, we wouldn't be in this damn mess with Iraq if we'd just minded our own business when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Uh oh, it's treason, nay, AMERICAN heresy to criticize the feel-good war of the 90s, and I'm obviously the reanimated corpse of Vladmir Lenin for uttering such sacrilege.

Alternate history speculation commences! Consider this: Iraq invades and occupies Kuwait as an alleged territorial dispute, more likely because Saddam is unable to wage war against a real regional power having exhausted its resources with the disastrous cost of the failed invasion of Iran and ensuing eight year war of attrition (which led to nothing but a stalemate); the victory hardly placates Saddam, but he lacks the power to do little but consolidate his (relatively meager) acquisition ; America never builds military bases in Saudi Arabia (Muslim holy land).

This is purely spectulation, but I think the bloo Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan (al Qaeda supplied with American aid), American soldiers not on Saudi soil, and the secular dictatorship of Saddam Hussein seeming to be on the ascent would inspire bin Laden to organize the militants of the Islamic world to wage holy jihad against Iraq; instead of antipathy for America and the Saudi royal family; al Qaeda, Kuwaiti insurgants (most likely well-supplied by Iran) terrorize the populace of Iraq and Syria in an continual effort to destablize the secular dictatorships and pave the way for Islamic theocracy. None of this pertains to America or American security, unless you consider fluctuating gas prices a national emergency.

Meanwhile, the Cold War ends when the Soviet government abrutly dissolves, and the United States enjoys the prosperity of the 1990s. The Middle East is as volatile as ever, but fortunately the strife is internally centered, with the Arabs have little incentive or spare resources to attack the United States (who they both rely upon for imported arms and munitions); the government wisely decides intervetion in the region could be disasterous, and would certainly be unwelcome after 50 years of Anglo-French occupation.

yhnmzwcs, I demand a demo!