"Two main declared goals - to prevent spreading of WMD and to guarantee safety of citizens. And what are the achieved results?
Banal comparison of two situations - with Iraq and North Korea - reveals, that the only way to save sovereignty for a small and not conforming to
American standards nation is to possess an atom bomb."
Actually, you're misquoting the goals here. The first part isn't to stop the spread of WOMD, but to disarm them, from someone who, (as terms of
surrender) agreed to do so, but then didn't. The second part of the goal is correct, and so far, we have been doing more than the Enemy has in this
regard, even as relates to their own citizens. If instead, you are speaking of protecting American citizens, then that goal too, will be met, albeit
with short-term increased risk, but long-term, the goal will be realized.
The bit about small countries having to live up to American standards, is likewise false. The ONLY standard we expect them to live up to, is not to
harbor or support terrorists. There are plenty of small countries who aren't exactly friendly to the US (nor living up to our "standards"), but
who, nonetheless, aren't exactly in our sights, because they don't harbor them. Iraq, as a sponsor of terrorism, is in those cross-hairs because
they chose to be.
Where I agree with many of the anti-war members, is that this war is being fought for reasons other than those being stated publicly. Indeed, the
Bush camp better get on the ball soon, and start proving that these reasons were well-founded (i.e. find some chemical caches...). However, where I
disagree with many of them, is that (as an American) I agree with the more hidden agendas, as also being valid reasons for the war, with the stated
goals being nice secondary ones, resulting from it.
This is really more about improving the US Economy, and improving stability in the Middle East, as it relates to US global positioning. By the
installation of another US-friendly nation in the region, we can minimize the fanaticism of the region in general a little bit. Likewise, the goal of
getting rid of a known terrorist sponsor is also a primary goal. Regardless of what press you choose to believe, there ARE terrorist training camps
in Iraq, and they are, in essence, permitted to be there by the Saddam regime.
I would have preferred that this war come from the UN. Unfortunately, it became obvious that the out-dated structure of the UN was self-defeating, in
the face of today's issues. By it's own doing, (i.e. allowing it's directives to be repeatedly ignored for a dozen years), it became ineffective,
and incapable of enforcing it's own will. When that point became evident, as usual, the US stepped up to the plate. Sure, we could have waited
forever and a day for inspections to trickle and slowly reveal what we all know is there....but the cost of such, was not worth this risk. That's
the difference between the US and many other nations. We're not afraid to assume the risk of world opinion, and do what needs to be done, and we're
damned proud of it. I wonder how many other countrymen of various countries get a tear in their eye when their national anthem is played, or even a
patriotic song? I'll tell you one thing, when they're played here, there isn't a dry eye in the house...