Zodiak

There was no diplomacy in the run-up to the Iraq war. There was arm-twisting, posturing, feigned attempts at obeying international law, and a secret war engaged months before the official invasion date began. That was not diplomacy; that was bullying.

If the diplomacy argument is based on the "12 years" that is oft mentioned by Bush supporters, then I would say that as far as Iraq was concerned, diplomacy was working (a heck of a lot better than today's conditions, at least). Saddam was effectively contained within his own borders. I would argue that this method was only partially successful, though, because a half of a million children died in Iraq under a lengthy half a generation of economic sanctions. These sanctions went on too long and were not tweaked when problems arose. Of course, imposing illegal no-fly zones on the country and bombing every time someone walked across the desert with a gun didn't help matters very much.

Now with the war on terror, I would say that this war has no clear enemy, no clear parameters for victory, no clear strategy for attaining goals (which are unknown), and impossible to do. I agree with the opening post that conducting a "war on terror" only serves to provide the pretext for massive military spending, massive expenditures for equipment, sweetheart contracts to friends of governmental officials, loss of civil liberties at home, demonization of the opposition party (Democrats), and a poll-boost on demand (terror alert!). Osama Bin Laden and Zarquawi are both Emmanual Goldsteins in Oceana's war on Eastasia...(or is it Eurasia?). Double-plus good!!

When Americans realize they have been played as saps in this war (and they are waking up to it), there will be hell to pay for the party in power.

__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!

Zach de la Rocha