You know everytime some one speaks up for the removal of Saddam by Bush I can't help but wonder why no one is calling out for the removal of the tyrants of Burma. Its a terrible place, just one of many tyrannical regimes on the planet, and I think its likely to be the case in times to come, because no one is calling out for an invasion of Burma. Sure it would cost a fortune, and Burma has no real oil that I know of, but since the Americans are now spending vast fortunes to save countries from tyrants out of the sheer goodness of their hearts I thought I would once again mention the need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to save the people of Burma from tyranny

Now as for removing tyrants, you might notice that in Burma, tyrants though they are, they do not kill Su Ki Yee (spelling?) who is the main dissident leader in the country with growing public support, probably to win an election, assuming they ever had one. You see, even tyrants must pay attention to public opinion, and tyrants also lie all the time and spread propaganda, for the same reason. Power is an illusion.

Now consider Ceacescu of Romania. Powerful tyrant. Very Saddam like. Terrible dictator. Wound up overthrown and then shot on television. Then there was the collapse of the Soviet Union. How did it happen? Are dictators infallible? No, and once their public support crumbles to a sufficient degree they meet their downfall. No dictator can stay in power once this certain level of public consent is lost, and once that happens even the most 'invincible' seeming tyrant states collapse in ruins.

There are those who spread the myth that the only way to remove a dictator is by means of war, and history demonstrates that this is false. One of the advantage of allowing a nation to depose its own tyrants, is that, while it takes longer, and is a much more gradual process, many tens or hundreds of thousands of little kids will still be alive, whereas after being 'saved' by the Americans, they will not. This crappola about 'there being no other way to get rid of a dictator' than by use of outside military force is simply a pile of bullshit, and even an examination of the most recent history of the planet demonstrates that this is the case.

As for Iraq becoming a 'democracy' that seems unlikely, and it seems much more likely that in order to keep this feuding artificially constructed state together it will require an iron fist (Kurds in the north rebelling, Shi'ites in the south rebelling). There is a reason the Northern powers have always established and supported dictatorships in the Middle East, since each country there is deliberately carved up in the same way, a few of the Kurds in this country, a little of this and a little of that, the purpose being at the time the carving was done, was to create weakened states full of internal strife, which is exactly what resulted. Consequently such strife filled and divided artificial 'nations' like Iraq, with long held simmering feuds and resentments, will not be governed democratically. The Americans have made this abundantly clear in insisting that there will no, definitely NO KURDISH STATE in the north, and no Shi'ite state in the south, which means that eventually Iraq will be ruled by SADDAM Part Two. In the interim the country will be ruled by an American General, for the simple reason that to do otherwise and allow 'democracy' would lead to a Kurdish state in the North, 'iraq' in the middle, and some Shi'ite state in the south, and, democracy be damned, the Americans have already decided that isn't going to happen.