I was not commenting on who would make the best soldiers, but on who in general is most likely to volunteer.

Some of what you term "vanity wars" could also be looked at as preventative measures. I would hope we learned our lesson in WW2 to not let things get to a point where it takes massive intervention, loss of life and capital to solve a problem that could have been avoided much earlier. Suppose that we had left SH totally alone, just shook our heads over Kuwait and fired off diplomatic communiques in response. Suppose then SH has decided to make Saudi Arabia vote JA on the Anshluss and then controlled a very significant part of the world's oil supply. Carry it a tad further and then the smaller states of Jordan, Syria and Leabanon fall to SH. Then SH attacks Isreal to quell Arab unrest about his activities, what better way to distract the street than the evil Jew? If these events had occured in this order, do you think that the rest of the world would stand by and let Isreal go it alone and almost assuredly go nuclear? How much loss of life and treasure then on both sides, not to mention the environmental consequences. I would hardly call this one a vanity war in light of what could have happened had we left SH alone. Where I have problems is sending US troops in as "peace keepers", their job is to protect the US, not play cop in a third world sqabble.

I meant to answer this sooner.

Iraq: We here in the U.S. receive only a small portion of our oil from the M.E. while Europe and other regions depend on it. But, economics being what it is, Mexico and others take full advantage of shortfalls to make certain their profits are maximized by charging the "going rate". That being said, if Iraq had invaded one of its "oil rich" neighbors and created a shortfall that would impact Europe in real terms, not just in cost, their sense of "enlightened self-interest" would mobilize them (the Europeans) and the "coalition of the willing" would be much bigger.

This was the case in Kuwait. So, we have historical precident upon which to base the above scenario.

To much of the world, the Iraq situation looks like a case of perceived unfinished business on the part of GWB, despite the fact that his own father urged him to reconsider.

We should not be the world's police force. It is, like I have said before, "The death of a thousand cuts".

In reference to my earlier post regarding avoiding the draft being unpatriotic: When did I imply not wishing to go to Iraq is unpatriotic? I was merely commenting on the article Lynn posted. If a draft is instilled, I feel any able bodied man or woman should serve, if asked to serve. Serving in the armed forces does not equate to agreement with foreign policy. The Swiss have a militia and mandatory service. They don't start wars with other countries. Why would a draft change foreign policy? respectfully, Jürgen

Gee Widebody...how come Clinton and Kerry were not on your list of those who sought deferments?

Clinton, to his credit, did mention that very fact at the Dem convention.