*rolls up sleeves*
Before I begin, I wish two points noted. 1) I didn't start the politicking. 2) How can you realistically expect a politically titled thread ("election results") not to contain some politics?
I shall not rebut sentence by sentence, but point by point. It'll save at least a little space...
A) You being a moron - I have no evidence for that, and the fact that you write intellegently argues against it. I shall refrain from getting personal and trust you'll do the same.
B) US getting inspected: The US hasn't violated what, a hundred-something UN resolutions? We've not used any WMDs since Nagasaki, as opposed to Saddam who had a long history of depending on them to fight Iran, Kurds, and whomever else he felt like. As a matter of fact, IIRC, the US does (or did) submit to some sort of inspections during the cold war in the interest of toning down nuke fever.
C) WMD & N. Korea - They're very insular. No reason to suspect that they're supplying anyone anything. And we don't know they have nukes yet, though I do agree with you we ought to do something about their obvious capability and will to develop and use such. They've not broken UN treaties, except the nuke development one. The fact that Al Queda and Iran are both muslim, and almost all international terrorists are muslim, probably helped, rightly or wrongly. I will note a difference in motives, however. Saddam wanted to intimidate his neighbors (Iran), and had demonstrated that he would invade them given the opportunity. Kim Jong Il (is that correct) is seeking attention. He's jumping up and down, yelling "look at me, everybody!" I won't pretend to analyze his mind - what I've read of him is obviously twisted - but there is a notable difference there. They're both pretty brutal.
D) embargoes/democracy in M.E. Well, the embargoes were apparently not doing much. Now that we're in there, it's obvious they were hurting, but towards then end Saddam had also figured out ways around them, and they'd have been a complete joke in another year or two. As far as being there for profiteering -- I strongly, sincerely doubt that's the reason for the war. Are there opportunists out there? Yup. Do powerful people cooperate with them when they really shouldn't? Yup. Do either of us know what's going on in people's heads when we only see them on the news? Nope. Please don't state your speculation about other's motives as fact. For the record, I think the motive of "bringing democracy" doesn't hold much water either.
E) Fox news(subitem): You know why people like Fox? Because they're tired of major news sources that swing so far to the left. There needs to be some right-wing flavor to balance. If things swing too far to the right, there'll be a similar backlash to the left. Happened before (1960s), will happen again.
D) Iraq Muslim/Christian/democracy. Fact: There are over 2.5 million professing Christians in Iraq today. (
http://www.assyrianchristians.com/ is one source.) And in a Muslim country, to be a professing Christian is a lot more meaningful than in the US. The common person in Iraq today is skeptical, but hopeful. Two years ago "hope" wasn't in the picture. You hear about the harm US has done there, but you should also be aware of the good being done. You don't hear squat of THAT on mainstream media - see the aforementioned leftist slant. As far as "what the Iraqis want" - refer to above comment regarding assignation of motive. Strictly militarily, having a strong US presence in the M.E. is a brilliant strategic move. It's already toned down a lot of rhetoric from Syria and Iran. Though I admit the methods of getting there have been quite a bit below optimal.
E) You're going to gripe at Bush for trying to get out of Iraq within four years? Isn't that part of the platform Kerry was running on? Also, don't you think we'd get some scorn for not finishing what we start, and leaving the country in a shambles to tear itself apart?
F) The anti-American sentiment has been building for much more than four years. Current events have brought it to a head, but Dem and Rep administrations have done their part to create, ignore, and feed the beast. Hollywood helped, too.
G) Business/economics: (As an aside, it's the unions, who support the Dems, that made it so tough to hire people in the US. I agree that they are needed, to a point, but they've gone well beyond that.) If the US were to make a law that said US corps have to pay US wages to its workers no matter where they are, the corps would leave the US. If the law said that only goods which were made in the USA could be sold in the USA, other countries wouldn't buy our stuff, either. Happens all the time.
Business follows profit, and creates Jobs, which are filled by consumers who spend the money, and the government takes its slice every step of the way. Democratic (system, not party) politics follows the voters, who tend to vote their pocketbook. The taxes pull the whole economy down, since they're felt in so many different places but ultimately fall on the consumer. (When you tax a business, it has to raise its prices or lower its wages.)
If American workers want to keep jobs in America, they HAVE to buy American-made goods and services. American companies have been telling us that for years! But those Korean-made cars and Tiawanese computers and Japanese stereos are so much cheaper than their domestic counterpart that hard-working Joe American picks them instead. It's simple economics. As it becomes more convenient to ship goods and travel and communicate with people in other countries (and who doesn't like convenience?), economic barriers fall and it becomes easier to equalize those markets in nearly every respect. Goods, services, employees, everything. It will all balance out eventually, but as long as there are sharp divides between economic systems, there will be this kind of turmoil. The US will be lowering its standard of living relative to the rest of the world, one way or another, as will other "wealthy" countries.
Do you know what has been supplying the growth for the world's economic engine prior to now? Frontierism. Columbus' "New World" is one example of that. It's someplace where "civilization" isn't, however you want to term it. To the Europeans of that era it was America. Prior to that it was the Orient (conversely, from the Orient it was Europe...). Africa has been there at both ends (say Egypt), as has India, the M.E., etc. One problem with our economic system is that we're out of frontiers, at least until we extend our economics into space. So, now that faraway places are becoming more and more "local," the spikes are going to level out a bit. Any country that tries to stop this progress will get left behind - that's how the M.E. went from being a shining star of culture and science to its current state of stagnation. Ideally, economics should be a mix of market-driven and planning. Unfortunately, the market is usually much better at handling things than any government has ever demonstrated its ability to plan, so I'm an avowed capitalist - though I'll allow that a little wise regulation is a good thing.
Final note, non-party oriented: If there was such things as altruistic politicians, could we recognize them? Or would cynics of the other side always tear them up?