Gambit's C, first D, second D, first E, and G:
C: N Korea is suspected of having at least a half dozen fission weapons. And the reasoning for that is in part on how far along their known research efforts were, and on the types of missiles they've been testing (Long March II, and so on...) Chances are that N. Korea has nukes. And chances are that Kim Jong Il is going to still run his country into the ground to produce more of them. And it's a tossup on whether China really can control N. Korea as well as it thinks it can. On the one hand, they've got the troops to invade and force N. Korea to stand down if necessary. On the other, N. Korea is so well isolated from other nations, except China, that it's possible that they'll do something, the US and S. Korea will respond, and China will step in to back up their ally (N. Korea). Then Nato countries will get involved, especially Britain, and you've got a big mess that's hard to back down from. N. Korea definitely has the launch capability to put nukes into the Seoul Hilton.
first D: We have to remember that Russia, France, and wealthy arabs were supporting Iraq. What better way to do operation testing of weapons for France and Russia, than in a real environment against the threats they were meant to counter? And wealthy arabs will more than likely give money to those in need (islam requires it of all muslims, IIRC).
second D: EVERYONE forgets that Osama bin Laden's group are religious fanatics at their core. You can't treat religious zealots the same way you treat terrorists. Terrorists are in it for money, power, release of other terrorists, etc. Religious fanatics are in it to either impose their religion or to silence those that speak out against their reiligious beliefs. Of the two, I would say that religious fanaticism is more significant because faith can create very strong emotions, and give rise to very strong beliefs.
Especially when those beliefs and emotions are being shaped by people who have a goal such as the destruction of America.
I can see why government officials (I'm speaking in a non-official capicity here
), say that the enemy are terrorists instead of religious fanatics. If they state that religion is the root of why they're fighting us, then ALL muslims become the enemy... the common, Joe American won't see the difference. I can see why it's done this way, but I don't agree with it and it allows people to draw false conclusions. It keeps the higher ups at the pentagon from realizing that they're ultimately fighting religious warriors... though I think this is changing.
first E: The whole FOX news thing just gets me for one reason: they don't allow non-FOX news viewpoints without a counter-argument that's laced with scorn. I don't mind the fact that they lean more towards the right than CNN and MSNBC and others. In fact, I am a HUGE fan of that kind of diversity. I am NOT, however, a fan of the way those right-leaning views are presented. It's propaganda, Gambit. Plain and simple. (Though I will say that I like to watch it at times because their news-women are generally more attractive.
)
G: Well, the world economy isn't as much of a free-market as your statements would imply, Gambit. It's more of a regulated-free-market than anything else. A prime example of this would be China. The Chinese government won't release its currency from specific numbers that their government derived. Those numbers don't accurately reflect the health of the Chinese economy, and it forces foreign goods to come in at dramatically lower prices than they otherwise would be. Chinese currency is held at a certain value regulated by the Chinese central bank, and that fixes the conversion between dollars and... Chinese dollars (?). That means that even though the US economy reacts to world conditions, and the prices for some things will go up or down, it's always going to cost the same in China. Say MS office (legal versions): 100 dollars in the US; 20 dollars in China.... and when the US economy changes: 150 dollars in the US; 20 dollars in China. This situation is only good for China; the US doesn't benefit other than it gets a trading partner.
As for the Iraq war in general: I think it was a good thing that Saddam got removed. I think it was a horrible thing to justify it on false pretenses (WMDs)... everyone thought Iraq had them, but that was based on poor evidence and in a couple of cases, outright lies.
The whole point of Kerry's "test" was to say to our friends, "Hey... we think Iraq has WMDs. What does your intel say? How confident in that are you?" then take what they say and analyze it and see how it fits with our data. It's not a "permission slip" to do anything... it's a double-check to make sure we don't look like dumbasses. Had someone done that, we would not have used WMDs as the pretense for the war. We may have still gone to war... but justified on different, more truthful reasons.
Personally, I think the bin Laden is either hiding out in Pakistan/Afghanistan, or hiding out in Iran. I say Iran because the government there is not friendly towards the US, and it's based heavily on religion. That's two key things for bin Laden's group.