“Something I want to make clear on this point-WE ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS! We are not going around just killing innocent Iraqi's for sport, the only ones we intend to kill are the insurgents.”

That points to the essence of the question. Can we can do no wrong if our intentions are good? Was it noble for the Spanish to bring the natives Christianity? Sure they had to kill some ‘insurgents’ but look at Latin America now, the majority of the population is Christian.

Neglecting to even consider weather Christianity is some how relatively superior to other cultural traditions. Does the "good" of christianity make the murders, enslavement, and stealing of resources irrelevant?

Are the means always justified given our ends? If they are then it’s irrelevant that we can pull up websites with hundreds of pictures of burned dead babies and soccer fields in fallujah, In fact any criticism of the war, its tactics, or our intentions there are also irrelevant as long as we have “stated” noble ends. Furthermore we can contextualize any ‘bad examples’ with good ones and find a balance that is acceptable within our ideological framework. So I do not criticize you for your position. I just hope you’re considering the issue at had from as many perspectives as possible.

”As far as Iraq's desire for democracy goes, I think that how many Iraqi's have registered to vote is a great semblance of their desire for it to happen.”

That is great~! Unfortunately their government has been structured in a way that there elections will have little bearing on the ‘liberalization’ of there oil resources, or the capacity of the people to reduce the size and presence of US military personal in that country.

Ultimately elections could “improve” the Iraqis position, as the elections will act an additional legitimization tactic so that the ‘insurgents’ can be targeted more effectively and with less international scrutiny. (PDA) But let’s remember one of the reasons “Saddam” was such a “bad guy” was because of the way that he controlled his domestic population though violence. The US will have to escalate its violent repression which will in the short term increase reprisals but in the long run it should work. Violence works, it worked for Saddam, it will work for US. I suppose our violence is justifiable because we have Nobel intentions that those that oppose US simply do not understand? They simply don’t understand we know what is best for them.

"87% express little or no confidence in U.S. coalition forces?" What and where was that poll taken, frankly I am not too concerned with what the likes of France, Germany, Russia, China, or even Canada thinks about it.”

Why should you be, we have a very well crafted narrative that is not inclusive of the poisons of others.

”It will of course take awhile for that to be realized, years even, their democracy is just beginning, they will have lots of problems.”

Very good point. In other words our ends are idealized and we can’t expect them to materialize how we idealized them. Then what are we left with? Only the means in which we peruse those idealized ends.

That is where I see strength; God and morality, in making the way you peruse change reflect the change that you seek.

I would argue that the way this war was conducted did reflect the change the administration wanted. They want a ‘democracy’ but a democracy that is friendly to our interests. The administration has every intention for the Iraqis to be free but it has to be the freedom we provide them. If people oppose that then we can kill them.

That would explain why Venezuela democracy is labeled as “bad” while Iraqis democracy is a beacon of hope. It largely has to do with how inline the governments are with the American interests, not really “freedom” however you would measure it.