I remember from the beginning that GWB, Powell, and Rumsfeld ALL said that dirty war requires dirty tactics and making friends with dirty people.

How is this any different than any other conflict since WW2?

Well, it is really no different.  It began well before it "began", and it will continue long after it "ends".  And decisions made and actions taken now will come back to haunt us down the road.  The guys that we are fighting with now will be fighting against us soon, and the cycle will continue.  This will be a dirty campaign, and many have been saying it for a long time, but when Rumsfeld and Myers show video clips of laser-guided precision weapons destroying discreet targets, the sense of dirtiness is lost.  The American news consumer wants their war neatly packaged for television, with clear adversary and ally, and easily quantifiable results.

This conflict has very complicated geopolitical facets that do not lend themselves well to CNN Headline News read to you by Detective Kirkendahl.

This war seems contrived and meant to assure that there will be future wars.  The hawks on tv just love it--war! war! WAR!  God damn they love fucking wars.  Even the pundits like that wacko Hackworth and the former green beret with the thin little bear and mustache are in their glory because everyone wants to interview them.  

It's becoming increasingly obvious that Bush means to go after Iraq after the hot war in Afghanistan ends.  I can only assume he aims to try and make up for his father's failure to kill Hussein.  It pretty much reeks of the power mad and the military industrial complex looking out for their own interests.  

And where is bin Laden?  I thought he was the target of all this nonsense.  I'll bet he mysteriously eludes capture.  Maybe he'll show up in Somalia so we can have a justification for going in there and getting back at those poor bastards for what they pulled back in '93?  No one could have scripted a better enemy for the super heroes of America to go fight with.

[b]trickshot[/b], are you disillusioned about our war against terrorism?

You weren't one of the ones who were predicting the utter defeat of our forces by those wily Afghan soldiers were you?

I remember when Desert Storm was brewing and our fine Senators stood up and proclaimed that the US would need tens of thousands of body bags once the elite and courageous Republican Guard caught the miserably trained and equipped American forces on the battlefield!

And in the present conflict, I remember the Jeremiads that were pronounced about how the vicious Afghanis had buried the pride of both England and Russia in its deserts and would do likewise to the Americans should they ever dare set foot in the country!

Now that we're on a roll, I see nothing that should stop us from finishing off Saddam should we so desire.

Hasn't he broken enough of his pledges made at the time of his surrender at the end of Desert Storm?

Eric The(SicSemperTyranis)Hun[>]:)]

trickshot,
Osama Bin has never been the primary target but a symbol.  It's his network we're after.
I've heard enough of this crap for a lifetime about the finishing off of S. Hussein:
1)  Bush #1 went to the UN and got a resolution to expel the invaders from Kuwait - period.
2)  The coalition was put together to accomplish #1.
If anyone chooses to criticize Bush #1 then criticize him for what he's guilty of - Going to the UN.
(T. Shot, I'm forced to agree about Hackworth - he is a whacko.)