This amused me greatly...

For each of the following, indicate which person you like more (or dislike less) by selecting a number on their side of the scale. The closer to -5 or 5 indicates the degree to which you prefer that option.

Poll #1003784
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Hillary Clinton (-5) vs. Rudy Giuliani (5)

Ronald Reagan (-5) vs. George W. Bush (5)

Vladimir Putin (-5) vs. Mikhail Gorbachev (5)

Jimmy Carter (-5) vs. Kofi Annan (5)

Queen Elizabeth II (-5) vs. Princess Diana (5)

Audrey Hepburn (-5) vs. Katharine Hepburn (5)

River Phoenix (-5) vs. Joaquin Phoenix (5)

The Somali government recently taking power in Mogadishu with the aid of Ethiopian forces was up until now generally referred to as the "U.N. backed government of Somalia". However, since the American strikes, I've seen it referred to more and more as the "U.S. backed government". The dramatic change in perception will have serious adverse consequences for Somalia, the Ethiopian troops stationed there, or U.S. interests in the region.

The trigger-happy idiocy of the Bush administration strikes again.

thanks to goldmourn:

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."     "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"     George [H.W.] Bush and Brent Scowcroft     Time (March 2, 1998)

Countries with a history of using weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets should be forced to eliminate their stockpiles and submit to UN inspections.