Supporting the attack

I believe there are reasons that justify an attack on Iraq.\nWhen Hitler helped put the ruthless Franco in power in Spain, nobody complained. Hitler occupied Austria and annexed Czechoslovakia, and people were still trying diplomacy. Only when Hitler invaded Poland was war declared by France and Britain.\nIn a New York Times article March 3, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Foreign Affairs Minister of East Timor Jose Ramos-Horta, said liberating his country from its dictator had been an extreme measure, but he is thankful for it.\nI have no doubt Iraq is now destroying its weapons for no other reason but the United States' animosity.\nBefore Sept. 11, the U.N. Security Council passed three resolutions demanding that the Taliban surrender Osama bin Laden, citing him by name, freezing his assets and imposing sanctions. As probably every single inhabitant of this planet knows, Afghanistan did not obey the recommendations. \nWhy then am I against a U.S. attack on Iraq? \nI don't see things in black and white as America does. In recent history, the United States did no better than Hitler by supporting the ruthless dictator Pinochet in Chile and other dictators throughout Latin America. \nInterestingly enough, Colin Powell said last February that the U.S. support of the coup in Chile is "not a part of American history we are proud of," and that the U.S. government "now considers it was an error." Coincidently, Chile is a member of the Security Council in 2003.\nAnother problem is the new anti-French fad. It is weird but harmless when one obscure restaurant decides to change the name of its food, renaming anything with "French" to "freedom" to attract clientele. \nBut it troubles me to see people brag about how the United States "saved" France from Germany in the World War II, but remember selectively the French's assistance in furnishing aid to colonial Americans and cornering Cornwallis' forces in a move that ensured American independence. \nEven more worrisome, however, is to see elected officials actually changing the menus in the House's cafeterias and going as far as proposing a ban on French products.\nThe message I get from this is: Don't mess with America. If you oppose our interests, even if democratically, we don't like you. \nI am waiting for the moment when words such as "fiancée" will be banned from the English language, or the Statue of Liberty will be returned to France.\nFrom the childish reaction of American politicians, I wonder how the two war-opposing American diplomats who resigned recently are being treated. In a letter published this week in a New York Times, one of the diplomats observed: "The president's disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century."\nMartin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador, was quoted in the Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo last Tuesday saying that the United States had been arrogant by disregarding the European and Turkish public opinions.\nMy problem is that I don't trust the U.S. ability to truly deliver democracy to a country in misery, such as Iraq. Although I give credit for the U.S. success in helping rebuild Germany, for example, I know the "pax americana" was far from successful in many other countries.\nThe U.S. was never elected the sheriff of the world. The Security Council is the closest thing our planet has to a global police. While the legitimate authority doesn't agree with an attack, I won't either. As Ramos-Horta said, "The United States is an unchallenged world power and will survive its enemies. It can afford to be a little more patient"