Us troops have been and are being deployed there now, my little bro was shiiting himself worrying about being sent. I don't know the numbers, but they have been and I suspect will continue be sent to South Korea for re-inforcement of the existing (miniscule) force there now.

That's insulting Syc. :D

If i wrote something on it i fear words like backfire, disaster, foolish and naive would feature prominately.

As i said lang, why is little or nothing being done about the DPRK. They fired up the reactor a day or two ago.

Nothing new here. That Frontline report last night made that objective woefully obvious. From background interviews of long ago associated with the Frontline report - an interview of Mark Danner, writer for The New Yorker and professor at University of California:As I noted previously, even in China they are asking who is next. This is the concept of pre-emption which means the hegemonous power unilaterally fixes the world. That was an early draft. Later versions tone down the first objective - to make sure that no other power becomes a super power or can challenge US dominance. As the paper began leaking, its initial paragraphs were changed to make them more politically acceptable. But the original concept of pre-emption was from a Wolfowitz 1992 concept paper originally intended to define, size, and direct US military for a future world.

The concept of pre-emption includes, but is not limited to forcing American concepts such as democracy onto other nations.

This concept was in direct confrontation with a doctrine promoted by Powell. 11 September upset the stalemate - and resulted in what is now being called the Bush Doctrine. Pre-emption is to be the first major change in US policy since Pearl Harbor forced the US from isolationism to entanglement. Forcing democracy on Iraq is part of what is sometimes called Phase II. You really want to see that Frontline report also at http://www.pbs.org/frontline

Another also notes how this new Bush Doctrine causes conservative Republicans to act more like liberals AND what its ultimate targets are:
Originally George Jr campaigned against nation building. And yet what does this new doctrine demand? That the US do nation building, or that allies pick up the pieces after the war and do the nation building?

One thing is implied. The Bush Doctrine is but an American version of the British Empire - once known as the Commonwealth. Forcing American values upon the world where evil exists. Forcing values and culture on another people are not how a nation earns friends. But it is consistent with a fundamental "religious right" concept that "we must save you because we have the religion and know the way".

But what of those nations that don't want to be saved? Not all people crave or demand democracy or American ethics.

Not a chance in hell. Though if Bush wanted to make the Saudi's nervous, there's probably no better way.

Unfortunately, we've seen what happens when you get a democracy in strongly religious countries -- they vote in a theocracy.

Some post - WWII or post Cold War examples would be appropriate here.

Algeria.