Lots of good responses here already. Not much to add, other than that in casa Dinsdale this a.m., as my 2 teenagers were eating breakfast and asked some questions concerning the increasing mobilization, the missus and I really appreciated the opportunity to tell our kids that we were ashamed of our country’s actions. 
Well, what really gave us the right to come up with the Monroe Doctrine, which is basically the United States saying that since we’re going to be the predominant power in the hemisphere, we’ll decide who does what in the Americas. And when was that established–the early 1800s?
I don’t particularly like some of my country’s attitudes, but those attitudes are hardly new.
An Aussie perspective?
We Aussies are amazingly similar to you Americans - in almost every aspect of our culture. Your countrymen can come visit us anytime you want and instantly feel totally at home and nice and safe.
Why is this, I wonder? Obviously, there are only 20 million of us compared to 250 million of you. Would the tables be different do you think, if those figures were reversed? Would it be us Australians asking if we should be the World’s Watchdog? Resources wise, Australia isn’t all THAT far behind the US. It’s mostly the sheer difference is population size it seems to me.
And yet, we Australians feel as much of a bond to Europe as we do North America. Accordingly, I ask the following question - do we not BOTH owe a great debt of gratitude, in particular to British Canon Law, for providing the inherent stability in our institutions? It seems as though we’ve BOTH inherited a great deal which is noble from European Culture, and it’s not a bad thing to occasionally admit this it seems to me.
I love you Americans. I lived in your country a lot in my early years. You’re a beautiful people. But I do have some observations regarding your institutional power broking systems.
(1) Your electoral process is way, WAY too influenced by corporate lobbying and kick back favours etc. This soooooooooo influences your foreiegn policy at times in the wrong way…
(2) Your electoral process is way, WAY too apathetic. You don’t have compulsory voting, and you don’t have the Westminster system. Accordingly, it’s way too easy for “underqualified” people to buy their way into your major political positions. We all agree that democracy is a great thing - granted. But it’s worth noting also that Australia is just one of FIVE countries which enjoyed total uninterrupted democratic government during the 20th century - so please accept this observation from a friend. Your political system has a lot of flaws in it, which oddly, seem to be addressed by the Westminster system of democracy. Apart from trials by the media, and the annual State of the Union address, your President does NOT have to answer to anybody - well rarely in a manner where he has to show contrition.
(3) Conversely, in the Westminster system, the nation’s leader DOES have to answer questions, sometimes incredibly damaging and embarrassing questions, by the Leader of The Opposition - and this is a good thing. It invites circumspection on occasion. A subtle change here and there to your mechanics for electing good government wouldn’t go astray I daresay. That shit fight between Gore and Bush after the November 2000 election wasn’t your finest hour I would suggest.
In closing, I bet you London to a Brick, if you had the Westminster system, your President sure would have a HARDER battle to fight in justifying the Iraq issue. I’m not saying he’s wrong, I just want you to be aware that perception is everything, and at the moment, the general consensus around the world is that this blasted Iraq war has far more to do with Dubya avenging his father’s “unfinished business” than it does with reality. That perception might be totally wrong, but my point is this - your President isn’t doing a very good job of “justifying” his position. The Westminster system, at the very least, would give him that opportunity by having to answer to dissenting voices on a daily basis.