[MMMMMM]

I really find it hard to understand how so many people seem not to be able to see through Saddam's games.

It's been mentioned before, that on the Internet, negative points tend to become magnified. I wonder if there is some sort of different yet similar effect at work here, in the U.N., in public opinion--it seems that the more access to information everyone has, the more a large segment seems unable to accurately assimilate the information and see the larger picture--the voices of the confused (or the disingenous) become amplified, too--and we see a similar effect in the U.N., where perhaps due to the structure of the organization, the voices of despotic regimes become amplified as well.

The French, Russians and Germans have clear economic interests in preventing war with Iraq. Many Middle Eastern countries have mixed feelings. Most Iraqi citizens, the opposition groups and exiles clearly want regime change. The peace movement seems far more concerned with applying pressure on the U.S. to not attack than it is with demonstrating for Saddam to disarm. There are also many who take a simplistic view and cannot really put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

At this point anyone who genuinely thinks Saddam has ever truly disarmed, or that he is not merely making a few calculated concessions in order to drag out the process, has very poor judgment IMO. Likewise for those who think it unlikely for Saddam's WMD to eventually find their way into terrorist hands.

The issue isn't whether any of this is completely proven anyway. It's whether it is reasonably likely--because the penalties for terrorists gaining WMD would be so truly horrific. A look at the overall pieces of the puzzle--taken together--makes it plain that Saddam can't be trusted an inch, and that his actions for over more than a decade have been directed towards developing and preserving his WMD.

The smaller the world becomes, the more we will have the chance to develop truly informed opinions about many things. At the same time, the more tools the obfuscators and detractors will enjoy as well, and the more magnified the voices of the uninformed or confused will become.

To the extent that people are well able to sift and meld large amounts of complex information, better decisions will be possible. Yet this same abundance of information is what will overwhelm those who are not good at this very important skill.