babelfish fails miserably in most regards to comprehensible translation
WHAT WE NOW KNOW: We're an amnesiac short-attention span culture. Only three weeks ago, we were in the middle of a debate about war; now we're in the middle of the war. In the frenetic news cycles, we scarcely find time to relate what we now know to what we once argued. But we need to make time.
Here's a short list of what we know now about Saddam, two weeks after the outbreak of war: that he runs a more horrifying police-state than some of us imagined; that he uses terroristic measures to maintain his rule; has close contact with other terrorist groups whom he has invited into his country in his defense; invokes Islamic justifications for his despotism far more often than any secular justifications; is capable of actions very few other human beings are capable of; and will not give up an ounce of real power even at the point of an actually loaded gun.
In other words, the prudential justification for the war is now far stronger than it was only a couple of weeks ago: no one can plausibly now argue that this monstrous regime would have voluntarily disarmed itself at the polite and constantly negotiable behest of a mild-mannered Swede. Inspections would never have worked, if by "worked," we actually mean succeeded in disarming Saddam. But more importantly, the moral justification for war has been deepened. More Americans today can absorb the true horror of murderous totalitarian rule, by watching its hatchet men defend themselves by all means necessary - using women and childern as shields, murdering POWs, deploying suicide bombers, and the like. Ending that kind of evil anywhere any time is always a good thing. You can argue the costs but you can't argue the moral good of it. We will save many lives; we are rescuing many people who are oppressed in ways those who constantly talk about "oppression" do not really know or understand. These are good things to know. They are vital things to remember.
