thijs,

Let's face reality. If the Iraqi high command unleashed a biological and chemical attack against the coalition forces, and it was taking a heavy toll in deaths, why on earth would we have to sit back and not react? The article may allude to us being willing to use nuclear force, but it says it isn't saying they will use force, just not ruling it out, under certain circumstances.

As soon as you can guarantee that Hussein's henchmen won't use civilians as shields, won't use chemical or biological warfare tactics, and won't use illegal acts of aggression during war time, like disguising themselves as civilians, faking surrenders, and using it as a ploy to murder soldiers that have been instructed to help the people, not kill them, you can bring this up as a valid point. Until then, it's not even worth discussion.

The problem with this whole "anti-war" campaign that is being brought up is that it's looking for positions to blame the coalition for everything, accusing them of everything, and conveniently ignoring the plight of the Iraqi people, and the atrocities that are being committed in the name of Saddam Hussein.

I'm sorry! You have to see the whole scope of what is happening in Iraq, not look at the issues with a totally biased point of view. You can't accept what one press offering says, or rely on one reporter to give you a synopsis of what to believe. You have to take the whole thing, digest it, then make a valued decision based on the reality of all events... not just a few.

What disturbs me about the point of view you represent is that anti-war people don't really care about how many coalition soldiers are killed, just as long as we leave Iraq without victory. The fact is, the movement is doing more to condemn soldiers than Saddam Hussein had dreamed possible. He uses the anti-war protests here as a propaganda tool, to urge his forces on, telling them that the vast majority of Americans are against the war, and we will pull out, as soon as our "death toll" gets high enough.

There was a time that this was considered treason. In fact, in Iraq, if you spoke out against Hussein you wouldn't get a trial, you'd be executed in the middle of a street, to send a message to anyone else who would speak out.

If this is what you wish to support, that's up to you, but to me, it isn't the answer. Knuckling under to tyrants and maggots like Hussein does nothing more than give them license to continue their assault against mankind.

Making matters worse, the time comes when these tyrants become strong enough, and have enough allies, that you get another WWI or WWII. Then people die by the millions. People who never would have died, had someone stopped the tyrants before they became strong enough to hold the world hostage.

I keep hearing how the "majority" of the people in the U.S. were against our involvement in Nam. That's not true. The vocal part of our society was against it, and those who supported the government were too timid to speak out. In the end, the "anti-war" enthusiasts never affected anything except a few local elections in places like Berkeley. The only places they had much real effect was where there were thousands of college students with too damned much time on their hands, living off the government, and telling everyone else what fools they were.

I can't respect that, and never will.

Look at all sides of an issue. Not just those that feed your personal beliefs. That's a rather narrow point of view in my opinion.

As for my involvement in Nam, I came back alive. There are over 58,000 names on a wall in DC of those that didn't come back. Some were friends, others relatives of some of us on this board. They are the ones that respect should be given to. Then, add today's soldier to those that deserve respect. Don't condemn them by letting Hussein or anyone else see that there's a lack of unity in our nation. Let them know that we are united in our stand. That our resolve is real, and won't go away.

Wolf