I guess my distrust in Bush has made me wonder if we would use nukes in lesser circumstances. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt about the U.N. thing. I tried to tell myself he wasn't going to go through with this - that he was bluffing so that Saddam would listen up and fess up to weapons he may/may not have. But with the pounding-of-the-fist incident...I'm afraid he's not playing the game I was hoping he was playing. He's lost his mind. So not only are we changing the rationale for war, but we are changing the rationale for nukes. I find this quite sad. I still say nukes are for defense and the most dire circumstances. Not even to be discussed otherwise...to even say that we would consider them has undoubtedly alienated more of the world. And understandably so. What if Russia had said such a thing when battling Chechnya? How would we have felt about that?

As for Iraq disguising troops as citizens. Let's not forget what factions we have in that area of the world. They're not all friendly to the U.S. to begin with - not withstanding the fact that we left them high and dry 12 years ago. This goes back to my statement about media - some media are reporting that civilians are fighting back of their own accord and are legitimate citizens. Of course, Fox says it's all military dressed as civilians. Again - I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle - perhaps even both things are occuring. While sad, it's terribly naive to think that everyone in Iraq will welcome us. And you are only setting yourself up for disappointment (unless of course you continue watching Fox and only Fox for the rest of your life).

Concerning the anti-war campaign - those are some very broad stereotypes and assumptions you're riding on! I don't blame the U.S. for everything in the world - only the tyrants it creates, funds, and then decides is are no longer worthy of our support therefore we take 'em down with war. The other thing I blame the U.S. for is it's hasty and unethical push for war with nothing more than a "token" effort to include the rest of the world. If it wasn't for Powell, this never would have touched the U.N. As far as our soldiers and the anti-war movement not caring for them - see my earlier post on this topic - I think it's quite clear that you want to believe what you want to believe and refuse to consider what I say on this matter. Don't play victim.

As for the anti-war movement providing propoganda to Iraq, it's a two way street and just because the war has started does not make it right. It is still unjustified and unnecessary. Period. The U.S. has the tools to silence Iraqi media and they chose not to make that their first targets which is clearly poor planning on the part of our military. This is yet another example of this administration's amazing ability to screw things up. Why wasn't our "shock and awe" technology used to silence them immediately? Furthermore, the propaganda they report, while it's regrettably being used for the wrong reasons, it is the truth and we might as well face up to that. There are dissenters in this country and they have that right as part of this country under our constitution.

Again you do not understand that the anti-war movement does not support Saddam Hussein - you are blinded by your conservative leanings my friend. It is all about a rush to war that was not necessary. What would it have hurt to give this another 6 months or even 1 year?!? Even if the U.N. stayed in Iraq forever and no American lives were sacrificed, I would have been happy if some progress was made - the U.N. inspections undoubtedly distracted Iraq from obtaining weapons. He was contained - and I know conservatives hate that word, but we're still doing it in N. Korea, so why should this be different? As far as his evils, I hate to say that Saddam is Iraq's problem, but the potential hornet's nest we could unleash in the Middle East was never worth it. And again - if we apply this same justification in Iraq to the rest of the world, the U.S. will be in a state of war for eternity. Is that what you want? Where do we draw the line? Pakistan could be a threat - especially if their dictator government is overthrown. Somolia was a threat - why not them again? What about Libya? What about Syria? What about Iran? What about N. Korea? What about half of Africa? What about China?

The U.N. proved it's usefullness in the Gulf War - *that* is when it prevented another WWII. To compare the Iraq of today, a country with little power and not a state that supports it, of being capable of starting a WWII is not just illogical but based on untethered fear. What is a reasonable fear is that the U.S. has started the next WW. With mounting tensions in the middle east and a government asleep at the wheel here, this potential is far more likely than Saddam Hussein ever having had the ability to invade other countries. So I ask a question: What has changed since the Gulf War? Our closest friends and allies? Or the U.S.? It's quite clear - the latter.

And 1441 - ah yes, 1441. That resolution was worded so vaguely so everyone would get on board. There were reasons that France, Germany, etc. did not put specifics in the resolution. They didn't want the rush to war that the U.S. did. The U.S. got it's way by passing something that would "loosely" give it the right to go to war - a sad excuse for diplomacy - why bother?!?