I didn't just make an statement about the anti-war crowd's argument being empty on its own. I argued in detail why I feel their arguments are so empty.

I have given specific, detailed reasons for my side of the argument. What do I get in return? I get called a fascist and nonsense about how an ideal world might be if we could all hold hands and get along.

I find it intellectually lazy to argue that no one should ever do anything. It's like saying that policemen don't have the right to arrest crooks because using force makes them no better than anyone else. It's not like Iraq is some victim that was randomly chosen by "evil(TM)" US powers.

Then there is also no international law. Laws that cannot be enforced are not laws, they're wish lists.

The UN was created as a collective SECURITY organization. Iraq has been jerking around the UN security council resolutions for a decade now.

Americans (and everyone else for that matter) have good reason to fear Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction. If the UN isn't going to take care of them, then someone else does.

The same is true of North Korea. The UN isn't going to do anything about North Korea is it? Hopefully Russia and China can take care of North Korea.

In short, the UN is proving itself to be feeble at enforcing "international laws". As a result, those laws lose any sort of meaning.

There is no moral high ground in absolute pacifism. It is easy to say "can't we all just get along?" I've yet to see anyone in this discussion put forth one good reason why we should allow Saddam to obtain WMD. One reason. The inspectors aren't searchers. They're inspectors. Iraq is the size of California, they will never find anything. And they don't really want to find anything anyway.

So... how about those Buc's !!!!

Whats a Buc??

BBall, how about football.

Depends, WOM - what kind of 'football'? ^_~

Tampa Bay Buc's

Kind of elongated pointy making it a ball with two ends that you run around, throw and carry from one end of a lined field to the other in the hopes of crossing the line in front of your team to make a point. Ah, you can kick it now and then, well actually it starts with kicking the, umm, ball, hence Football

Is calling it Football justified and on a deeper subject, is it really a ball when it has to point's breaking it's conformed roundness of a ball? Maybe it should be called a double cone attached at the middle throwy kicky thingy.

Then we could have Monday Night : double cone attached at the middle throwy kicky thingy

I just want to put 2cents in or even a cent. My head hurts from reading all of this.. Too much info.

1. Iraq is anti-American. It harbours fantasies of destroying the US. So does China, doesn't it? All its activities are US centric, aren't they? Doesn't even the CIA acknowledge that the Chinese are a threat? And so does N. Korea. The North is talking to all other nations except to the US and its allies. What does it speak about their intentions?

2. Iraq is TRYING to possess WMDs. China and N. Korea already possess them. Alongwith them, also the means to deliver them to the American mainland, ICBMs and stuff.

3. People living under the Iraqi regime suffer unspeakable hardships. Any moves against the regime doesn't go unpunished. But this suffering is shared by Chinese and the N. Koreans too. Their moves are censored, they have no or miniscule freedom. And who can forget the 1989 Tianmen Square massacre. About the same time as Iraqi atrocities.

4. Iraq warred on Kuwait and tried to conquer it. Whereas, Chinese still occupy Tibetian soil, have installed a puppet Lama, while the real Lama is in exile. It also threatens to forcefully merge many, now sovereign nations, with the mainland.

5. There is a fear that the Iraqi arsenal is at the disposal of the terrosrists. And the Iraqi have broken the UN laws, ceasefire pact. On other hand, it is a fact that Pakistani Ghauris and Ghazanis are nothing but a Pakistani paint job on Red M11's and N. Korean missiles. The Pakistani atomic bomb program also has its roots in the Republic of China. That is breaking all NPT treaties.

Now let us look at the differences.

1. China and N. Korea are militarily powerful nations. A skirmish with either would result in millions of casualties on either side.
Iraq on the other hand, has been brought to its knees by the 1991 Gulf War and 12 years of sanctions. It has lost the will to fight, all its propoganda is empty talk. It wouldn't last a week against the American might and it knows that.

2. Iraq provides little or no contribution to the American GDP. China, on the other hand, is major market for American goods. Also, it is a major source of cheap labour that many (err) Global companies would like to exploit.

If I were a military strategist, heck, why do I need to be one, I'd not even think twice about the choice I make. Hell, its plain and clear, the easisest choice, maximum results with minimum input.

That will slow the down load.

You are right Sir Wom. No more inputs from my side. I just request that my name not be mentioned in this thread again. I have already paid for my views with the rejection of my WPs. Maybe they weren't 'uploadable'.

The moderators are not that petty, so don't blame it on them. OK? You were not the only one to get rejected today.

Ok I drunk my jug of shine, and I that thar ma polar-bar now whar's thet Eskimo Woman you want me to rasel?