Zseni wrote:

For my part, I can't believe one of your justifications for peace (or proofs of an unjust war or whatever) is that Saddam's been thumbing his nose at the UN for 10 years, so jumping on him now is hypocrtitical or something. Isn't this like saying that driving 100 MPH is dangerous, unless you've been doing it for years, then it suddenly becomes less dangerous? Some people, including myself, were very very annoyed when the weapons inspectors left and very upset that this jackass was given such a long time to get his armaments programs back on track. One of my main complaints about the Clinton administration.

No, it's like spending ten years threatening a little kid get with violence for jerking off in public, but you don't do anything he keeps jerking, and then all of a sudden saying "okay NOW STOP THAT OR YOU GET BEAT DOWN." Despite what you're going to want to say, dude, the comparison is alarmingly valid: Saddam has done exactly as much as we have let him get away with. The question remains - what's happened that's so special we have to make good on all our threats now, and why, after ten years, is he going to buy that it's any more than just more threats until the moment the bombs hit?

As for ties or the lack thereof to terrorist organizations, the only equation I see is:

Lunatic + Nuclear weapons + Terrorists groups merely existing nearby = all kinds of potential for mayhem. Let's give Saddam some nukes, then see if he can keep them under control! It'll be a great game of wait and cringe.

Iron filings + magnet + superglue = all kinds of potential architecture.

But very little actual architecture.

For the record: I agree we need to go after Saudi Fucking Arabia. And North Korea. The need for action elsewhere has no bearing whatsoever on the need for action in Iraq.

For the record: christ, nuke Iraq all you want America, blow the whole fuckin' middle east sky high, but don't tell me you're doing it for anything but the oil. North Korea - aside from being an empty threat - has no resources worth procuring, so we aren't arsing ourselves about procuring them.

Also, apparently oil companies all over the world are against the war in Iraq. And there's some question (again at Qt3) about how much good it'd do to have the US in complete control of Iraqi oil. I have to admit that I can't find evidence of this on my own yet (what search phrase should I try? "oil companies against war" brings up countless NO BLOOD FOR OIL pages), but I trust the sources at Qt3.

Lemme know if you do find anything, I'd be interested in seeing it.