[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

...unprovoked military attack..."

Unprovoked my ass. If we don't hit Iraq, they're going to do it to us. Our preemptive strike is being done in self-defense. Besides, it can be shown that Iraq had involvement in 9-11. Paybacks are hell and we have a lot more freedom to hammer Iraq the second time around. If we sit and do nothing like the Euro-fags counsel, all we're doing is inviting worse attacks than 9-11.

[CyberAnt]

How can we be pre-emptive - we have over 3000 bodies of innocent people to retaliate for! Pre-emptive my foot!!

[Senator_Palpatine]

>>>>>But even though Iraq's forces are weaker than in 1991, and those of the US even better armed today, General Franks knows that few military plans survive the start of the fighting. "We are prepared to do whatever we are asked to do," he said yesterday after visiting US servicemen in Kuwait.>>>>>>

"This bickering is pointless. General Franks will provide us with the location of the Iraqi fortress by the time this station is operational. We will then crush the Republican Guards with one swift stroke."

[MHGinTN]

But leaks of military plans do not happen by accident. Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, may fulminate about them in public, with the straightest of faces. But they serve the administration's purpose ... Perhaps Saddam reacts to threat by moving things around, which our eyes in the sky follow.

Our preemptive strike is being done in self-defense ... The dimocrats are trying hard to sell the slogan 'pre-emptive' and paint it as some new and dangerous precedent. The fact is, taking out Saddam and disarming Iraq will be the correct continuance of the Gulf War, enforcing the U.N. resolutions Saddam has ythumbed his nose at and sinkEmperor failed to address! don't let the damn lying crimina; enterprise dimocrats set the rhetoric and the agenda. They want this to appear as a pre-emptive strike, to paint it as a terrible 'new precedent'. It isn't even that!