[Austin Willard Wright]

There is difference between war for national defense and war to carry out a neo-con pipedream of transforming Baghdad into a Middle Eastern version of Kansas city. The alternative to world polcing is a foreign policy based on national defense. As to "evil regimes," they are a dime a dozen in the world. Should we spread ourselves thin conquering and build unified national democracies in each one of them?

As to the claim that a tin-pot Mussolini, like Hussein posed a viable threat, I think that the evidence is speaking loud and clear on a daily basis.

[HankReardon]

Are you saying the only justified time to go to war against evil is AFTER they kill Americans? Very scarey. And we have to take out all the evil regimes all at the same time? We can't do one at a time, each in the different manner it requires for each one? I never understood that argument. As is most often the case, your point against going to war has no alternative. Nobody is pro-war. Peace cannot be proclaimed, peace can only be obtained by taking out those with evil intent, often times this requires war.

[sauropod]

"As to the claim that a tin-pot Mussolini, like Hussein posed a viable threat, I think that the evidence is speaking loud and clear on a daily basis."

Then you haven't been paying attention. Remember Salman Pak? What about the Doug Feith memo?

[HankReardon]

It is unimaginable that Saddam would pass off chemical or biological weapons to terrorists and they put them into a container on a ship bound for New York harbor! Unimaginable! It was also unimaginable that terrorists would fly commercial arliners into the WTO, the Pentagon and where ever else the other one was headed. There's not a thing wrong with president Bush sending the miltary in to take Saddam out, it is NOT proven everyday.