Moose, we seem to be arguing circles around each other, and have lost each other's arguments. We both are guilty.
I do not war this second, today, tomorrow, or next week. Hell, I don't want war period. But war is a necessity. It can wait, but not long. We are continuing to allow the UN to carry out weapons' inspections (and I'm actually pretty impressed at Hans Blix's responsiveness). Don't act like we're going to send in all 200,000 troops tomorrow.
Nice reference to the religious debates. I see a lot of parallels of ideals here. There is a difference, however, between that proof and this. Here, the proof may very well be a million citizens infected with Anthrax or Smallpox. And there are some, not necessarily including myself, that call emtpy chemical warheads "proof." I don't believe it's absolute proof, yet I do look at every little bit of information we have, and it pieces together to form quite a compelling argument.
I find myself continually torn between war and no war. It's hard to endorse an all-out war in such unstable times with so little international support. Yet it's also hard to let an insane dictator further research into obtainment of WMD's. This cannot be denied. Emtpy chemical warheads and receipts of weapon sales can be considered proof of this. Though it is possible that Iraq may not actually have any WMD's in their possession, I have no doubt in my mind that if given sufficient time, they will. I cannot justify standing by idly while this happens, however much I disapprove of war.
I also fear our political future. North Korea is more immediately dangerous than Iraq. Unfortunately, they are also much more difficult to deal with. If we so much as impose sanctions on them, and Hawaii and Alaska may find themselves nuked. They have in their possession right now a missile (I believe it's called the Dong-II, haha, fuckin Koreans) that is capable of reaching either state. Given sufficient time, they are believed to be able to produce a missile (perhaps the long-Dong?) that could reach the continental US. That terrifies me.
Any military action anywhere in the world has the possibility of creating hostility towards the US on so many fronts. But letting these hostile nations/groups go unchecked is asking for far greater danger further down the road. All I ask is for you to consider the future, and how dangerous these enemies can become. We're entering the age of the preemptive strike. No longer will the archaic and outdated laissez-faire policy held by so many be effective. Rogue nations are able to hold weapons so powerful that they can launch a crippling attack before we're able to find sufficient "proof" of their possession. I just don't want the proof to be a nuclear attack on New York.
