<A war has practically always a territorial reasons; one side claims a land which has been occupied by another.

That's how many wars start, with an aggressor or a threat. Of course, you can also fight a war to defend your home, which a lot of people seem to forget. Is that bad? I don't think Al-Quaeda was trying to conquer our territory when they punched airliners into our skyscrapers, which shows that maybe motivations for violence and aggression are a bit more complicated than you think.

Very dangerous and no example at all to the world, a pre-emptive war. And also, no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, so why blame Iraq for terrorist attacks?

This sounds good, until you remember that almost all of these very same anti-war protesters were just as opposed to attacking Afghanistan, which DID attack us on 9/11. Most of these protestors are less anti-war than they are anti-America.

Is Iraq only country number two , after 9/11? And other dictatorships will follow? (Those most anti-american, of course coming first because if you're not for us, you're against us).

Don't see anyone else stepping up to bat. What do YOU think we should do? Leave Iraq alone, and let Saddam's insane son take over killing Iraqis and fomenting unrest in the Mideast? Want to try sanctions again? It's obvious that as long as enough food and medicine can be found for the leadership, never mind millions for palaces, the rest of the population can just die.

Want to tell me how Europe solved the Bosnia problem all by itself? Was letting that alone an option?

An irony: Napoleon and later on, Hitler, wanted to build a large strong unified Europe...By force. The European Union is slowly achieving the same goal, by a larger margin, all this peacefully.

Peacefully, so far. I know the type of people who are in charge. Wait. There won't be armies, or invasions, or storm troopers, but there will be other ways they will try to force Europeans into a single mold.