"If the UN gets on board, maybe we can have a treaty (with teeth) making possession of all such weapons illegal."

Ah, are we to do away with them as well? What about France, GB, China, Russia?

"Your argument... "why don't attack N. Korea" first is ridiculous for two reasons:

1) You would say why don't we attack Iraq first if we were on the verge of attacing N. Korea first. So YOUR argument here is really meaningless..."

Not my argument. My point is that BY THE ARGUMENT GIVEN FOR WAR IN IRAQ, THERE ARE HALF A DOZEN OTHER COUNTRIES THAT SHOULD BE ATTACKED FIRST.

"2) We do face a greater threat from Iraq than from N. Korea at this time. That is a fact wether you want to accept it or not."

Hogwash again. Where are your facts, evidence and arguments indicating that we are in clear and present danger from Iraq? I have asked for this for weeks on this board. This retreat into subjectivism I don't buy for a second. This is not about feelings and interpretation. The truth of the matter is NOT opinion. I have given support to my opinion in terms of supporting facts, reasons and sources (see previous posts). I have yet to see that from the 'other side'.

")The Jappanese and S. Koreans are at the current time, capable of containing N. Korea without anything but megar help from the US. "

With this you reveal a serious lack of knowledge about the situation on the ground there. Japan has a very small and very self-defense oriented armed force that is not adequate to project power. S. Korea has a fair army, certainly not on the order of the US army nor the N. Korean army. The troops we have in the way are a 'speed bump'. Of course we would win in the end, but it would take full divisions, amphibious landings and much more than 'megar' support.Besides, based on the language out of pyongyang, do you expect rational deterrence to be effective here?

"The Iranians can't."

Again, you exhibit a lack of knowledge. The Iranians were arguably winning against Saddam when peace was forged. They were being nailed with all sorts of nast gass and (at that time) a superior military force. They seemed to be quite capable of 'holding off' saddam.

The Saudi princes could possibly fight off sadam- now that they have M1A1 tanks of their own and a very sophisticated C4 network of their own. The Iraqi army, as we shall soon see, is a wastrel assortment of ragtag forces with pathetic equipment. Its simply not a threat as long as sanctions are on.

Davin

Davin