"You are both missing the point. This is about Iraq agreement to terms of ending the war. If Iraq had not signed on the dotted line, we wouldn't be having the resulting sanctions and no fly zones. Without this understanding it's impossible to understand why the US is taking it's current position- you would think the US some power crazed nation."

Gbaikie: Good to hear from you.

I have actually argued against this point elsewhere, possibly in the same thread (with the same capitalization as before ;). The COALITION was involved in that surrender agreement. If the COALITION is against this war, how can it be about enforcing the terms of the surrender- If we really wanted to be the sole arbiters of the surrender agreement, then we should not have forged to coalition in the first place.

In any case, why now and not 2, 6 or 10 years ago- 3 different administrations. Why now?

"Saddam has and intends to build more WMD- if you don't understand that, you are pretty clueless. "

Gbaikie: If you can show me ONE post of mine in which I claim saddam has no WMD whatsoever I will cut you a check for, say $100, and if I fail in providing that check I will change my name here to "Female-Dog-of-Gbaikie".

"If you start a forest forest fire you are responsible for all the loss of property and lives that result from that forest fire. Now, what punishment is handed down, would depend on numerous circumstances."

Its not clear to me how this is supposed to apply to justification for war.

this 'not really a new war' thing is really a non-starter. If we were really THAT interested in the WMD, we would have gone before Bush Sr. was out of office, when the inspections started to fall apart, or in 98 when the inspectors were expelled for good.

In reality, this is part of the childs merry-go-round of justification for this war. The anti-war folks point out there is no clear-and-present danger, then the notion of international law floats... They point out that there is no real support for the enforcement of international law BY THE body that makes those laws(the UN), and therefore it is not sufficient justification, then the notion of the terms of surrender come up. If not that, it migrates to the thin claim that saddam is fostering terrorists- then we bring up Libya and crew, and the justification changes yet again. None of these really stand to reason. But this merry-go-round will grind on until there are bombs and mustard gas in Bahgdad... wonderful, then it is fait accompli and the deed is done.

While I have nothing against the use of force in general, it seriously bugs me when fatal force is used in my name without reasonable justification. Its usually called at least manslaughter.

Davin L.