Tom... Here is what I think of that question. Suppose you and I are sitting in a room full of gasoline. We knew we gotta get rid of the Gas. You pull out a zippos and say: "Hey, why don't we burn it off?"... I disagree and you then challenge me because I have not given you a better idea....

the absence of a countering hypothesis does NOT prove the truth of a hypothesis set forward. It has nothing to do with it. The same for this argument of yours. Stupid is still stupid.

I, too, feel that NONE of my points have ever been answered on this BBS. Nobody has told me how we are going to avoid MASSIVE political damage. Nobody has proven collaboration with terrorists. Nobody has demonstrated clear and present danger or immediate threat. Nobody has demonstrated why Iraq, given the current set of justifications, and WHY NOT about 6 other states first. Nobody has shown me how we will keep unilateralism from being employed byu the nations we have used international consensus to keep in check- namely China and Russia.

I do not pretend to be an expert on military tactics or on foreign affairs or on containment of dictators, so I can't answer your questions with real possibilities. BUt I tell you what, I will go and think about it and come up with a few ideas just to please you. Seriously...

Davin L.