Quickly, before I head of to Bed (I'm on EST)

"What would you call Massive political damage. I would say rather that you could make the argument that Bush's previous decisions have brought us to the point of "Massive political damage"- the current situation in the UN."

The UN is only part of the picture. We have acted poorly, pissing off major allies left and right. Instead of making our case we have made enemies. We have insulted, and bribed and played fast and lose with the truth. We have even undercut the allies that stand with us. We have allowed NATO to fracture badly. We have claimed the right to war unilaterally.

Again, and I repeat, beyond what the UN security council does or does not do, the vast majority of the popular opinion around the world is against this way and views it as illegitimate. Our current administration has failed to make its case, it has not even really tried. All it has done is prove the obvious- that Iraq has WMD like it has had for 12 years.

Because the world views this war as illegitimate, we will be made out to be perpetrating a mass murder when we invade, this will be horribly damaging to our interests.

"Nobody has proven collaboration with terrorists."

"That's your opinion. I think there is enough evidence of this connection, and there are good reasons to expect that this could be a growing threat. "

No, its not my opinion. This is a retreat into subjectivist fallacy and relativism. The proposition that "Iraq is harboring terrorists" is either true or false. We can demonstrate it true by holding out solid physical evidence in the form of photgraphic data that backs eyewitness testimony. We have not done so. I, frankly, want to se evidence from my government before I support a war.

"Terrorism won't have a "clear and present danger or immediate threat" if it was "clear" then steps could be taken to stop it. Terrorism operates by employing surprise."

This is such a bogus justification, gbaikie. Iraq has NEVER been credited as the source for one, not ONE successful or unsuccessful act of international terrorism. Libya has, what, about a dozen? Iraq has *possibly* one failed act of terrorism in that ther *may* have been an assassination plot for Bush Sr.

Again, I require evidence of cause for war. This is execution writ large, and I'm not a texas juror, I'm not going to vote to fry off of innuendo and unsubstantiated claims.

" keeping "China and Russia in check", the UN certainly wasn't a main factor."

Two major, huge turning points in the cold war:

Ambassador to UN from US shows undeniable proof of soviet missiles in Cuba after soviets call US a liar. "Don't wait for the translation, answer me now"

S. Korean ambassador hauls China to task for coming before the UN "with blood on its hands" in one of the most eloquent speeches ever delivered at the UN, China forced N. Korea to sue for peace. The war to stop N Korea/China was sanctioned, partially funded and supported by the UN with america as lead partner. The cease-fire was brokered with UN forces.

Read a history book.

"The US will take action whenever it perceives a risk to it's Security. "

By what the US is percieving and justifying as a risk to its security, who will we not be at war with?

"Stablity in this region is important in terms of world security. "

Stability is exactly what we have in the mideast. Saddam is in a box and has only control-in-name of his own oil fields.

"Allowing a dicator who invades other countries in the region and who has proclaimed that it wants to dominant the region, is a concern in terms of security"

Ah, and Egypt, Sryia etc are not? They both have expressed the 'great arab stae rebuilt' ideal that Saddam buys.

"The fact that this guy has WMD and is quite willing to use them,"

Funny that, he hasn't used them against america or an ally in the 30 years he has possessed them. Not once. Ever. He knows he will be dead or in a war-crimes trial the SECOND a drop of VX or Anthrax penetrates the skin of a single ally.

"AND after losing a war, and agreeing to give up WMD, then thwarting all effort to rid itself of WMD. All adds up to a threat to World and US security."

A threat, possibly, but no more a threat than any other WMD-holding USA hating nation. Again, are we to go to war with the entire world?

Davin L.