"Hit right home, didn't it?"

Nope, it sure as heck didn't. It did rile me to be accused indirectly of perniciousness because I adhere to reason and objective observation. But that should rile you as well.

"Your straw man statement that I advocate "wholesale" killing of Iraqui citizens is inaccurate. But, you knew that too."

Naw, its not really a straw man. You should look that term up, BTW. War is *often* described, by even generals, as killing on the wholesale level. And we will be killing Iraqi citizens on a grand level, bith in and out of uniform, regardless of what little wordgames you want to play. And if you support this war, then you support and advocate that killing. What you claim and have failed to demonstrate to me is the justification for that war and the justification for that support.

"I await your compelling description of the "alternatives" available to the 12 year's of violated cease fire and WMD concealment."

Again, this is thin bullshit. Just because no alternatives have even been DISCUSSED, it does not imply that war is the correct thing. First off, this is a false Dichotomy. Second off, you surely can't advocate the adherance to a hypothesis and/or plan ONLY because there are none other visible. This is lunacy, bad thinking cast off by the renaissance, thinking from the dar-ages- however you want to describe it, its BS.

Thats why we evolved these marvelous things called brains. So we can sit down and use them and come up ewith the RIGHT course of action. So far, the national debate has been locked down because the pro-war people refuse to consider alternatives and the ant-war people are so bogged down arguing their case that there is NO ROOM in the national context for a discussion of alternatives. That doesn't mean they don't exist!

Davin