First, thank you all for this discussion. As a Vietnam combat veteran (medic) I can assure you that war is horrible and tragic and should never be entered into with anything less than the best of reasons and the most serious thought behind it. That is what I see in much of this discussion thans to McGrath and beccy and Mark Clark and Oldguy and the rest. (Is that THE Mark Clark?)

But there are a lot of exceptions. Some of you seem to hate anyone who is politically conservative, as represented by George W. Bush, and presume anything they do or say is inherently not just wrong, but actually evil, and there is no point listening to arguments. Others seem to hate the liberals as represented by Bill Clinton, and presume they live in a dreamworld of wishful thinking are also automatically wrong and not worth listening to. Many of the so-called arguments seem to say "Not only are you automatically wrong, but your dog is ugly, too!"

That may be ok for arguments over taxation and internet control, but this issue involves the immediate loss of human life, that's people just like us, and no honest, reasonable opinion should be automatically dismissed.

The Mudcat forum may not be the place for it, but there are some things I want to know.

Why are we going to war with Iraq? I reject the notion that "The evil Bush clan wants to take over the oilfields." Even if they did, the world and the U.S people would never let that happen, and the whole bunch would be tossed out at the next election. Same with starting an
unnecessary war to get re-elected. I don't think anyone could get away with that anymore, just like I don't think anyone could hijack an American passenger jet after 9/11. (Too many cowboy passengers willing to say "Lets Roll!")

The arguments seem to be: (1.) Since 9/11 we are at war with terrorists and terrorist regimes, that Saddam has or is actively developing really bad chem, bio, and nuke weapons, and will give them to terrorists to use on us or will do so himself. (2.) One of the reasons we didn't march to Bagdhad during the gulf war was that Hussein agreed to the terms we gave him prohibiting thosw weapons. But in the decade since he has not abided by any of them. (3) Ignoring that will surely result in massive and tragic loss of innocent lives in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Does the government have "cards they ain't showing?" In a speech awhile back President Bush referred to an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Liberal folks said North Korea was included just for diversity to avoid singling out Iraq. Given recent developments, that doesn't seem to hold water. (And Yesterday there was an article in the NY Times about Iran being closer to having nukes than Iraq.) If that's the case, why doesn't the government, (both Dems and Reps) say "We have cards we ain't showin!"

Is this too heavy for the mudcat?

O'Meara

ps I already know my dog is ugly.