Ha! I hope they are stupid enough to try and reinstate the draft. That will mobilize American public opinion against these foreign wars very effectively indeed.

brucie - Actually, I always considered the WMD argument to be a completely specious one. Not because the Iraquis necessarily didn't have any WMD's....no, not because of that at all, but because of this:

In my opinion any country has a sovereign right to possess its own WMD's if any other country does...it simply does not have a right to USE them on somebody in an unprovoked attack.

If you don't think so, then you must subscribe to the notion that certain countries have greater inalienable rights of self-determination than others do. This is the same as saying that certain people have greater inalienable rights than others do...which is an unconstitutional notion in both Canada and the USA.

You see, the USA and the other major powers have all kinds of WMD's and no one can do anything about it. Now they are saying that, well, it's okay for us to have these WMD's because we are more important, more civilized, more just, more democratic, etc ("we're better than them")...but that is a load of codswallop! What the great powers are is, they are more powerful, that's all, and they can afford to have massive amounts of WMD's, and no one dares stop them.

It is extremely hypocritical of people who already have hundreds or thousands of nukes to say that other people with a fraction of their striking power cannot have 3 or 4 or 10 nukes.

It's just power politics, that's all. It's the "haves" trying to maintain the "have-nots" in perpetuity and run a closed shop, like Al Capone or Bugsy Siegel.

Now I've always thought that a small country is safer without nukes...depending on who it might get attacked by in a large war...but North Korea is clearly safer with them, because they are a deterrent to attack by South Korea and the USA.

Iraq would have been safer with them for the same reason, which makes a strong argument for getting them, doesn't it, if you're an Iraqui?

Anyway, I reiterate that it is not a crime to have weapons, it is a crime to use them in an unprovoked attack on someone.

And that is exactly what the USA has done recently.

Iraq committed no direct crimes against the USA, but did commit domestic crimes on its own people....but so have any number of other governments that presently enjoy American support and encouragement. Saddam enjoyed American support and encouragement back when he was orginally gassing the Kurds!

Therefore, the recent attack on Iraq was launched for spurious reasons...and reasons not spoken of or admitted to by the US administration. Either that, or the US administration is collossally stupid...and believes its own media propaganda. I don't think they're that stupid.

- LH