How to contain an aggressor in the post-nuke era is the most important challenge we face right now. The main problem is, it is the nuclear powers themselves who are some of the worst aggressors.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was an act of aggression. Now, whether it was the international community's responsibility to deal with that militarily was open to debate, but the fact that Iraq was the aggressor wasn't.

Now however, we have a situation where Iraq is not an aggressor, and the US and Britain are trying to make an argument that their nations have a right, which supercedes the rights of the international community, to "pre-empt" Iraq before it becomes an aggressor nation again.

That is highly problematic. Again, people don't realize that the Bush administration has introduced (and it can be found at the White House website) this completely new foreign policy doctrine. The tactics the Bush administration intends to use are those which have previously been defined as illegal tactics by the international community. There are serious sovereignty issues at stake, at minimum. The defintions used in this supposed "national security doctrine" leaves unanswered many questions, such as what if the Saudis decide to throw the US out of their country--does the US have the right to invade because it needs Saudi oil for all of us to get to work?

These are most dangerous times.