Actually, Thoran I have a "NO BUSH WAR" bumpersticker some protestors thrust upon me on my way into court the other day. We had a 3000+ protestor rally and march here in Chi-town. And, that's not counting those of us in suits who were huddled together standing off to the side watching the spectacle as a brief respite from otherwise dull days.
The worthlessness of action against Saddam bothers me. I don't like him, I have no problem with popping a cap in his ass just for fun, but it's a waste of time. N. Korea has nukes - duh. They're part of that infamous Axis (talk about your invocative terminology from history) aren't they? Didn't they just fire two long-range test rockets last winter from Korea - one impacting in the Pacific on either side of the island of Japan? I think Korea's "shot over the bow" last year plus their recent press releases regarding their bombs are some sort of strategy by them to either (1) "sneak in under the wire" while Saddam is on the plate or (2) challenge the U.S. with a "you gonna get us all?" type of approach.
India and Pakistan have nukes. Plus a fight over Kashmir. Plus starving people and a lack of clean water. Iran has nukes. The French have nukes, and God knows they're unhinged. (
joking! - don't flame!
)
Get the picture. Yet one more unstable regime being a nuclear threat is not exactly "news" now is it? So, what's the point? Is it because of the region Saddam sits in and the instability crazy action on his part could cause? Maybe that's a good reason. But the fact that some dictator has weapons of mass destruction is either (1) not good cause for a war or (2) cause to fight wars against at least a dozen nations.