War with Iraq is iminent. Dennis Hastert (Speaker of the Hous for those who don't know of him) has said the Congress will vote on whether or not to allow military action against Iraq before the elections are held, on November 5.

For a while now I had decided that I do not support going to war with Iraq, unless evidence is shown that he is doing what they say he is doing. I haven't seen a shred of proof that there are any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, though I do think they're there. I also haven't seen any shred of evidence that Saddam and his cronies are working on nuclear weapons. Now, they say he is, and that he is dangerously close. In an era where many Americans distrust the government (ignore post-9/11 feelings), it seems awfully arrogant to start a war with Iraq, without showing us proof. That's just how I feel. They very well may show us evidence before the attack begins, and if they do, I will support it.

I really don't have a choice but to support anyway, since I know it will happen. The pros of this war certainly outweigh the cons, even if they aren't working on nukes. Life for Iraqi citizens will be better with Saddam gone.

We might as well be at war with them already. We have spies over there doing intelligence work all the time. We do know he has biological weapons and things like that, but do you really want the goverment showing that we know this stuff with photographical proof? C'mon get real, as if the media doesn't know enough already. All our enimies have to do now a days is look at our news and they have all the intelligence on us they need. Do they need know what we know? I think there are certain times the goverment should keep certain things to themselves.

Now, while I think this war is gonna happen with Iraq, whethere I like it or not. I'm not too sure about it yet. I mean I don't like Iraq and Sadaam, but we don't have anyone else backing us on this. That is our main problem with this situation.

So they've built nukes. So they've developed biological and chemical warfare agents. So what. So have we.

Does this give us the right to declare war on them? Bob, I thought you of all people would be adhering to the principal of, "Let he who is without sin...."

Now, on the other hand, there is evidence supporting the probability that they have terrorist training camps in operation. We have declared war on terrorism. I say that in line with this, we declare war on that terrorist training camp (if it indeed does truly exist). We demand that Saddam destroys it... although then who's to say it/they won't just be moved elsewhere.

In the long and short of it, I think we would be prudent to keep our noses out of Iraq altogether, unless we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was involved with the WTC tragedy. If that turns out to be true, then I say go after him and the camel he rode in on. But in the meantime we have no right interfering just because we think his governmental policies are bad, or because he may be developing weapons of mass destruction.

but hell, im an idiot, and i know for a fact that at least anakin will yell at me, and probable bob as well...so just be warned, im prepared for it!

But, point is I don't think we'd unload a full-scale launch on each other. And that is what would create the nuclear winter scenario. It would be a sneaky localized thing, maybe more than one. Hopefully not as big as what the ICBMs could deliver.

I want to explain one thing that the Bush Administration isn't explaining very well to the public. (what do they do well?)

We are not going after Saddam Husein simply for building nuclear weapons. As you know Pakistan, India, and many other nations have nuclear weapon. Among the nations working on them (like Iraq is) would be North Korea and Iran.

The reason we're going after Saddam and not Iran and N. Korea is for a few reasons. One, Saddam violated the Cease Fire Agreements ending the Gulf War, and the things inspectors were there to destroy, are now being created again. Two, there are quite a few links betwen Iraq and Al Queada. Links which do not exist with Iran and definitely not with North Korea. The thinking behind it is that if Saddam gets nukes, it will be easily tranferable to Usama, who will then use them in the USA.

Click the link.