>I didn't say we were to blame, only that we are no less so than the rest. We seem to be in an adversarial relationship to the UN, when we should be trying more earnestly to work within it. Whatever our criticisms of the UN, we should take the initiative to support it and fix it, not to oppose it and offer no alternative but the acceptance of American supremacy. That is not a strategy for achieving world peace.

I think we have done the best we can with the U.N. Colin Powel makes a very strong case that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, against countless U.N. resolutions. If the U.N. does not back up it's talk, it loses it's effectiveness. We are trying to point that out to them.

>>It is very clear to me that a preemptive strike would be very constructive, both to this country and the Iraqi people.
>
>I beg to differ.

I respect that. We live in a free country where we can both air our differences. The Iraqis cannot.

>You really didn't respond to my point. If we accept such a bogus concept as "war on terrorism", there is nothing that stands between us and a police state. I'm glad you feel comfortable expressing your views on this subject. I don't.

You are saying that the "War on Terrorism" is bogus?

>>When do you think war is necessary?
>
>I'm not convinced of the urgent necessity in this case, except to spare Bush the embarrassment of a calm review of his accomplishments.

I saw enough and read enough after Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N.

>I don't buy it that "we've done our best with the U.N.". Are you saying we've run out of money? Maybe we should divert a little more of our defense budget to this organization. If not, then please tell me what alternative institution of world government we are promoting. Are you really worried about the supposed weapons Iraq is about to launch at us? I'd be more worried about the money that flows freely through the world, a mere drop of which would be sufficient to do us much greater harm in the hands of a single suicidal terrorist. As I recall, 9/11 was a low-tech affair. Terrorism is a form of guerrilla warfare, something that no amount of high technology has ever been proven to work against. As long as we go around provoking large numbers of people to the point of suicidal rage, I doubt we'll ever overcome terrorism. Never underestimate the danger of a single angry human being who is willing to die to prove his point.

We have shown the U.N. that Saddam is hiding his weapons of mass destruction. Even before Powell gave his presentation, the French Ambassador said it wasn't going to change France's position.

And how exactly did we provoke the terrorists on 9/11? I don't underestimate a single angry human being. But don't underestimate our resolve in trying to stop him.

>Achieving peace takes work and compromise, but it's surely worth the effort. Nothing will be solved by starting a war in the name of peace. There is no escaping the necessity of dealing with the underlying issues for people's discontent, except perhaps in a police state. That is not an acceptable solution.

The women of Kosovo may beg to differ. And Saddam's son Uday's victims may also beg to differ.