When you said "The ironic thing is that while the majority of us have figured it out long ago any way, there are still a couple of awful people in power who think they know things better than the rest."

Did you put Bush in that "awful people in power" group? Most of us over here feel he is doing a great job, and support our troups and any activity in Iraq or North Korea. September 11th is still vivid in most of our eyes over here.

When I refer to so-called "awful" people I mean anyone who in his right mind would even consider war as a viable option. Are you sure about the so-called tremendous support of Bush over there? I have seen millions of people demonstrating on the streets, and even the other day on the Grammy Awards a majority of well-known music artists who claim war is very very bad.

"Are you sure about the so-called tremendous support of Bush over there?"

Uh... Here's the thing. There are always going to be protests. Those protests usually come out when there is a specific action in the future. If Bush bowed his knee to the UN, I would be on the streets chanting away to oust the wimp (as I would perceive at that point).

"I have seen millions of people demonstrating on the streets"

I heard a report. Protestors in L.A. complained that news agencies quoted 150,000 people when they claimed there were 250,000. So the agency analyzed aerial footage. They finally counted 67,000. Numbers are very much based on perspective. (see hitchhikers guide to the galaxy; re: recipreversexclusion)

Great post Stu!! Thanks.

By the way, only Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit mentioned the war during the ceremony, and how credible is he??

I hope we avoid war, but it is up to Saddam, not Bush.

Sometimes the people who bask in the freedom we enjoy so abundantly here in the U.S. are the first to call the means for achieving that freedom "evil". Wars happen, and if Saddam hadn't put us in this position in the first place (and the UN would get off their butts and take some real action for once) then the approaching war mgiht not be necessary.

My uncle is serving overseas right now... he's made a career out of protecting us. He'll be away from his family for at LEAST a year. He has two little boys that, in all honesty, run the risk of never seeing their father again. You tell him the war he's about to fight is wrong, because I'm gonna' support him the whole way.

Remember... Saddam has killed his own family members after luring them back into Iraq under false pretenses. Does this sound like a rational ruler to you?

Just because someone claims to question a possible war does not immediately infer that Saddam is a nice guy. Every one knows that he is a very bad person, and few if any folks would regret his eventual demise. However, war is a serious matter and means that all options must be considered and rethought as much as possible before such a menacing conflict is started. No big deal if a rotten dictator is removed, but what about the thousands of innocent people who die along with him, including those poisoned by rampant weapons of mass destruction? And what about the resulting political vacuum in the Middle East region which in the long-run could possibly lead to a hundred times more misery and suffering than if we had just let Saddam remain in power, take his natural course to fade away into nothingness? Afterall, look what happened to Russia and the East European countries - no war is needed for that to happen was there?

I had written this long response, but my computer messed up... so I'll sum it up this way: Can you honestly say you believe that Saddam will "take his natural course to fade away into nothingness?" Is that what ruthless dictators do? Because last time I checked, they conquer and destroy.