...but if such is true, I'm entitled to my opinion that you're all quite shortsighted in your thoughts. At least the thoughts you've listed here.
I am sick and tired for being called shortsighted because of my beliefs. I mean, I've been called shortsighted more than half a dozen times on this sight, and if somebody does it again I'm going to have an episode. If I'm entitled to my own oppinion, I'm entitled to it without being called shortsighted by every bombastic politically involved person on this site who disagrees with me.

Regardless of semantics, which is what this comes down to in this case. Are they or aren't they of the proper specifications to use in a centrifuge? And why would the U.S. claim that they were if they weren't? Bottom line: The tubes, no matter what they're being used for, are on the list of items PROHIBITED by U.N. resolutions. It doesn't matter if they brought those tubes into Iraq to use them to build the worlds largest soda cans, fact remains that Iraq is NOT suppose to have them or be attempting to acquire them. If you're not suppose to do something, and you go do it anyway, no one really cares what the reason for it was - they just know you were doing something wrong.
Iraq isn't part of the UN, so the juristictions it has been put under (many of which only make the people suffer, and do nothing to weaken Saddam Hussein's iron clutch) are forced. I believe their army shouldn't be allowed to hold a paintball gun, but that's pretty much my estimation of millitary in general. Before you go pointing fingers, I should remind you that the US haven't been to forthcoming in UN issues concerning such things as Human Rights.

This isn't a topic of debate, it's come to the point of being utterly absurd. The current government regime in Iraq is simply NO GOOD. It's not good for the people of Iraq, (I mean, come on, can anyone tell me with a shred of conviction that the Iraqi people lead a healthy life under the rule of Saddam? They suffer.) Saddam is a man that has proven time and time again that he is volatile, unreasonable, maniacal, and power hungry. He gassed his own people and tried to invade his neighboring countries! That in and of itself demands action, and while I won't shy away from accepting that the U.S. botched that portion back in 1991 by not finishing what they started, the phrase 'Better Late Then Never" pops into mind now.
Of course Saddam should be removed as soon as possible, but who has caused the most innocent death's in the last two decades, the Western Nations or Iraq?

As for the U.S. preventing other countries from doing what they themselves do, I'd like for you to clarify what you're alleging there. If it were your case that the U.S. has nuclear weapons and biological weapons, then I'd say you have a firm grasp of the obvious. On the hierarchy of civilization, certain countries have proven that they are responsible enough to wield the mighty power of the atom (the U.S., Russia, China, hell even the French who I dislike are responsible stewards of their nuclear weapons), others have shown that they are clearly irresponsible with something as simple as anthrax and therefore shouldn't be allowed to develop pea soup secretly, much less nuclear power. Iraq is one nation that clearly has no responsibility in this regard. Your arguments are equivalent to saying, if Nazi Germany in 1940 after they had moved into Poland was trying to acquire nuclear weapons (assuming that such a weapon existed then, because German was trying to develop it even then) that it would have been wrong for the U.S. to step in and attack them or prevent them from acquiring the materials needed to make such a weapon? That's the most purely idiotic notion I've ever heard. Iraq doesn't even have the forward thinking to let the women of their nation out from under their thumb by giving them empowerment to go to school, work in any field, or have a say in government - and you clowns would defend them?
So, nations have to prove themselves worthy to the US before being allowed nuclear weapons? In what way did China ear that right? The continued hold of Tibet perhaps? And was it Russia's respect for human life and rights that earned them the right during the Cold War? What earned the US the right?

Iraq is a bad egg. It's no secret, it doesn't require investigation or dialogue. As a nation Iraq has had 12 years (count them, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12!!!) to make good on the terms of the U.N. resolutions and sanctions placed on them. They've failed miserably for 12 years, and now the world is saying to give them another chance? As if they only JUST made a mistake for the first time? Who gets 12 years to fix a problem? It's unheard of. People of the world, it's all well and good to try and seem thoughtful and noble by wearing the badge of passivity and decrying the actions of World Superpowers like the U.S., Russia, and China when they throw their weight around, but the REALITY of the situation is that no change ever comes without struggle. Even RJ himself throws that into the mix, "..there is no salvation without destruction, no hope this side of death." If you live in the U.S., the land you're standing on was won through bloodshed. If you're in England, France, Germany, Belgium, on and on, your land was won through bloodshed. LIkewise in all those great nations, if your government ever became even half as corrupt as Iraq's is now, it was deposed through violence and bloodshed. I'm all for diplomacy and tolerance, but at some point enough HAS to be enough.

Hundreds of thousands of cicillians died in Iraq due to the restrictions put upon them, due to lack of food and medicine. Hussein is live and cicking. Do you know how Irag got biological weapons? When GB and the US were on Saddam's side in his struggle with Iran, they gave him weapons to use, and when the war was over, the dictator who had illegaly gotten his power, actually made more of them! Oh dear, what a completely unexpected turn of events! Nobody can wash their hands clean of this. Nobody got rid of Saddam because it wasn't cost effective, and now Bush is trying to strenghten hi position, and for all I know get the populace's thought's away from the economy.

Go stand near a WWII battlefield and read the words "The Price of Freedom is Visible Here", and then come talk to me about why we shouldn't pre-emptively attack people who prove that they are then, now, and in the future, up to no good.
Because it could be the first move in an unchallenged supreme police without restrictions, striking down all those who don't nececarily want that many Nike shoes?

Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me.
Shame on all of us if another civillian wedding is bombed.




But the dogs you say they fed you to
Lay their muzzles in your lap
And the lions that they led you to
Lie down and take a nap
h