<<They have continued because he never obeyed the agreements he signed in order
to save his regime at the end of the war.>>

There are many other countries in this position, most notably N. Korea, which
has just publicly and explicitly repudiated a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
We are not invading or threatening to invade there.

<<Then we were attacked on 9/11 and Bush said that we would
> fight a war on terrorism against terrorists and those who support and harbor
them. Saddam is a big supporter of terrorism and he has harbored terrorists as
well.>>

Then we'd best attack Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc. And, just as a point of
reference, Saddam and Bin Ladin (we seem to have forgotten him in this mess -
wasn't he the Uber-terrorist behind 9/11?) are enemies, and one of Saddam's
transgressions is suppression of Bin Ladin's sect of Islam.

<<Bush is representing the majority opinion in the U.S. The polls say 69% in
favor of the war.>>

First, that depends upon the poll. Also, the numbers drop significantly when
other factors are added to the questions. And most do not support it absent the
support of our allies.
<<I fail to see the point of this argument. Are you saying that if there are
several gangsters living in a city, the police should not arrest any one of them
because the others are guilty of similar crimes?>>

I am saying that we are selecting a target which is far from the worst. To use
your analogy, isn't it better to go after the Godfather than one of his bookies
or street-level drug dealers (actually, our war on drugs tyakes the same kind of
indiscriminate, go-for the easiest targets approach)? Iran is far closer to
being an active threat to its neighbors and beyond than Iraq, according to
multiple intelligence reports. And Bin-Ladin's organization is far from
destroyed. Also, North Korea and Pakistan, both known for harboring terrorists,
also both have nuclear weapons - they are far more immediate threats. We must
triage our attention.

The problem here is that we have begun this glorified staring contest and now
can't afford to blink first, lest we lose face.

<<First, we aren't the sole arbiter. England and Australia are firm allies and
we have around forty other countries on our side, including most of Europe.>>

But there are many countries, including traditional ally Canada, as well as
France and Germany, that are not with us. And quite a few of the others were
"strong-armed" into their support. Also, among Middle Eastern countries - those
most impacted by the Iraqui threat - support is low, and Saudi Arabia and others
are strongly considering denying us future use of their countries for military
bases and staging sites because of this.

<<The United States is the only country that was attacked on 9/11.>>

NOT by Iraq or its allies. These are two entirely different issues.

<<We are still called "the great Satan">>

Actually, Bush's father used that first, referring to Saddam.

<<It's interesting who the allies are of the "peace" lobby.>>

Actually, what's interesting is the way opposition is bringing together
traditional foes - liberals and conservatives - united in their opposition. When
was the last time you saw members of the military suing to stop a war? Also,
other allies of the movement include Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Pope, Pete Seeger,
and General Norman Schwartzkopf, as well as the head of the original UN
Inspection team (forgive me for not including his name - I'm at work and can't
take the time to look it up - but he was quoted quite extensively in Newsday and
other news sources last week). Oh, and let's not forget the family members of
some of the 9/11 victims who are in Iraq to serve as voluntary human shields, so
that Iraqui families don't have to go through what they have.
>
<<They have already voted to give Bush unfettered power to go to war.>>

Many of them don't think they did - that's why they're part of the
aforementioned suit, claiming that his declaring war unilaterally is
unconstitutional.
>
<< If there is a nuclear attack on our soil and millions die instead of
thousands, the peaceniks will all be terribly sorry for what they are doing.>>

Given Saddam's psychology, such an attack is made far more likely if we attack.
Why do we believe N. Korea when it says that an attack on them will incite an
attack on S. Korea, but we don't expect Hussein and the terrorists to take the
same approach?

By the way, in one of your personal responses, you mentioned Iraq's engaging in
torture as being one major cause for attacking. If that's the case, we'd best
attack Israel as well - and Morocco, where we sent a suspected terrorist to be
tortured to circumvent our own law against such conduct.

I am not saying that war against Iraq would never be appropriate - I am merely
saying that we are rushing to judgment.