Here's the thing with Iraq: I'm not anti-war in the sense that people like Janene Garofolo are. I don't think the concept of war is the brainchild of evil corporations. I recognize the need for the use of lethal force to protect ourselves, and to stop aggression when it runs unchecked. The problem I have with the war on Iraq is that, to my knowledge, this will be the first preemptive strike the U.S. has ever engaged. Sure, you could argue Vietnam was one massive preemptive strike against Communism, but this one is fairly clear cut. It is clear that Saddam poses a threat all the time. It's clear that in a perfect world, he and the wacko in N. Korea should be in insane asylums. However, to say that we're going after Saddam because he "supports terrorism" while we offer Pyongyang additional aid for breaking their promises is logically unsound. N.Korea supports plenty of terrorism as do countless other leaders around the world. If Iraq poses a threat, then N. Korea is what exactly with its long-range nuclear weapons that it wants to start building and selling again? I know that we want to go to war against Saddam in part because we can win fairly easily. But, you can imagine what that sort of image does to our weakling allies who still want to seem important. Anyway, if we do go after Iraq, we MUST do the same to N. Korea.