*taps nmaino on the shoulder* psst, it's lowercase "s" b/c it looks so dorky w/o the uppercase lol
anyhow.. just overall, everyone seems to be missing the point to a degree, IMO.
from what i can tell, bush seems to be misguided in pursuing this war. ie, did anyone watch larry king live with Bill Maher? that's exactly how i see it:
-US can't find and beat up on bin laden
-US is still enraged is out to find another victim of sorts (Iraq, easy target)
-and why is it all of a sudden post 9-11 after they can't find bin laden that they feel that it is URGENTLY necessary for the Iraq to disarm? it's not like Iraq was about to attack the US or anything
-media bombards the viewer into submission with msgs of impending war to almost make people want to say "oh well, i guess we're going to war"
and so on.
is it just me? or are you guys blind to this and discussing reasons for war etc. b/c really there is no ABSOLUTE justification for the us to attack
and no, as someone mentioned, it's not really about oil, although it is to an extent: achieve stability in the middle eastern region to reduce the volatility of oil prices (person mentioned venezuela being primarily responsible for the jump in oil prices, not iraq)
not to mention that the us actions themselves will lead to iraq to lash out, the very action us is trying to prevent? lol (ie. think of accusing someone that they're going to punch you, and you keep saying it saying and saying it despite it not being true, so you turn around and punch the guy until he does punch you back and claim it is true. oh my what a surprise

)
-i'm not sure if i read in this forum or another but backing an unpredictable person (dog) into a corner more and more will cause the unpredictable person (dog) to act in an unpredictable way, therefore being predictable to an extent.
anyhow, i'm certain i've missed some points etc, but you get the idea.