I listened to the Ronn Owens radio show this morning and he asked the following question, regading tomorrows anti-war protest in downtown San Francisco:

If war is not the asnwer in how to deal with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, then what is?

Owens said he hasn't seen the supporters of the anti-war protest realistically answer this question, and I haven't either. I do not want my country to engage in any war, and I certainly wasn't a supporter of the first gulf war, but until I see someone, anyone answer the question of how we're supposed to deal with Iraq with anything other than war, than I will not support the anti-war protests.

Protesting is good. Protesting is great for our country, but I wish the people who organize these protests would provide alternative answers and courses of action to whatever they're protesting. It is irresponsible and immature to protest without an alternative realistic course of action. The world of 2003, the new millenium is much too complicated to simply say no, to say I don't like what you're doing, and then not offer a better and realistic way to do things.

What's ironic to me, is the anti-war protestors aren't even talking about the situation with North Korea, which I think is much more explosive than the Iraq situation. Is it okay for the US to go to war with North Korea, but not okay to war with Iraq? North Korea has nuclear plants, they backed out of the nuclear proliferation treaty, and they've threatened the US with war? But are their anti-war protests going on about war with North Korea? NO! What gives with that?

It seems logical, doesn't it, that if you are anti-war, you should be against war with any country and not just some countries.