So a part of me feels weird because I'm not going to any of the anti-war protests. I didn't even support the first gulf war. But two people whose political opinions I totally admire, Thomas Friedman from the NY Times and Christopher Hitchens who used to write for The Nation, support the administration's efforts ainst Iraq.

Christopher Hitchens, who said the progress of any nation depends on the education and advancement of women, is a well known left wing socialist political commentator. Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the NY Times, who friends have said is the most balanced and fair political essayist at the NY Times. Both men, coming from different political perspectives, support a US led war against Iraq.

I think I've become more pragmatic as I've gotten older. I mean I've always been practical, but now I'm both practical and pragmatic especially when it comes to politics. The anti-war people haven't offered a more pragmatic solution to dealing with Iraq. All I seem to hear from anti-war people is this war is about oil, even though the US only gets 6% of its oil from Iraq. Or, they say that Bush is continuing the war that his father fought, even though Clinton himself bombed two or three places when Iraq kicked the inspectors out of the country in 1998.

Or, all you hear is anti-Bush rhetoric. I mean, I cannot help but think that if it were Bill Clinton or any other democrat in the White House, the anti-war fervor would not be so great. Deciding international policy based on partisan politics is not the smartest way to decide whether you support something or not.

If only the ant-war people would offer a more pragmatic solution, then maybe I'd protest, although I wouldn't attend the rallies only because they're run by ANSWER, an organization that is anti-american, supports the regimes of Saddam Hussein, communist North Korean, and supports Milosevich, the Palestinan campaign of terror against Israel, and the Chinese government crackdown of student dissidents at Tianeman Square.

Instead, I'd write my congresspeople or my senator. But until I hear a more pragmatic solution to dealing with Saddan Hussein, then I can't protest. We've had the inspectors in and out of Iraq for 11.5 years, and still the man has weapons. Iraq has already said NO to the UN peacekeeping troops in the country, which was part of the UN proposal France and Germany were working on. Iraq has already also said NO to destroying those missiles that violate UN limits for how they travel. Saddam Hussein is not going to ever willingly disarm, and since when has containment ever worked in international policy or in real life. Britian thought it had European aggression contained in the first part of the 20th century, and out of that containment came WW1 and WW2.

The original resolution seems wrong anyway. The onus is on Iraq to disarm and for the UN to inspect. I wish I knew my WW2 history better, because I'm wondering what the japanese terms of surrender were after WW2. From what I remember, Japan was disarmed and it worked. Did the UN not follow the japanse example with Iraq? I'll have to research this.

I mean, come on. What country is going to willingly disarm? It's a messed up situation from the get go, and there is no easy solution to the problem. But right now, the Bush administration seems to have the only pragmatic solutin on the table.