War on Iraq justified

If your neighbor was pointing a cannon at your house, would you: A) throw on a "Hugs, Not Arms" tee and wait for your neighbor to come over and join you in a round of "Kum Bay Yah" or B) take a defensive course of action instead, knowing that your neighbor may soon blow your house out of the water? \nWhen you hear the words "war on Iraq," keep in mind we aren't talking about bombing Mr. Rogers. We're dealing with an aggressive tyrant. Saddam Hussein is so violent that in 1988, he attacked and killed 100,000 members of his own country according to "A Newshour with Jim Lehrer" on www.pbs.org.\nThis point must be stressed -- this is not a war against Iraq, per se. Bush's call to war is a proposal urging the immediate overhaul of Iraq's egregious dictator, Saddam Hussein. A regime change is long overdue.\nBefore the U.S. uses any force against Iraq, listings of the country's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be publicized as justification for our military action. Trustworthy Pentagon sources have already determined that three of the chemical weapons facilities in Iraq that were shut down in 1991 are up and running today. Our satellites also detected a 60-truck convoy entering one of these types of facilities. As President Bush plainly commented, "This is a man who said he would not arm up."\nWe also know Hussein has awarded money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and have good reason to believe Hussein's intelligence service assisted Mohammed Atta in boarding American Airlines Flight 11. Hussein is a bad guy who's obviously up to no good.\nOur country deserves the right to defend itself. Liberals, nonetheless, think the U.S. should be worrying about cultural sensitivity instead of confronting a ruthless dictator who is sitting on stockpiles of weapons. Yet Hussein has proven his intent to employ these WMD's against the U.S.\nSecretary of State Colin Powell was wrong in 1991 when he criticized Bush Sr.'s just Gulf War, and he's wrong again for criticizing Bush Jr. for finishing the job. U.N. countries, too, are voicing their criticism. The U.N. should look more closely at their situation.\nHussein has not abided by any of his terms of peace agreements with the U.N. According to comments made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a recent press conference, "I haven't seen any inclination on (Iraq's) part to agree to anything except as a ploy from time to time." He also pointed out that Hussein tends to "kind of play the international community and the UN process like a guitar, plucking the right string at the right moment to delay something." The U.N. may pander to Hussein's games, but the U.S. should stand up to him. \nA U.S.-led war against Iraq will not be nearly as challenging or financially burdensome as media pundits allege. Saddam's military strength is only 65 to 75 percent of Gulf War levels. \nConsequently, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz recently said, "We are ready to cooperate with the United Nations. If the question of so-called weapons of mass destruction is a genuine concern by the U.S., then the matter could be dealt with." Yes, Mr. Aziz, we will deal with it our way -- a complete government upheaval.\nThe U.S.' hesitation arises out of difficulty finding a replacement for Hussein after his ouster. It seems we have only slim pickings in a region filled with dangerous terrorists. Some good people do exist out there, thankfully, so prepare for the upcoming just war.