We "save" Iraq from its weak, tired dictator by klicking him when he's down, way down. Then we stride across the world, pointing to our accomplishment and proclaiming, "Look! See what a wonderful thing we've done by ridding the world of its Next Hitler."

Meanwhile, the real Next Hitler (or, more accurately, the Next Stalin) flourishes in North Korea, blackmailing us into aiding his starving nation by well... starving his nation to the bone in order to build the nuclear weapons he needs to blackmail us into helping his starving nation. (Boy, if that don't make yer head spin, I don't lnow what will!) And we go right along with the whole scheme, feeding his people so he can concentrate on making nukes.

Bah! I'm tired of opportunistic attacks on weak nations (Grenada) while the truly evil go unchallenged. Where the hell is TR when we need him?

How would you respond? By conductiong an overwhelming attack that would kill tens of thousands of those we intend to save? Kim Jong Il is vile in every sense of the word, but he's also done a pretty good job of using his entire nation as a human shield. I'd love to see him go, but right now the costs of his removal (to his people alone) outweigh the benifits (to everyone concerned). Oil and food shipments only feed and heat his starving population; you have to know he never personally feels the squeeze of international sanctions.

Next point: I'm guessing neither you nor anyone in your family or circle of friends would be in a position to actually travel overseas to fight in a war against North Korea. I wouldn't expect you (or anyone else for that matter) to get in line for the Army to argue you general position, but throwing backhanded accusations of cowardice is still in poor taste.

I think the point was less to advocate a war against North Korea and more to draw attention to the hypocrisy of a foreign policy that squanders American blood and treasure attacking largely imaginary threats while completely ignoring potentially grave threats; all the while painting an American self-image reminiscent of a comic book superhero.

Personally, I do not support an invasion of North Korea at this time, although by the nature of my job I'd be one of the first to fight in it. I did not support the invasion of Iraq either, but I fought in that, too. Frankly, I don't think that America has any business invading or remaking any other nation unless our security—or that of an ally—is directly threatened. Not economic interests. Not foreign investments. Not the price of oil or some ridiculous pipe-dream about creating a global democratic utopia. Only the integrity of our borders and the lives of our citizens should be sufficient cause to let slip the dogs of war.

Clearly, I am of the minority opinion in this matter.

The Dogs of War were hurt badly but recovered after Nixon and have ruled us indirectly since 1974. They usully tells us what the majority should think.

Remote Neural Monitoring is a form of functional neuroimaging, claimed[1] to have been developed by the National Security Agency(NSA), that is capable of extracting EEG data from the human brain at a distance with no contacts or electrodes required. It is further claimed that the NSA has the capablility to decode this data to extract subvocalizations, visual and auditory data. In effect it allows access to a person's thoughts[2] without their knowledge or permission. It has been alleged that various organizations have been using Remote Neural Monitoring on US and other citizens for surveillance and harassment purposes

I've been tested and there's absolutely no brain activity. As you probably guessed.

cracking up here arlington..