A war with NK would mean more casulties than a war with Iraq. There are other countries that deserve to be attacked as much if not more than Iraq, but I agree that we should. I don't support or protest the war though, I am fine either way.
If you can talk it out with the the guy with a big gun pointed at you instead of trying to shoot him first, it is a good idea.
Also, according to Bill O'Reilly on Foxnews, Colin Powell (sp?) said that the second highest leader of Al Qaida (i think it was, one of the two main terrorist organizations they talked about) stayed in Iraq for awhile, and he supposedly had enough evidence to prove there is a link between Iraq and terrorist organizations, but didn't push it.
If Iraq is in material breach of some treaty, and they've been defiant for 12 years and continue to do whatever they want, what purpose does the UN have? This is a point Bill made. Also, in WW2, Europe just kinda sat there and thought "Well, as long as Hitler doesn't do anything too bad we'll let him amass weapons." Then Poland gets invaded. And the US stuck out of it for awhile.
I am not a history buff, and I don't keep up with stuff like this much, so I could have facts wrong or be uninformed. And if you properly prove me wrong, then I'm wrong and I will probably be convinced of your point. Right now I am fine either way but sort of prefer they do attack.
Also, just a question, anyone heard the rumor that Iraq's gov't pays people to rape women as torture? I'm not saying it's true, but I've heard that and it reminds me of the whole rumors of German atrocities against it's citizens thing. Yeah, in school we just finished a brief history of wars America was in.