Previously, I said that I'd only back a war against Iraq if it could be proven that Saddam was going to drop a WMD on us or our interests, or had a decisive hand in 911. Nothing anyone has said since that statement has fulfilled either of those requirements. We've got more evidence of Saddam's offensive capabilities, and we've been reminded of his history over and over again, but nothing's fallen between the two poles I set for myself.

So no, I can't justify a war against Iraq. But that's just no good at all, because, as far as I am concerned, Saddam Hussein needs to go, and he needs to go now

All talk of WMDs and this, that and the other aside, the basic fact is that Saddam is a bully and a tyrant who treats his own people like breakable toys. He doesn't lead his people because he loves them and wants them to prosper and be happy; Saddam leads because he is in love with power, and will do damn near anything - no matter how vile - to hang onto it. Torture. Rape camps. Children's prisons. You name it.

We've known this for a long time. I doubt there's anyone out there who would seriously hold the man's regime up as a model for anyone. I remain convinced that the only reason Arab leaders stand by him is out of a "me too" show of false, pan-Arab loyalty: a facade that is unraveling faster all the time.

But yet, going to war with Iraq means that we'd be killing the same people we'd be trying to rescue: it's an inevitable fact of war. And while I am certain that there are many there who would be willing to overlook that little problem, I'm not so certain that we wouldn't be sowing the seeds for more anti-American hatred in Iraq. And I am certain that a full-blown American invasion of Iraq would destabilize the region at a time when we can least afford it.

It's a pretty bad conundrum: we can't really justify doing what needs to be done with the currently-touted reasons for doing so, and if we go ahead and do what needs to be done - for reasons right or wrong - we'll be running the risk of making matters worse. Is it any wonder that the only people who seem really enthused about the idea of a war with Iraq are fools, the easily led and those whose sense of patriotism seems wrapped around our nuclear stockpile and how best to use it?

(There are more evenly-keeled folks who support it, of course, but the people who seem to be drooling at the prospect are starting to scare me.)

I hate crappy "either-or" choices, so why don't we just stand the whole thing on its head? To hell with all notions of war, invasions, nukes, gas weapons and other such things. To hell with those too eager for blood on one side, and those too afraid of it to do what needs to be done on the other.

Iraq itself is not the problem. The Iraqi people are not the problem. The Iraqi army is merely part of the problem. The true problem is Saddam Hussein and the various sycophants, hangers-on and like-minded monsters who've grafted their lips onto his butt to survive. They need to put on trial for crimes against their own people, and, if found guilty, punished for their actions.

So let's think outside the box for a change. If Saddam is the problem, let's do what we should have done a long time ago and take care of the problem himself. Let's slip in, abduct him and however many of his high-ranking cronies we can get our hands on, and deliver them gift-wrapped to the World Court, just like Slobo.

Such an operation wouldn't be easy, given how often Saddam changes his location. And it would be a damn good idea to make certain that we've got someone there to step into his shoes - and lots of people to back said someone up - before we announce that Saddam's in custody. But I think the notion of a relatively bloodless, world-backed coup, with the Iraqi people free, mostly unhurt and soon to have the sanctions against them lifted would be a lot better than the alternatives we've got now - don't you?

This doesn't mean that I've changed my mind about America having no business changing regimes that we just don't like. I still feel that it's highly arrogant for us to make those kinds of decisions all by our lonesome.

However, if a clear majority of the world community agrees that a tyrant needs to be removed, then so be it. And I have little doubt that, were it put to a vote at the UN, a motion to extradite Saddam Hussein and put him on trial for offenses against his own people would get both a majority vote and a standing ovation.

So how about it? Are we going to dance to this stupid, red-tape strewn tune of inspections, no inspections, resolutions met and unmet and then, at last, war? Or are we going to do something revolutionary and put the true problem in our crosshairs for a change?

"When in doubt, fuck it - When not in doubt... get in doubt!"

The Slogan of the POEE - Principia Discordia