I am a human being. I have within me the possibility of being magnificent.........or banal. I have within me the probability to be both those things and all the many shades between at different times in my life. So do you.

There are many times throughout our personal lives and in world history itself that magnificence on the part of an otherwise fallible human being has altered our course. Sometimes it is as simple as a friend hurrying through a chore in order to get back online and be there for another friend in need. Sometimes it is as complicated as having the foresight to see a developing danger and having the right words to warn and inspire other nations to deal with it.

I worry about the UN for many reasons. For one thing, it freezes the mindset of many into the post WWll situation. France, for instance, would not even be ON the Security Council if it was formed today. France is a situation I mourn politically. They seem to have gone into the mode of thinking that all philosophies are equally good. Many societies have gone that route, and in most of them it was one of the last stages of their decline as a world power. As individuals, we all know there is a right and a wrong. Almost every single person who claims that there is not, uses their own sense of what is acceptable human behavior every day of their lives. History shows that at different points in time, irrational and violent people will be in control of some country somewhere. I do not believe in religious, ethnic or national hatred, but I know that MANY sects of many different beliefs have proven that they are capable of horrifying acts against other humans. It is when they have the finances and the power to act upon those hatreds that we must be VERY aware of the danger. Also when they have the financial backing and support of nations or belief systems that encourage hatred and violence. Our president recently referred to the terrorists as the "great and growing danger". That is an accurate statement, reminiscent of Churchhill's "clear and present danger" of WWll. President George Bush has made clear, as far back as his campaign, that countries who harbor and support terrorists must be taught that there is a price to pay for that. I know we are a young country, but not so young as to be ignorant of the workings of the world. Have we forgotten so quickly the results of our reluctance to "get involved" in WWll? IF the WW II mentality prevails, we will have to wait until WE are attacked. Again. Even a nuclear attack by Iraq on Israel would probably still keep these same people who are reticent now from getting involved in a war among "far away people about whom we know nothing" (Neville Chamberlain speaking of the Czechs). May I remind you that Israel has been our only staunch ally in the Mideast?

I hear people say cynically that this is "all about oil". So what? Are you willing, or even able to give up your car? Do you want to be able to have enough oil to heat your home? What about giving up the multitude of plastic items we all use daily that are made from oil? It is not the big oil executives that are bring protected. It is their multitude of employees and their familes. Families such as yours and mine. It is, in fact, YOUR very lifestyle and maybe, your life itself. It is YOUR ability to travel freely in your car. The life that we have become accustomed to. It is also the families just like yours who just happen to work in the place that the terrorists decide to attack next. The statement by a leading Democrat recently that our president was rushing into war against such forces is inaccurate. President Bush made the need clear for such action in his campaign of 2000. Of course, 9/11/2001 added urgency to that need. There were people and politicians giving us the same advice about not fighting Hussein today as that which was heard prior to December7, 1941 concerning Hitler. They were, for the most part, quickly silenced after that day.

Many of us seem unnecessarily and, I think unwisely hung up on the word, "pre-emptive". If you had a serious fight with your brother-in-law, and your sister called to say that he was on the way to your house with his gun loaded and had stated his intention to kill you, would you welcome him into the house with your wife and children to "discuss" this (in spite of many failed discussions in the past) , or would you maybe load your own gun, call the police, or take other "pre-emptive" or self-protective steps? Further add to that your brother-in-law has a previous history of violence, even killing some of his own family. It is an analogy, but it is pretty accurate. I might add here that if your brother in law knew that you were armed and not afraid to protect yourself, he might not show up at all. In Saddam's case, he doesn't care what happens to his own civilian population. His underground bunkers may make him feel he can survive any retaliation by us. He may be right, but what we can do is reduce his power to annihilate ourselves and others.

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly supported terrorists financially and other ways. Saddam Hussein is a madman who put his own personal power above his people's welfare time after time after time. He has repeatedly defied the UN and refused any ethical or rational control of his power. He has seized and killed members of his own family for suspected disloyalty to him personally. He has done the same with others around him. He has hidden weapons, soldiers and himself behind innocent women and children knowing that in this country we have a strong abhorrence to firing on civilians.

What are the arguments for waiting to take him out? That our government sold him part of what he needed to make the biological weapons? We were wrong to do so, but at the time that happened we were in a terrible situation with Iran and he was an ally. Short sighted, even an out and out mistake, but certainly NOT grounds for refusing to correct that mistake under the circumstances of today. Would the argument that we lose nothing by attempting more negotiations be valid? How naive can we be? We have BEEN negotiating and he has repeatedly made agreements and refused to carry through with them. Waiting, even GETTING more agreements with him would serve no purpose. He has proved that over and over. Sad to say, every person who councils us to wait is aiding Hussein in his stalling for time while he develops nuclear weapons. When would be the right time to attack him? AFTER he develops nuclear weapons when it will be more dangerous than even now, or would you wait until he actually uses those weapons against us or our allies? Just what is it that would make you feel that it was the right time to attack Hussein? Anything?

There are bullies and madmen in the world, there always have been. In the WWll era, we had Britain's Neville Chamberlain telling us that Adolf Hitler could be mollified. You can find like models stretching far back into world history. It took the attack on our Navy at Pearl Harbor to wake us up to the fact that we are all living on ONE planet. What happens in other parts of the world IS our business whether we want it to be or not. If there was one scrap of evidence, even historically, that we could sit here isolated, SAFE and not caring what happened to other human beings in the world, the arguments people have against fighting Saddam may have some rationale. History teaches us the opposite. Ask those men who died in in Pearl Harbor if they wish our gov't had taken action against that era's madman before they were killed like sitting ducks? Ask the victims of 9/11 and their families if they think we should have reacted strongly to the previous attacks on us by terrorists both here and abroad? Have we learned nothing from history? Rational people dread war, but history has taught over and over the lesson that the best deterrent to war is a strong defense that is willing to fight TO PROTECT PEACE FOR THOSE WHO LOVE IT. It may seem like an oxymoron, but it is something else also........it is fact. For The Love Of Peace

It is part of the human condition that there will always be madmen and those willing to commit any atrocity for their own reasons. For that reason alone good men MUST be willing to fight.

I am highly critical of our unwillingness to face unpleasant reality. It is a bad sign for the United States and it is a bad sign for civilization itself. Edmund Burke, the great 18th-century Scottish philosopher and British parliamentarian, said, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." Twenty four hours after 9/11/2001 I heard people say "let's talk about something else. I want to have fun." Now, a year later, our network news has decided that many of the picture and sound tapes of the events of that day are too "horrible" for us to be shown. A piece of artwork that gave people too many bad memories of that day was first covered and then removed from an exhibition. I wonder if anyone ever covered Picasso's painting of Guernica for fear of upsetting someone's sensitivities. If we are that weak, fellow citizens of the U.S., if we can not even bear to be reminded of our own recent suffering, let me assure you that this country will collapse under the assault of some madman like Hussein, if not he himself. We should NOT forget. Of course, war is horrible, people die in wars. Unfortunately, the Catch 22 is.......unless we are known to be willing to fight, we will never have peace. It would be wonderful if we could have a world without hatred and war, but folks, it just isn't going to happen while humans are in control. We are flawed creatures. There IS such a thing as good and evil, whether we like it or not. The most we can hope for is that evil men and their actions are controlled by the good among us. It might mean getting our hands dirty. It might mean attacking another country pre-emptively. It might mean the saving of hundreds of thousands of American lives. It might mean the survival of one of the few nations on earth that has had the good sense and moral fortitude to put themselves on the line for their fellowman. No, our motives have not always been pure, but I believe they are pure more often than not. As a nation we have never attacked anyone out of pure ethnic hatred. (We have allowed others to suffer horribly out of racial indifference). That may not be saying much, but it puts us high above the likes of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Yassir Arafat.

Today (Oct 1, 2002) it was announced that the UN had made an agreement with Hussein to allow inspectors back into his country. An agreement that excludes the presidential palaces and 12 sq miles of land around them. Just exactly what in Saddam Hussein's history is it that makes anyone think that he can be trusted not to develop nuclear and further biological weapons on one of those sites?

Teddy Roosevelt is credited with saying "Speak softly and carry a big stick". I am presumptuous enough to add that men like the three above MUST constantly be aware that we are willing to USE THAT STICK. It is, oddly enough, the path to what peace is possible.