Personally, I haven't seen any convincing evidence yet about how we are defending our country. IMHO we are attacking another country, and trying to tell them that they can't live the way that they are. People are saying "they're killing the POWs" and "they're not following the laws of war". I see it as a large 250 lb bully attacking a 100 lb weakling. The weakling is gonna kick the bully in the nuts (not following the "laws") if he wants to have any hope of not getting killed. Also, I seem to remember a certain president who demanded that Saddam, without any decent evidence, had to get out of his country in 48 hours or be attacked. How is that not breaking any of these so-called "laws"? Where is the justification for attacking someone because we think they're doing something wrong? We pride ourselves on the "Innocent until proven guilty" principle, yet we seem to be doing the exact opposite over in Iraq. What comes around will go around, I'm half-expecting another potent world leader (or coalition of them) to make the same demand of Bush. (I guess that Saddam already did this, but Bush, being the typical arrogant bastard that he is ignored it.) I'm not so sure that Saddam should be in power, but this is not the way to fix it. The ends don't justify the means in this case.