As you may have noticed, the war has taken on a new form: Weblogs.
Not American blogs against Iraqi blogs but more collectively, pro-war blogs against anti-war blogs.
[ Update: There was a debate between bloggers of both factions which you can read over at Truthlaidbear (pro-war) as well as at Nowarblog (obviously anti-war). Actually people are still posting comments. I haven't finished reading all their answers yet but it is interesting to see how some people on the same side are giving different answers or interpreting key issues differently from each other. ]
Much as I am against unnecessary violence, I'm getting weary of the whole affair (specifically, after seeing how the debate's gotten increasingly personal on some sites, and how the use of sweeping statements and the citing of certain facts while deliberately leaving out others is growing). There are too many facts out there which I have yet to consolidate, and too many dimensions to simplify the issue into a simple 'right' or 'wrong'. Because nothing is really that easy and neither side is perfect.
Meanwhile, the polls in the Straits Times today indicate that while more Asians are pro-peace, they nonetheless agree that Saddam is a dictator who should be ousted. And almost 80% of Americans are now for the war - mirroring the sentiments of the first Gulf War. (We'll see how Bush junior fares in the elections next year.)
A difficult question: in what circumstances can or should moral justification outweigh legitimacy?
[Due to the amount of comment spam, comments for this post have been disabled.]