North Korea will be next, anyway. America can't fight wars on three fronts at the same time - against Irak, against terrorism and against NK.
I think it's very interesting that in a recent poll in the US, 40% of those polled now believe that Saddam, not Osama, is to blame for Sep11. Maybe, at the root of all this, it is people like that who really are to blame for 911. Why did nobody look at the cause of anti-US terrorism, rather than the vector for it (in this case the angry Islamists in the Boeings).
And no, I wasn't on the march. It wasn't quite like voter apathy: I had realised by that time that if Blair was ready to lie down kingdom and country for Bush like he owned it, a march, no matter how big, wouldn't do anything to stop him. Besides, at the time, they were still considering a war made legitimate by the international country. I have no problem with a UN-backed war - in that case, its a common decision, with responsibility shared between all the countries in the UN, and its sets a very good example. However, I did go on the recent student protests because by that time Bush and Blair had already bypassed the UN and therefore in my eyes committed the crime.
I disagree with a lot of the tree-hugging hippies at the original mass-march because their actions are just a knee-jerk reaction to a politician using the word 'war'. And that puts them on the same low level as all the fervently pro-war activists who just had a knee-jerk reaction to the media.