The situation of potential imminent action in Iraq has Americans in a cauldron pot of heated argument and discussion. I have collected different opinions from media and caught feeling of the situation from other students here at Penn State. I feel it's unfortunate that some students want to march out as they did in the Vietnam era and cry about any potential military action, which, ultimately, is necessary.

Is the act of self-preservation so offensive to some people? The United States should take pre-emptive action as long as there is proof of aggressive movements by Iraq to expand their weapons of mass destruction to include long-range nuclear capability. I see proof of Iraq's military aggression in the surface-to-air weapons fired at U.S. and British planes that patrol the no-fly zone in northern and southern Iraq. Notice that I did not state the need for a massive assault by ground forces or a pummeling carpet-bombing campaign, which would involve large amounts of money, troops and quite possibly lives. There would also be the need to have a solid post-Saddam governmental reformation and a clear exit strategy for the United States.

The pivotal factor here is chemical and biological weapons. Iraq may use them, which could be devastating. Then again, that's why American forces would be there in the first place, to eliminate Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and remove Saddam Hussein. The bottom line is that some form of military action has to be taken against this regime, which breaks its promises.

So put the protests and demonstrations on hold and realize that a peaceful world is not possible when terrorist nations like modern Iraq exist. No war is good, but sometimes you just have to eliminate national security threats before they eliminate you.