Replies

I think it's only a matter of time before Hussein does acquire nuclear weapons and uses them. But it will be too late, just like it was it was too late when the previous administration failed to act and address terrorism, which resulted in the guerilla attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq is not going to be a walk in the park and an invasion will likely lead to urban warfare and possible bio/chem counter-attacks.

Most of the world has turned against United States and this is going to be a bad century. When Hussein is snuffed out it will send a chilling message throughout the ME, but also to the Chicoms, who are also the silent enemy.

Canadians should try and enlist south of the border, until Jean and his boys get with the program. Looking at recent history, the turn of a century is usually marked by a major war. I believe we are in it and there is no turning back.

Now is the time.

I haven't seen any reliable evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. And it seems like inspections, embargos, no fly zones and the rest basically keep Iraq in line. If Saddam attacked or was about to attack another country, if he had nuclear weapons and was going to use them, I'd certainly support war against him, but I don't think President Bush has made the case for war now.

And "preventive war" is a tricky concept. In the right situation it may be a good idea, otherwise it's a recipe for imperial war after war, for making oneself world policeman. This war isn't about 9/11 or Osama bin Laden or even about Saddam Hussein. It's about creating a new international order for the region. And that's a very risky gamble, and the sort of thing we should probably be better off staying out of.

The arguments of the neo-conservative warhawks are very reminiscent of those made by Kennedy's and Johnson's brains trust. There's the same arrogance and overconfidence, and the fear is that things will turn ugly as they did then. Not that we might lose the war itself, but that it will alienate our allies and lead to a century of further wars, revolutions, terrorism and unrest. Clever, cocky, arrogant, war-hungry, self-centered intellectuals pushing us into war against continents, races or religions don't inspire confidence in their policy recommendations.

During the 2000 campaign, lot of people were attracted by GW Bush's "unilateralism" thinking that it meant a disengagement from global organizations and entanglements. Now it looks like more overseas involvements and entanglements, only with diminishing support and cover from our allies.

I see the biggest reasons to remove Saddam is not the potential he has for WMD's or his probable involvement with 9-11 and definite involvement with terrorism, but the fact that the US is made to look weak if we do nothing after 16 violations of UN resolutions and repeated attacks on our military patrolling the no-fly zone.

I am a firm believer the reason Al Quada knew they could attack us on 9-11 was our previous “do nothing” history when it has come to terrorism and terrorists. We don’t have to go far back into our past. We did nothing when Islamic terrorists kidnapped our own citizens and held them for over 300 days. We have done nothing when countries in the Middle East have attempted to hold our country hostage over oil. We have coddled one of the worst terrorists in history, Yassar Arafat, to the detriment of our one and only true ally in the Middle East. I do not need to remind the readers of FR the complete and total lack of response from Clinton over 8 years of attacks on our country and military.

Now we have a new leader in the White House, one who has made the war on terrorism his #1 priority. He has, in no uncertain terms told Palestinians there will be no state, no negotiations for a state until not only Arafat and cronies are removed but when they stop committing acts of terrorism. Bush has commanded a military that has done what Clinton refused to do and Russia never could, a total take over of Afghanistan and ousting of their so-called Government. Bin Laden is most likely dead and Al Quada no longer has a safe haven in Afghanistan. Now the world is faced with Iraq who for the last 4 years has had complete and total ability to produce any sort of weapons they can get their hands on. We know Saddam supports and funds terrorism simply from his 25k payments to families of homicide bombers. When we won the Gulf War, Saddam agreed to many conditions put forth not only by the UN but also by the US. In the years since, we have allowed Saddam to violate every condition without retribution and now it must stop.

Bush cannot stand in front of the world and say, "you are either with us or against us" when we give those who are so clearly against us full immunity. Bush said we would go after those who attacked us and those who protect them and he did. By doing this he showed his determination of going after terrorists who pose a danger to the US. If he now let's Saddam off the hook we go back to where we were before, weak, ineffective and open for further attacks not only in this country but to our allies. Giving Iraq the green light not only gives Saddam permission to do whatever he wants, it gives the likes of Arafat permission to continue waging terrorism on whomever they want.