[Protagoras]

And now it's time to stop anything before it starts. Period.

You are certainly intitled to your opinion. Can I assume you advocate pre-emptive strikes against all regimes in the world who fit the same criteria?

[rintense]

Not really. Iraq is something that should have been dealt with years ago. The irony here is that Iraq is a threat once again (although I think they have always been since the Gulf War) thanks to the UN resolutions that were put in place but never enforced.

As for other countries, I'm of the mind that Iraq will be the example, and the rest of the Mideast will follow suit, one, out of fear, and two, because freedom is contagious. Countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, who have their majority of populations under the age of 40, are ripe for a change. And a democracy in Iraq will be the example to follow. This is why the mullahs and the princes are hesitant to support a US-led attack- because they know it will be their end as well.

[Wonder Warthog]

"You are certainly intitled to your opinion. Can I assume you advocate pre-emptive strikes against all regimes in the world who fit the same criteria?"

Actually, YES! Of course, the only other nation that comes near to fitting the appropriate category (having both biological weapons of mass destruction and a leader who is a big enough nutball to actually use them) is North Korea, and my impression is the Kim Il Jong isn't as big an unstable nutball as Saddam Hussein.

[VRWC_minion]

Can I assume you advocate pre-emptive strikes against all regimes in the world who fit the same criteria?

Absolutely. Count me in. To stand by and ignore someone who continually threatens your death and contintually works at accomplishing it is idiotic.

Can you imagine having a neighbor who has repeatedly told you he wanted you and your family dead and was in the process of building a bomb big enough to accomplish it. He has already paid people to attack you. You are telling me the proper course of action is to wait until after he completes the bomb, moves it to your basement and lights the fuse before responding ? Not a rational response. But thats just my opinion.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Can I assume you advocate pre-emptive strikes against all regimes in the world who fit the same criteria?

IS that it? "Don't bomb Saddam, because that means bombing others like him"?

What is your Nationality? Thanks.

[Burr5]

Here's a "thoughtful response for you":

"...but the world is full of brutal regimes that have murdered their own people."

IT IS NOT FULL OF REGIMES THAT HAVE SIGNED DOCUMENTS OF SURRENDER AFTER GETTING SHELACKED IN A WAR BY THE U.S. AND THEN WANTONLY DISREGARDED EACH AND EVERY ONE.

"... that presupposes democracy can be easily planted and that it can survive once the U.S. departs."

TELL IT TO JAPAN AND GERMANY. CONDOLEEZA RICE SAYS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN IRAQI DEMOCRACY WILL BE A TOP PRIORITY.

"It would be extraordinary for Saddam to give up a technology (atomic weapons) purchased at such a high price."

GIVE UP? HE WOULDN'T BE "GIVING THEM UP". HE WOULD BE USING AL-QAIDA "MULES" TO ATTACK HIS GREATEST ENEMY IN A MANNER THAT WOULD MAKE HIM APPEAR BLAMELESS.

Maybe Doug Bandow ought to go have a drink with Pat Buchanan and the two of them can wring their hands over the "tens of thousands of body bags" again, just like they did before the gulf war. Hint: they were wrong then too.