[rintense]

Making war on a country which does not threaten the U.S. is particularly serious.

This is where the article is completely wrong. Iraq is a threat to not just the US, but the entire world. I hope the thought isn't so myopic to believe that because he doesn't have ICBMs, that he isn't a threat to us... he will get them. And he will use them.

[Protagoras]

Your concerns are addressed in the article.

[hchutch]

To me, it comes down to three critical data pieces:

1. Mohammed Atta's meeting with that Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. Might they have had a purely innocent conversation about strip clubs and sushi bars? It's possible, but not likely.

2. The terrorist training center at Salman Pak is reported to have taught a method of hijacking VERY similar to the M.O. used by the hijackers on 9/11. Coincidence? Perhaps. But again, I'm not too sure.

3. Atta was asking about cropdusters. Normally used to spray insecticide, but if you can spray a gas to kill insects, it's not too hard to assume that you can spray a gas that can kill people too.

4. According to the dossier, Iraq has 360 tons of bulk chemical agents, including 1.5 tons of VX, and 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, including 300 tons of precursors for VX.

It's like being a cop dealing with a violent criminal who has been known to violently resist arrest in the past. The guy is reaching for something on his belt. Do you wait to see if it's his wallet? If you wait, it could easily be a gun, and you will probably be shot.

In this case, we have to shoot first. It's not going to look good, but the alternative is to place thousands of innocent lives at risk - needlessly, IMO. We have to place the innocents ahead of Saddam - it's the best option we have, and the most rational.

[My2Cents]

Good point. The author's perspective is trapped in the Cold War.

[gop4me]

Frankly, you have a better chance of flying to the moon than Saddam has of obtaining ICBM's.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Agreed. Republican Congressmen on the News today stated they trust George Bush, and that this is not a War the media is painting, and that the gullible are believing (the lies and spin of the media). It is as Bush laid out in his speech to members of the House and Senate the week following 9-11.

These people are anti-war, and anti-Bush (and likely anti-Govt and authority), that's all.

[Light Speed]

Agreed..the message of determination must visit the region...Iraq is the weakest link..and like chess...positionally divides the Psyco Islamics.
Iran will surely have to be creative to continue its missile tech relationship with Syria...Hezbullah and Lebanese terror orgs will be isolated to..so the move is good here.
Will Islam freak and kick..you bet.
Better to face their tiny arsenals now..than latter.
I believe the money behind the desire to crush Israel is manuevering as we speak to protect Syria and Iran from a U.S. somethin.
You'll see the backlash and howling at the U.N. and E.U should the U.S. show up post Saddam to engage Al Qeda in Lebanon.
To close to Syria and the "Hoped for fantasy"..to close for comfort.
We'll see soon how "Brainwashed" the Iranian public are...we'll also see if Mubarak can survive the "Machine" that churns in his basement.
Israel will definitely get antsy ..a seroius clash with Hezbullah could easily spread to direct conflict with Syria...
400 plus scuds with VX and bio/chem warheads means Israel is likely to pre-empt and yes..use nukes to close Syrias deep underground missile complexes.

In truth..fear of change will drive Islam to one last series of "Fantacised Glory"...the revenge against U.S. and Israel will come over time.
Nostradamus wrote the length of the war of Mabus as being 27 years..then a new world after.
He's probably right..

[Ronzo]

This is where the article is completely wrong. Iraq is a threat to not just the US, but the entire world. I hope the thought isn't so myopic to believe that because he doesn't have ICBMs, that he isn't a threat to us... he will get them. And he will use them.

Question: Which is a bigger threat to the USA and the rest of the world -- Iraq or China? State your answer in 500 words or less.

Helpful Hint: The correct answer to the above question is China. And it is only 100 times more of a threat RIGHT NOW than Iraq could ever, ever be.

The author of this article has an excellent point - Saddam is totally and completely secular. He is more of a Don Corleone (sp?) than an Osama Bin Laden or even an Adolph Hitler. In other words, he's just a bully; yet a bully who's very interested in self preservation.

There are about 10 or 20 countries I would love for us to wipe-out above and beyond Iraq, including (but limited to) Cuba, North Korea, and France. I would also include the psuedo country of Palestine, just because I'm so sick of their whiny little behinds.

You heard it here first: there will be no attack against Iraq, unless Saddam forgets his table manners and does something completely stupid...it could happen...

[Hila]

Of course Iraq is a threat to USA and to others in their vicinity. Reports are coming out stating that terrorists have sought sanctuary in precisely that country and are being armed by the mandman.