Do you really support them? NO! You want to KILL THEM to justify your political partisanship!
Knock it off, eaglebeak. I've seen another sample of your work -- calling kattracks "sick" for merely posting an article -- and it's damned unimpressive.
BlueOneGolf, welcome to FreeRepublic.
Ousting a 'popular' mass murderer, who has invaded several neighbors in an attmept to expand his resources, has killed many of his own people, has been ignoring sanctions, has been building up his military infrastructure in defiance of world-body resolutions and cease-fire agreements, has been encouraging others to attack us in the event of war, has been playing catch-me-if-you-can with weapons inspectors for about a decade, and is eager to build the super-bomb that will lay waste to his enemies...
If this doesn't sound familiar, then you really need to crack open a history book. Adolf Hitler went through the exact same process... except he hadn't used WMD's against his own people ("just" assembly line exterminations).
Our our men and women in the military welcome the chance to prevent history from repeating itself. They are not the cowards you imply that they are (a little transference, there, perhaps)?
BTW, we lost less than 300 in the first Gulf War (148 battle deaths, 145 non-battle deaths, 467 wounded out of 532,000 soldiers: that's a mortality-rate of 0.00055, or about one-twentieth of a percent), which is fewer than would have died if they were stationed at home for the same time period (due to training accidents, traffic accidents, etc.). Remember the "for the first time ever, our troops are safer in battle " line that the newsies kept spouting? If you're so worried about their well-being, maybe you should hope for war with similar results.
If Saddam Hussein's Iraq enjoyed a free press, freedom of association and freedom of speech, there could be a moral unjust pre-emptive strike argument. But that is not the case with Iraq. There is no frame of reference, by western standards of civilization, for comparing Iraq. For the controlled Iraqi press, even a Holy Bible requires an image of Saddam Hussein. You did know that, right?
An ostrich like stance on Iraq will not make Saddam Hussein behave or go away. Sanctions were violated, inspections thwarted, and a new paradigm of warfare emerged, state sponsored terrorism. Laurie Mylroie, President Clinton's advisor on Iraq, states there is little doubt the first WTC attack was an Iraqi state sponsored terrorist act. In the book Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein’s War Against America, Mylroie also makes a good case the 9/11 attack was too. With that in mind, a pre-emptive strike against state sponsored terrorism is somehow unjust?
The horrific cruelty of Saddam is beyond belief. Former UNSCOM inspector, and now peace activist Scott Ritter, described an Iraqi children’s political prison. Ritter asserts in a Time Magazine story if we knew what went on in that children’s prison, even the peaceniks would demand war with Iraq. Freeing the Iraqi people from this brutal repression has no purpose?
With all due respect, this Gulf War Veteran disagrees with you. The Iraqi people have suffered long enough. It is time to liberate Iraq. If you are not quite convinced yet, please follow this 9/11 attack hyperlink.