[palmer]

Anyway, we can try to disarm now or we can wait till there's "hard evidence" that Saddam will supply or has supplied terrorists with WMDs. The problem is, there's not much conceivable "hard evidence" which can convince certain folks, short of a pile of dead bodies.

Again, we're trying not to let it get to that point. Better safe than sorry.

I feel safer knowing my military is kept in reserve for a real threat. Also somewhat safer (or less apprehensive) keeping Iraq the way it is, rather than having it disintegrate into warring factions, some supported by Iran, possibly spreading fighting into Turkey. Finally, there's other sources for WMD's for terrorists, for example if they have money they can buy them from North Korea. We certainly can't afford to attack every country that could possibly supply WMD's to terrorists.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I feel safer knowing my military is kept in reserve for a real threat.

And Saddam (who you agree has WMDs) is not a "real threat" because.....

Also somewhat safer (or less apprehensive) keeping Iraq the way it is,

"the way it is"? You mean, cheating on anti-WMD resolutions and working hard to try to develop nukes? That kind of thing?

Finally, there's other sources for WMD's for terrorists, for example if they have money they can buy them from North Korea.

Yes, that is also a problem.

We certainly can't afford to attack every country that could possibly supply WMD's to terrorists.

Probably not, at least not all at the same time. This is not an argument for attacking none of them, though. One thing at a time.

[FreepLady]

"Also somewhat safer (or less apprehensive) keeping Iraq the way it is,"


You mean, such as that madman using hot irons on children, or killing their parents in front of them?