As for spawning further jihad: read a little history. Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Arabia have been invading each other for the past 5,000 years. There is little love lost between them. Since 1963 Iraq has been run by the socialist Ba'th Party, and in the 40 years since they've managed to seriously P.O. both the Sunnis and Shiites, both inside and outside of their borders. If I were an Iraqi I would not count on a worldwide uprising of devout Moslems to save me.
As for the listening to our allies: the Brits have been on the ground in that part of the world for the better part of two centuries, and they seem more eager to attack than we are. The French have a compelling economic interest in maintaining the status quo (TotalFinaELF has *enormous* oil leases with the current Iraqi government that will be worth nothing if the Ba'th Party falls); the Germans have been violating the arms embargo and have the court convictions to prove it; and the Russians (Lukoil) hold an enormous amount of debt which the next Iraqi government can be expected to repudiate. Who else do we need to listen to?
[Hint: listen to the Japanese. *They* say that the North Koreans are merely a client state for the Chinese, and that if the Chinese don't tighten up on Kim Jong Il's chain *they* will go in and solve the problem once and for all. And if that doesn't frighten you, you really need to read more history.]
No offense, but you really do need to read more history.
With that said, I also wish that Bush would stop beating the war drums for a bit. There are some compelling and intelligent arguments that need to be made -- and can be made -- but instead all we get is this simplistic, "Saddam's the next Hitler. Gotta take out Saddam."
Every time we make an international conflict into a personal crusade against an individual person, we're setting up a losing proposition. It didn't work against Pancho Villa, it didn't work against Fidel Castro, it didn't work against Ho Chi Minh, and we're darned lucky that it did work against Hitler and Mussolini. Whenever it becomes personalized, all that person needs to do is survive (or at least not become clearly and obviously dead) and the perception becomes that he won. (Witness Osama Bin Laden.)
Saddam Hussein would be just another screwball if he did not have a ruthless political party behind him, a well-funded military machine around him, a sea of oil underneath his feet, and two unstable and corrupt monarchies for neighbors. Making this into a personal crusade against one man is, I think, very bad sound-bite politics.
Your belief is called moral relativism.
I've seen a lot more defense of Rush Limbaugh in this circle than I have of David Letterman in liberal circles. I'd say he's more comparable to Bill Maher or Michael Moore.
Listen to Rush Limbaugh with an open mind and you will understand. Rush is extremely popular because he acts civil and is nearly always right; and, unlike the foul-mouthed Moore, will admit it when he is wrong. Maher was a pretty successful talk show host, but was vile and distasteful much too often for the "money men" (those who pay the bills). Letterman does not belong in this equation.
I don't know the answer to this one way or the other, but has Saddam Hussein made direct threats to Turkey? I know he hates Israel, what Arab leader doesn't? Also, where else could the terrorists have found ricin? I have to honestly say I don't know what the sources of this product are.
I don't recall an attack or threat on Turkey by Iraq. But some good articles on Iraq can be found on Frontline. This one discusses the Sadaam's weapons of mass destruction and the history of the inspection process. In the interview section it implicates Iraq in terrorist training. Statements by some of the inspectors can be found here. This link is a history of Sadaam. There are also some articles that are unfavorable to the United States' role in Iraq and the Middle East, if that is what you are looking for.
I still think it's hypocritical of us to go in and take out dictators because of their abuses of human rights. Notice I didn't say it's wrong. It's just hypocritical after we've supported so many terrible dictators in the past. Granted it served our interests at the time and *may* have saved the world from communism. No one can predict the future, so it's difficult to say what's wrong and what's less wrong in this situation.
I think it hypocritical to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, particularly by a nation as rich and powerful as we are. All dictators should be destroyed and a republican form of government implemented (note that "democracy" is too dangerous to implement since tyrants can gain power too easily in a democracy -- consider the recent example of Venezuela, and the tyranny in our own nation). However, I believe the true justification for the disarmament of Iraq is that he is just too damn dangerous to keep around, particularly since the spread of terrorism. "Disarmament" is most likely a code word for getting rid of Sadaam's regime.
Maybe if we go in there and take out Saddam it'll polarize countless Muslims to take up a jihad against the United States. Or maybe it could help stabilize the region. The terrorists haven't stopped since we've taken out the Taliban, and they were a more vehement supporter of Al-Qaeda and the like.
There is already a Jihad against the United States, and if Saddam decides to distribute chemicals or biologicals to terrorists, their threat is multiplied (this is not to imply that Saddam has not already gave WMD to terrorists). If anything, getting rid of Saddam will stabilize the region.
As has happened in the past with other "superpowers" (Greeks, Romans, etc), American hubris will probably be the end of us.
The instability of Democracy will be the end of us if we do not stop it in time. Returning to our lawful form of government (a republican form with strict adherence to the Constitution and the difficult Amendment process) is the only way to regain stability.
I just wish Bush would stop beating the war drums for just a second and at least pretend to listen to what our allies have to say instead of acting like a dictator hell-bent on getting his own way. Then maybe more liberals will actually listen.
All but three Nato nations support his stance on Iraq (with Belgium, France, and Germany opposing him). So it appears Bush does listen to our allies. But in the end it is his responsibility to protect our nation, and his alone -- not the weasely French, nor the tiny nation of Belgium, nor the administration in Germany that was anti-Bush long before the policy on Iraq became an issue. Regarding liberals . . . well, Bush is wise to ignore liberals. Liberals will never listen to him until they grow up. I know what I am talking about because I used to be a liberal (I voted for Clinton the first time he ran).