No.
The question is kind of moot, as the invasion is going ahead anyway.
No.
After the State of the Union Address, I took my 8x10 inch Flag from the trunk of my car (it had flown from the radio mast as a result of 9/11 and every so often since – Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Veteran’s Day) and reattached it upside down as my public displeasure for what the President and Congress are doing in my name.
Sure, many may now see the upside down Stars & Stripes as a remembrance of the Shuttle tragedy, but it will remain flying, upside down, for the forseeable future.
No.
Not unless we get more countries on board. France, Germany, Russia, Spain. Why do we have to be the ‘police’ of the world? If GW is the best we have to offer the free world, I am very frightened and I am not even a democrat.
I just don’t know why the ‘moles’ that we have inside of Iraq cannot assassinate Saddam. Sure, they would die, but if we and the UK promised to care for their families…
I think the reason why GW is so gung ho on a war is because the trail for OBL is cold and GW feels he has to do something. Now, if OBL was found to be hiding in Iraq, then, by all mean, air drop in the Green Berets and let them go in whoopin’ and a hollerin’.
(and while we are at it, can Fox and CNN please stop airing those charming segments of " What if a Dirty Bomb hit Chicago?" and " If a nuclear missle hit here, how would we be affected?" )
YES
I’m getting sick of saddam.
Hell Yes!!!
Nobody wanted to attack Nazi Germany at first either.
Side note: If Saddam ever were to somehow do some major damage to the US, BUsh would be the first blamed by libs for not doing something to stop Saddam. A few would probably even suggest he had some part in allowing it to happen to improve his own image. I’m getting tired of Democrat games.
Yes…
But…errhghaghI’mnotsosureit’saverygoodidea.
Just so you know, this is really inappropriate:
I don’t believe you could rightfully be said to be in “dire distress”, and certainly your life and property are not in extreme danger.
Oh, and no by the way. Not that I think there would actually be anything morally wrong about attacking Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship (assuming we were to help towards the creation of a democratic government), but I don’t think it would be worth the cost in both lives and money. We have much bigger problems in several other countries, including North Korea and our “allies” Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
NO!
It’s all about greed, not justice or democracy. Think OIL. Period.
Wake up America, we are all running out of time.
No.
Yes, because then the U.S. has more job openings
For the reasons given thus far: NO.
I believe there may well be valid reasons for invading/deposing Saddam, but thus far Bush has yet to say anything that indicates any deeper awareness of the issues involved and the consequences of an invasion and regime change.
Yes.
The Empire is strong, but the far-flung province of Mesopotamia needs to be brought back into the fold, so that the Silk Road can once again bring us riches.
No.
But with some qualifications: getting rid of Saddam is a Damn Good Thing, and I don’t think that dislike of the motives of the people doing the getting-rid-of is a good excuse for opposition.
I just think that other methods could be employed to do it.
There’s a ghastly tradeoff between freeing the Iraqi people (if the Iraqis will feel ‘free’ once they had been ‘liberated’), and the potential global catastrophe that could be triggered by such an invasion.
Pre-emptive aggression is also very scary precedent.
No.
FWLIW No
no.
No
No.
No evidence has been presented to sugest that Saddam was a direct link to Al-Qaida.
No.
It seems we’re split practically down the middle here. Maybe someone can tally up the votes so we see which side is actually greater? 