Sure. War: the other diplomacy. In fact we should all strap on our six-shooters and open fire on those we can’t come to an agreement with.
Funny, but there isn’t a single law to my knowledge that would allow one person to pro-actively shoot another because they had reason to believe they were potentially dangerous.
We should do something about that as well.
I don’t know. Had you asked me a week ago, the answer would have been a resounding “NO”. After seeing Powell’s evidence last night, I’m inclined to say “Not yet”. I think I agree with the French here: send more inspectors, making it more difficult for Saddam to hide things from them.
And if Powell has more evidence, then for God’s sake, let’s have it. The stalling game really pisses me off. This is more important than conditioning your own people for war by claiming you have all the evidence, and then not show it for 3 weeks. This is ultimately about human lives, and the possibility to end the reign of a dictator. Elections will come and go, msgrs. Bush and Powell.
If the US produces more first-hand evidence (a lot of yesterday’s stuff was “our experts say this little spot here means that there’s biological weapons inside” - I wanna hear more intercepted telephone calls et cetera), and it is conclusive, then yes, it has been proven that Resolution 1441 has been broken by Saddam. Until then: let the inspectors work, double their efforts, and provide all evidence you can if you have it, mr. Bush.
I shocked Coldie. You’re obviously not a friend of the US anymore 
Yet another no. Are you listening Dubya?
No, of course he isn’t.
No. Not yet. I agree with the French that more searching and diplomacy are needed. Not so much to protect Iraq (and all their innocents who will get caught in the fallout) but to help our own image. We’re perceived as a bunch of cowboy bullies by most of the rest of the world. That isn’t an image we want in a time where we’re striving for global unity. We need to contain them more vigorously. That said, I don’t see this guy waking up and smelling the bud any time soon, so I think war (in Bush’s world) is inevitable.
I vote “no” on this one too.
Absolutely Yes.
If the evidence we’ve seen has people getting off the no side and on the fence, how much more damning must be the evidence we aren’t allowed to see due to security concerns.
I agree that if it weren’t for our dependence on foreign oil we probably wouldn’t be there. But until we don’t need it, we have to live with it , and all the consequences that entails. I think the situation boils down to this:
(0) due to massive population growth, we need to import oil. You have to think of America’s demographics like that of China or India, not like Europe’s.
(1) due to deep cultural and religious ties, we are friends with Israel.
(2) because of (1) the Arab world regards us with distrust and individual nations range, in their attitudes toward us, from constructive business partners to sworn enemies. You notice, for example, that most of Westen Europe is far more culturally liberal than the U.S., but Iran doesn’t call Western Europe The Great Satan.
(3) Because of (0) and in spite of (1), and in the context of (2), we still have to get most of our imported oil from the Middle East. So anything seen as a threat to regional stability, like Hussein, becomes a potential target.
I agree with you that a war would be primarily about oil. But that’s what we’re stuck with. We’ve been suburbanizing for nearly 100 years while tearing up train tracks, and relegating mass transit to (mostly) slow buses. We’re living with choices that were made 100 years ago, and it’ll probably take another 100 years, at least, to get out of the hole we’ve dug ourselves into.
So yah, the war’s about oil, but unfortunately I don’t think that’s a reason not to go.
YES, and we should do it now.
Yes & no. There is clear evidence of Saddam’s guilt & coverups. But, I do think that a military response short of actual invasion is what is called for.
How many times do I have to tell you, no no NO.
Dubya, Tony and Little Johnny, go to your rooms. AND DON’T COME OUT UNTIL YOU PROMISE TO BEHAVE YOURSELVES.
yes.
IMHO, things can only get worse, and more difficult to deal with.
No.
Just because daddy got screwed by Iraq, doesn’t mean George junior should try to make up for it.
But let’s be honest.
Why bother to ask?
Before this thread has died, the first US soldier will be dead.
No
No.
Add one more resounding No to the tally.
I think something of saddam’s mentality is obvious,he loves being in power. He’s killed many people to stay in power. Why, if he does have these weapons of MD, would he just use them? He wouldn’t because he would lose power through the counter strike. But if we go in by land and try and topple him he’ll use the weapons with out doubt[that is if he has them] because he’ll be losing power so why the hell not use them?
Then there’s the idea of us letting him alone he will give these weapons[if he has them] to al-Qaeda. That just won’t happen because they are sworn enemies through their ideals.
Blah blah blah blah
So no.
Yes.
Yes.