>>You bet! If it would stop another day where we lost 1,000,000,000,000 like in the days right after 9-11. Makes a LOT of economic sense, if that's your only angle.
>
>But hasn't it crossed your mind that throwing Iraq, all of the middle east, and much of the rest of the world into disarray over a personal grudge while create more havoc on the world econmoy and increase the anti-american sentiment building in the world, effectively provking more terrorism?
>
>Considering we really never talked face to face with the perpetratrs, we have no clue why a religous movement attacked us, yet we feel that attacking a secular nation with no links to 9-11 is justified in the name of terror?
>
>I hope Bush and Cheney make enough money out of the deal (and this is all about oil, don't fool yourself) that my life was worth it for you.

I must admit, Mike, that I'm still very confused at the motivation for attacking Iraq.
The CIA has been often quoted as saying that, try as they might, they have not found a single link between Saddam and Al Qaida. Bin Laden is quoted as asying that "Saddam is a bad Arab".
We do know that Saddam has used mustard gas against Iran - when the U.S. was supporting Iraq in that effort. We do know that Saddam used nerve gas against the Kurds, but that was pre-inspection/destruction. Curiously the CIA now says that some Al Qaida are in Iraq - in the northern Kurd part that is NOT controlled by Saddam. The part that keeps lobbying the U.S. for $$$ so that they can mount an internal campaign against Saddam. The part that keeps telling the U.S. that they can use their "zone" as a land base for the attack.

While Mr. Ritter is denounced as a scum-bag lunatic who has 'been bought by Saddam', I have trouble believing that myself.

President Bush has used history to "prove" that Saddam is actively making weapons of mass destruction. Even the recent aluminum tubes allegation turns out to be 'we know for a fact that he was ordering them when we were doing inspections, so there' s no reason to assume otherwise now'.
Now the U.S. has spy planes and satellites and operatives inside Iraq and defectors that they grill (and who are anxious to say what is wanted to be heard in order to get the asylum they want). Surely there is tangible proof that can be shown to the citizens.

Now I can't believe that your President or Vice-President would throw the world into a chaotic state just for some "personal grudge". Maybe they can/will, but it sure seems totally counter to history, especially of the U.S.

But most importantly, in my opinion, is the straight outright aggression that it represents, being a first for the U.S. EVER. It is quite clear that the U.S. will take a United Nations rubber stamp (of approval) but that it had better not take too long. President Bush has said clearly that he will go it alone if he must.
I simply doubt that the majority in the U.S. endorses this, given the "proof" that has been offered to date.
Either way the United Nations is a dead duck. If it challenges President Bush, he will go ahead anyway, effectively rendering the U.N. toothless. If it goes along with the President with only the proof offered to date then it proves itself to be a puppet of the U.S. Either way the U.S. get what it wants but the U.N. ceases to have meaning.

Sad, really, that the guardians of freedom and democracy feels it needs to hamstring the world to get what it wants. To preserve freedom and democracy it will exterminate freedom and democracy. At least that's how it looks from here.