>>Must one have a "solution" before giving peace a chance? I don't think shooting first and asking questions later is the answer. If the UN is ineffective, aren't we as much to blame as anyone?
>
>We have given peace a chance for over 10 years. He continues to defy the UN by developing biological and chemical weapons. He is not defying just the US, but the U.N. And after what, 18 resolutions now that he has defied, the U.N. continues to do nothing.
>
>How is it that the United States as to blame for the ineffectiveness of the U.N.
>
>>It's not clear that a preemptive strike against Iraq would be wise or constructive, and it sure doesn't seem civilized. Are we justified in suspending the foundations of freedom and democracy, all in the name of this so-called "war on terrorism"? What a bogus concept! How will we know when we've won? Does some guy representing all terrorists solemnly sign a surrender document? Do we take the capital city of terrorist-land? Have we so little faith in our constitution that we must now enter into an indefinite period of martial law, under the leadership of a guy who doesn't even know how to pronounce "nuclear"?
>
>It is very clear to me that a preemptive strike would be very constructive, both to this country and the Iraqi people.


A pre-emptive strike would have to more intense than the unbelievable damage we are doing now and have been doing for years. We have been bombing IRAQ almost everyday since 1991.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2002/12/31/8739-ap.html

and this is even more unbelievable:

http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html



>
>As far as suspending the foundations of freedom and democracy? What are you talking about? Martial Law? You have got to be kidding. I still do the same things I did before 9/11. I make the same comments, both in support of and against the government. I will be voting for sure in 2004.
>
>We will never be completely sure that we have won the war on terrorism. But that doesn't mean you don't fight it.
>
>>I don't believe the rush to attack Iraq does a thing to reduce the risk of terrorism, but I see a greater likelihood that it will exacerbate the problem. It is the height of optimism to ignore the risks. Behaving like bullies is not the answer, just because some people think they can get away with it, and it would be so immensely satisfying to their egos. Those people are kidding themselves. This is not a zero sum game: we can all lose.
>
>When do you think war is necessary?
>
>>So here's my suggestion: put our energies, our money, and our commitment into making the UN an effective instrument. If we've got a case to make for war, let's hear it, and let it be judged by reasonable, objective standards that can be applied in general. Why should the standards for justifying international warfare, indiscriminate destruction and killing thousands of people, be any lower than our standards for convicting someone of petty theft? Does Iraq really present such an immediate danger to this country that the UN could not possibly protect us, even with our help? We have an opportunity to do something constructive by contributing to the effectiveness of the UN, which would be a lasting contribution to the cause of world peace. Are we willing to pay some price for that, or shall we have another go at demonstrating the boundless folly and arrogance of power?
>
>We've done our best with the U.N. We have countries like France who are more interested in playing a leading role in Europe than they are with seeing to the success of the U.N. Resolution 1441 isn't the first resolution that Iraq has defied. There were plenty before that. And yes, they do represent an immediate danger to the U.S. How hard do you think it would be for them to release chemical or biological weapons on the U.S.?