>>>>If there was a direct threat & there were no alternative to war, then I would reconsider my position.
>>>>
>>>>At present there is no direct threat presented by Iraq & there are many alternatives to going to to war.
>>>
>>>And how do you define a direct threat? When he masses his troops on the Iran border> When he massed his troops on the Kuwaiti border? Before or after he launched missiles at Israel?
>>
>>Did I miss something in the news. At what point in the past few months were his troops at the borders of Iran or Kuwait ? At what point in the past few months were his missiles within 183km of Israel ? Have Iran, Kuwait or Israel indicated to you that they feel immediately threatened ?
>
>Len;
>
>The simple answer is Saddam has committed evil deeds, and may do so again. Therefore he should be eliminated. If the next leader of Iraq should be evil in the eyes of the United States President he too shall be eliminated. This process will continue until Iraq changes its ways or there is no one left to populate that country. True democracy shall rein in Iraq in the name of freedom for all.

You could be right all the way Tom but the problem to me is that to do it without the consent of the U.N. is wrong. Because it it's done without the consent of the U.N. what will be the next target of the U.S.A? It's this that is scaring me at this point.

I'm new to this thread. Perhaps this has already been noted before.