>Why are you so sure? Why have them if dont intend on using them, whatever the situation?

I am sure because we have no desire to nuke anyone. It's a deterrent. As MAD as it sounds, we and the Soviet Union had hundreds, if not thousands of them pointed at each other for over 40 years, and they weren't used. If we could guarantee that they would be wiped off the face of the earth, I think we would be pretty glad to be rid of them.

>>Nor is he going to gas any or our enemies, much less his own citizens
>
>Maybe, but he is ready to kill many US soldiers and thousands of Iraq citizens without listening to the UN.

Maybe he won't gas his enemies or citizens? He definitely will not.

>Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein is a psychopath that need to be removed from the power. But war should be used only and only when every other possibilities have been eliminated. This is not the current situation. The inspectors are doing some real progress and should be allowed more time.

Every other possibility has been eliminated. Don't forget that he has been doing this for 12 years. This is not just 4 months. Here is what is really happening with inspections:

Blix also made accessible to all council members another 167-page report that points out that Iraq has repeatedly misled past inspection teams and has lied about its banned weapons program.

Blix also said Iraq's cooperation has not been immediate, as ordered under Resolution 1441.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80502,00.html

This "progress" comes only because there are 200,000 plus troops ready to remove him from power. After 12 years of ignoring the U.N., do you really think Saddam suddenly thinks that disarmament is a good idea?

>There are hundreds of dictators on this planet, many of them are cruel (North Korea and Cote d'Ivoire come to mind) and many of them funds and protect terrorists groups. Are we going to declare war on each of them? Are we going to spend the entire 21th century in war? Why Iraq and not the others? (Hint: oil)

Do you not know the history of Saddam and his use of chemical weapons? The fact the United Nations, not the United States, has decided in a 15-0 vote on Resolution 1441 that Iraq must disarm totally and immediately? Even Blix says that Iraq has not shown a willingness to disarm.

>There exist some other solutions, like funding and organizing a reverse of power. But these take time and Bush is not patient. He want to solve this the old far west way, with the guns.

Not patient? This has been going on for 12 years, not 4 months. This was his final opportunity to disarm completely and immediately.

>The entire arab region is a barrel of gun powder, a single spark and it may cause a major boom. In case you didn't know, the US is not very popular over there. Declare war against Iraq (specially without the UN consent) and I fear that things will deteriorate. I'm sure that there will be suddenly a lot more kamikaze ready to die to fight the US.

We have thousands of troops in Kuwait, are using an air base in Saudi Arabia, the Central Command is in Qutar, Egypt is still an ally, Jordan is still our ally, and Turkey may still allow troops. We have more friends than the press would have you believe.

As far as the terrorists go, they are already plotting against us, and have been since the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

>Like I said above, oil is one of the major reason Bush want to go to war against Iraq, despite what some of the participants in this thread thinks. China is in a major economic boom and will need a lot more fossile energy to continue it's growth. Iraq is an allied of China. By controlling Iraq oil, the US will better control the economic growth of China to better suit it's own agenda.

Exactly how is this about oil? Did we go to Afghanistan because of oil? If we really wanted the oil (which we already get from Iraq under the oil-for-food program), why not just take it from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? And when the new Iraqi government is in power, how exactly will it be about oil?

>BTW, one of your past president have joined his voice against war on Iraq. It's the Peace Nobel winner of this year, Jimmy Carter.

Right, Jimmy Carter, who was pretty thoroughly trounced in his reelection bid. Even with American citizens held hostage by Iran for 444 days, Jimmy Carter would not go to war. What does that tell you?

Chris McCandless
Red Sky Software