For some reason, the staunch Bush supporters only see this in black and white. Either we invade Iraq to remove Hussein from power and destroy the weapons, or we do nothing.

The problem with that logic, is that nobody is saying we should just let Hussein remain in power, or that he should be able to keep the weapons. Nobody is saying we should wait and see if he attacks. Everyone agrees that something has to be done.

Most of the folks I've spoken with regarding this issue, who don't support a war with Iraq, want inspectors to be increased, and want the UN to step up and handle it's business...

Like pretty much everyone else on the planet, I think that Hussein is an evil tryant who needs to be removed from power, and weakened to the point where he can't cause any harm. I just don't think this is the way to do it. I am in support of increasing inspections, flyovers, inserting peacekeepers, whatever else it takes to get the job done, but not simply going into Iraq without the support of the UN and the global community.

You could argue that we gave him 12 years of chances, and I'll agree with you. But that wasn't 12 years of constant inspections, because Hussein kicked the inspectors out. They were just allowed back in recently. Is a handful of months enough time to disarm an entire country?





.ernie - aim: ryptide