Should the U.S. proceed with military action against Iraq?

USA government says that Sadam has biological weapons... OK, Israel has 250 nukes. Who is more dangerous?

I don't think the US has the same level of support it had last time (especially from other Arab states). Killing more Iraqis isn't likely to help.

yes, but it's not actually about oil or parking spaces.

I say Nuke the whole place! It's not even about oil.

I'm not sure at this point. Iraq having "weapons of Mass Destruction" (lord am I sick of that phrase) doesn't make me sleep well. On the other hand, strategic strikes aren't going to remove that threat, nor will anything short of deposing Hussein and taking the country apart, which is neither feasible nor particularly desireable. Basically, the bottle has been opened; the knowledge of how to create these weapons is already in their hands and there's no good way of stopping them.

The ultimatum by the US never should have been made. Action should not be taken. I think that the weapons should be acquired through other means.

If our beef is with Saddam and it's strong enough to kill people over, we should proceed with action against Saddam not against the rest of the people in Iraq.

Starting a war will only give them an opportunity to justify USING those weapons... we should not have jumped the gun and given an ultimatum before trying more diplomatic processes.

I don't see what we expect to gain other than religious enemies for the next millenium by proceeding with any further action against Iraq unless we exterminate them. Then everyone else would hate us.

New England defense industries needed the boost in sales. War means Jobs for Americans!

Stupid men!(no offense meant to all the smart ones, excluding Hussein and Clinton)If women ran the countries, none of this would even be thought of!!!

No, it's none of our damn business.

I think war is a good example of my theory that there is no such thing as evolution. It's too bad war isn't considered politically incorrect. Add to that, what Artemis said.

That's a toughie. Personally I am not a U.S. citizen, so maybe my opinion isn't worth as much in that sense. But we are sending some of our Canadians over yonder. If Sadam does not comply, then I think it will be necessary otherwise... why not let everyone just run amuck and do what they want. He may be far away, but whatever he does to the planet (ie: blow up nuclear bombs), we will all feel the results of.

Without US military action during certain points in history, we would not have the freedoms that all of us enjoy. However, I deplore long, drawn out deals where our guys get slaughtered and no closure occurs. Yes, people's lives are more important than oil, but until we use more of something else, oil and its spin-offs keep people alive also.

decline to respond

Peoples lives are worth more than oil, and I'll agree that (as usaul) the US is doing things for it's own benefit. However, whatever the reasons are, something must be done about aggresive national behavior (on the part of Iraq - not the US from whom we're used to it) and the US is the only country that can afford to wage other peoples wars for them.

I don't think we need to involve hundreds of soldiers if all we really need is a sniper and one clean shot at Saddam.

Let's have the balls to do neither - let's risk our lives *and* not go in with guns blazing. A Berlin-airlift style operation with live TV and inet feeds worldwide. Get the food and medicine in, feed the Iraqi people, get them healthy, open up free libraries in the care centers, and encourage them to pursue democratic reforms. Serve notice that the US policy of supporting kings, tyrants and dictators sucks and we're not going to do it anymore just because it makes today's realpolitick a little easier. Apologize to the rest of the world for the past hypocrisy and let them know that we're done with that crap for good. Dare them to match us. We should be warriors, not solidiers.

YES, SADDAM HAS RULED LONG ENOUGH. Everyone's life is worth something! But we need to know what he is doing & why he well not let inspectors in. What is he hiding & why?

what the hell, sure.

Bill Clinton should really come down off his high-horse and breathe the air around him! Truly sick and tired of his hypocrite ways!

Ha!...nice choices.
Yes, but not for parking spaces...

No. The U.N., maybe. But not the U.S. on its own. There used to be this thing I learned about in U.S. history, about the U.S. leaving the rest of the world to deal with its own problems (Monroe Doctrine?)... Whatever happened to that?

"can't we all just get along." I can't understand any group of people getting together for the sole purpose of imposing their will upon others through violence. the only time I can see going to war is to protect people, and then if that was the only choice. People are more important than oil, but any decision is going to be based on wealth or the hope of what is believed to be power. This is one of the things that saddens me most about humans. ** comment on if women ran the world. Sorry, but women can be as or more bloody minded than men. There is nothing inherently less violent in women. tell me, who defends the young more fervently? the women or the men? (stereotyping here) Since things are currently (or seem to be) a patriarchy, it is the men who fight and so on. a matriarchy would be different.. but about the same. my gripes are with humans.. the two sexes think differently, and are taught to think differently, but deep down they are still human.

Isolationism is what sank us in the 30s, but crass imperialism is no good either. If we can't get international support (and we can't right now) we should leave it alone.