A simple question.

Well, Saddam gave some small reasons for being called a bad guy. For example, he occupied Kuwait without any visible reason (except abundance of oil in the victim country) in 1990. I do not have any positive feelings toward Islamic Republic of Iran, but I must admit that it was Saddam's and not Khomeiny's regime that started the Irano-Iraqi war. Are not two examples of sheer aggression enough to consider the regime to be dangerous and aggressive.

Steissd:

What do you think of the Iraqi army?

I never stated that it was not dangerous, simply that such opinion in and of themselves are a shaky foundation for a war. If sheer agression in the past is all you are interested in there are few countries that can claim themselves exempt from from invasion.

I do not think it may produce any serious obstacle to the American offensive. Its weapons (conventional) are obsolete, its training level is hardly better than mediocre, and its possessing high moral is strongly dubious.

So - Steissd - by your scenario, it WOULD be possible to disarm Saddam IF the US gave its intelligence to the inspectors - if its intelligence was good enough - no?

And this disarming could be done with no loss of life?

OK, Saddam then re-arms - slowly - then a bit later we have to do it all over again? Right? This is annoying - but, no lives are lost, right?

Hmmmm - then it does not seem so VERY undesirable, at least to me.

You talk of a regime change as though this were easy to do - well, possibly it would be if the US has just thrashed the Iraqi army. However, MAINTAINING a stable, friendly regime would seem to me to be VERY difficult. I am not aware of the US having any particular long term success in doing this anywhere, really.....do you?

I agree that Saddam is a very nasty piece of work - I would be very happy if he choked on a piece of lamb gristle - but this war troubles me greatly.

If there is to be real fear, than we all should fear a nuclear war and the possible extermination of the human race.

In 1981 Israeli bombers managed to penetrate the aerial space of Iraq and to destroy the nuclear reactor, and no serious resistance was available from the Iraqi side. All the warplanes returned to their bases undamaged. I do not think that technologic level of Iraqi anti-aircraft defence has improved seriously since then, so I think that there will be no problems in conducting intensive aerial attacks on Iraqi army and military facilities that will break Iraqi regime's abilities to armed resistance.

If Saddam retains his office all the Westerners will live under permanent threat of becoming victims of the terror attack: Saddam will do his best to retaliate for public humiliation he suffered being forced to disarm himself. I do not state that it is mandatory to eliminate Saddam physically, but for sake of global security he is to be removed from power.

I agree.

I don't, I think global security is threatened to a far greater extent by the current agressors than by the despot they wish to replace.

The United States and its allies are not the aggressors in the present situation.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh? Just name an offensive preemptive and it's not agressive? I speak of agressors in the most simple meaning of the word. Iraq has not sought quarrel with the United States and the pretext for this American war is one of their weakest ever. America will invade another nation under the guise of security and still hope to be considered belevolent and non-agressive. You can't have your cake and eat it, if you want to flex your muscle don't expect not to be labeled a bully.

Oh, Ash...

Saddam Hussein is a despot, a dictator, a torturer, and a fiend. That's not the question.

And to be sure, the Iraqi people would be better off in a democracy. And perhaps Saddam really is hiding weapons he should not have.

The issue, rather, is whether risking the lives (and health) of American troops, provoking likely terrorist attacks on New York and other U.S. targets, and most certainly wiping out many thousands of Iraqis (the UN predicts upwards of half a million Iraqis requiring medical treatment as a result of "direct or indirect injuries" related to the war) is the best way to disarm Saddam and improve the lives of the people suffering under his rule.

When a cop enters the criminal's home and arrests him/her, this is not caused by immediate danger that the criminal poses to the cop's life; the cop does it in order to protect public security.
You may call U.S. "a bully", but IMHO, it is better to be a living bully than a dead nerd.

Yep, after dropping a few measly tons of smart bombs and shooting off a few more tons of artillery shells, we're going to unleash thousands of troops to UNAGGRESSIVELY march into Baghdad.

After all, we're waging this war for peace...

Oh, and to liberate the Iraqis. Those left alive, anyway. Then we can get busy winning their hearts and minds.

This isn't a question limited to two answers!

steissd,
When the cop is the judge jury and executioner and enters someone's home against the wishes of the majority of the society he is a renegade and a criminal.

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

And who can be a jury in the case of Iraq? Corrupt Third World regimes? Oil-dependent France? Or, maybe, Russia that is interested in high commodities prices? UN is an absolutely irrelevant and militantly anti-American organization, so it cannot play a role of independent and unbiased judge. Therefore, the cop has to act on his own. It is a constraint.