The use of Chemical and biological weapons.

My greatest fear. in addition to the harm that will befall innocent Iraqis during the carpet bombing, is the increased chance of terrorism on our soil. It's much more likely to happen after we attack. Even some top Bushites have said this.

And wasn't the threat of terrorism one of the key reasons we started threatening Saddam?

I am very concerned. I would not trust Saddam enough to ask him the time of day. IMO, he is a megalomaniac. I believe that he will do anything to hang on to his power, including bombing his own people, and sending out terrorists with chemical & biological agents

Mr Bush & Mr Blair have made a decision that many, many oppose.
So be it. My prayers and best wishes now go out to the soldiers who, like I thirty years ago, have to execute the command to fight.

I fear the backlash, au. A lot of people in a lot of places are going to hate us a lot. I fear that we are going to to pay for this action that Mr Bush is going to embark us on in about ten minutes.

D'artagnan


I am not nor have I ever been convinced that an invasion of Iraq will bring increased terrorism against the US. The terrorists will be as active as possible with or without the invasion of Iraq.

In my opinion, the man is not capable of destroying, or even acknowledging, any weapon of any type without being caught red handed and threatened with the imminent destruction of his country and himself.

My biggest fear is that noxious aerosols ... WMDs of whatever type, will be employed by Saddam either against our troops, or against general-area civilian targets in neighboring countries or within Iraq itself. A column of panic-stricken refugees is perfect for unconventional attack, as would be a district of city already hemmed by troops, freindly or otherwise. I am very worried. Very Very worried.

Their decision is one that many, many others support.

Saddam is playing it clever and cruel at the same time. In the last Gulf war he allowed the People in the Cities to move to their family on the countryside. But today almost everybody is still in the cities. They also digged some trenches arround Bagdad and filled it with oil. The day the war starts they want to put that oil on fire. They hope they can desorientate the laser guided bombs. I can imagine the newspapers when a bomb hitted a appartement with hundreds of people in it or a hospital. I'm no war specialist so i dont know how easy it is to desorientate those laser guided bombs. But if this story is true i fear the US will win the war but loose the war for public opinion. And the latter is nowadays very important.

The President threw it right into Saddam's ballpark. He gave him 48 hours for him and his honchos to leave, and there would be no war. He has more than enough money that he could buy himself a gorgeous hideaway, and live in splendor for the rest of his life. Now the choice is up to HIM!

Even if Saddam leaves US troops will still invade Iraq. That is what Bush said. Because of humanitarian reasons. So it doesn't mather what Saddam decides.

Frolic,

If Iraqi non-combatants are killed, or wounded as a result of Saddam's policies, it is he who is responsible not the United States. Our military will make every effort to preserve innocent life and property, but there is only so much that can be done.

Bombs do go astray, there is no perfection especially in war. There is however, a great difference between the two national doctrines here. Saddam INTENDS the deaths of as many as possible and it makes no difference to him if they are non-combatants. That is the purpose of his chemical and biological arsenals, neither of which are likely to be particularly effective against our military forces. Saddam has reportedly moved missile launchers into the far west. That can have no other purpose than to rain down destruction on Israel, a non-combatant country in this instance. Placing weapons in hospitals, churches and other locations that endanger the civilian population is in itself a war crime.

On the other hand, the Allies are dedicated to limiting the death and destruction to combatants alone. Our munitions are guided so that they may efficiently destroy what must be destroyed without un-necessary collateral damage. Our preference is to meet a structured, uniformed army in open battle outside the cities, Saddam appears to prefer endangering his people.

People keep referring to this as an "aggressive war" against a country that has done nothing to provoke attack. Nonsense. This is a continuation of the Gulf War that ended in a cease fire over a decade ago. Saddam, who was to disarm in months, managed to play a shell game for years while he violated the conditions of the armistice. Only when faced with the threat of renewed hostilities did he even permit UN inspections to resume after a four year hiatus. Saddam has been given far too long to comply with the conditions under which the Gulf War was suspended. During the time when Saddam might have complied and ended the Gulf War, he instead built more forbidden weapons and financed terrorism in the region. He and the Ba'ath Party are one of the world's most repressive regimes, where torture and murder are common. This is Saddam's War, and no one elses. Saddam, and those who have shielded him, are alone responsible for all the death and destruction that will shortly rain down upon them.

This is a historically significant time, a crossroads. Some believe that the road we have taken leads to a nightmare world. They foresee a time when America is regarded as the moral equivalent of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, or Uncle Ho's Vietnam. They fear that the United States will become a dictatorship where our citizen's rights are subordinated to some sort of religious oligarchy. They expect the tempo and severity of terrorist attacks to increase, and a world-wide religious war between all of Islam and the Allies. This is a world dominated by nuclear weapons and other weapons of terror, as the world builds war machines to defend themselves against naked American aggression. They prophesy an endless time of chaos and war that may lead to the extinction of our species. A very dour and pessimistic view of the road ahead.

The other road, the one that an equal number of Americans foresee is a sunnier path. We believe that this will be a rather short war, where most casualties will result from Saddam's own actions. With Saddam gone, we hope that new opportunities will arise for establishing regional stability, and even a peace of sorts. The Iraqi People will have an opportunity to profit from their country's natural assets. Husbands will no longer be returned to their wives inside gunnysacks, chopped into pieces. This view of the road ahead, is that other nations will think twice before arming, paying or otherwise supporting international terrorists. Deprived of safe havens and sponsors, the terrorist threat will gradually decrease. The notion that America is afraid to back it's diplomatic efforts to secure world peace and stability with military might if necessary will be dealt a heavy blow. The risk of a far more costly war on the Korean Peninsula will be decreased. Those who hold this view of our future have faith that American values and notions of justice will prevail to the benefit of the whole world. Though this is a more optimistic view, it is not Utopian. Terrorist acts will continue, great economic disparity will still exist in the world, and other problems will take the place of those supposedly solved by the decision to see this particular dictator the door into history.

I have faith in America. We often make mistakes, but always with the intention of making progress toward a better world, a world where the Four Freedoms of FDR are taken for granted. On 9-11 an International Terrorist organization finally woke America up to the fact that a war was being waged against us, and had been for a decade. Our smug dream that we were immune to attack was jolted, and an American President was forced to turn his attention outward to meet the threat. This is a different sort of war than we've become used to over the last several hundred years in the West. It will take some getting used to, but so far I'm assured that this administration is doing its best to protect the nation and the Constitution.

I agree for the most of it regarding Saddam.
Still got some questions

Why Iraq? Why not Israel? Why not Libya? Why not Pakistan?
Why not Chechnya? Why not Congo? Why?

You say US military will make every effort to preserve innocent life and property. Explain me how they can do that when they intend to us the Mother of All Bombs. Bush even said some weeks ago US army is prepared to us nuclear arms.

You say this is a continuation of the Gulf War that ended in a cease fire over a decade ago. Why did they not finish the job then? Why did they gave people hope and left them to die. Many died because they started rioting and hoped for US backing. But the US left Saddam in power and betrayed the kurds and Sji'its.

You say Saddam has reportedly moved missile launchers into the far west. Who said that? The US and UK govt? The same people copied a masters thesis to accuse Iraq. And they lied about nuclear weapons owned by Saddam. And u want me to belief them?

some relevant history: 1963
1980: When Ronald Reagan becomes president in 1981, he endorses a policy aiming for a stalemate in the war so that neither side emerges from the war with any additional power. But in 1982, fearing Iraq might lose the war, the U.S. begins to help. Over the next six years, a string of CIA agents go to Baghdad. Hand-carrying the latest satellite intelligence about the Iranian front line, they pass the information to their Iraqi counterparts. The U.S. gives Iraq enough help to avoid defeat, but not enough to secure victory.
1986: The Iran-Contra scheme is conceived by Reagan administration officials. Iran had been running out of military supplies in its war with Iraq and Reagan is advised that the U.S. could strike a deal in which secret arms sales to Iran could lead to the release of U.S. hostages held by pro-Iranian terrorists in Lebanon.
1987: In the name of freedom of navigation, the U.S. throws the weight of its navy behind Iraq's position in the Persian Gulf. A large American armada protects tanker traffic and cripples the Iranian navy. A war, which at that point had been going against Iraq, is again transformed into a stalemate
1988: The end of the war comes with a ceasefire under conditions that reflect the U.S. government's best hopes. A classified State Department document states: "We can legitimately assert that our post-Irangate policy has worked. The outward thrust of the Iranian revolution has been stopped. Iraq's interests in development, modernity and regional influence should compel it in our direction. We should welcome and encourage the interest, and respond accordingly."
1990: April Glaspie, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is summoned to meet with Saddam. According to an Iraqi transcript, Saddam harangues her about his dispute with Kuwait over oil prices. Ambassador Glaspie tells Saddam, "The president personally wants to deepen the relationship with Iraq." She expresses concerns about the Iraqi troops on the Kuwaiti border, but reflecting the official State Department position, she says, "We don't have much to say about Arab-Arab differences, like your border differences with Kuwait. ... All we hope is you solve these matters quickly."
1991: During the war, President Bush repeatedly calls for Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. Within days of the cease-fire, Shia Muslims in the south of Iraq, close to the allied front lines, take up arms against Saddam. In the first heady days of the uprising, the rebels control the streets.Saddam's forces soon attack the rebels, who are not supported by Washington, which had decided against backing an uprising that might lead to Iraq's breakup

Yeah, we have a similar history of "Come on, lets you and him fight" with the Kurds in the north. It is a definate embarassment.

The day the first bullets are fired -- the first bombs dropped -- will be one of the blackest days in the history of our country.

What this man Bush is doing makes what Saddam does look penny ante.

I hear the voices of people for whom I've had lots of respect over these last few years spouting nonsense. Anyone supporting the way we are doing this -- THE WAY WE ARE DOING THIS -- is selling out this country.

If you cannot see that, shake yourself awake. You are sleep walking through history.

If they're not with you, Frank, they are against you.

Frolic,



Iraq is and has been for many years in violation of the cease-fire conditions that brought the Gulf War to a halt. Israel and Pakistan are currently allies. Chechnya is an internal matter for the Russians to resolve. Why do you think we should focus on the Congo? Why? Why assume that the United States is at fault, rather than Saddam? Why?



The MOAB (only one of a number of exceptional weapons available in our arsenal) is mission specific ordinance. It is not intended for use against urban areas. We always reserve the right to use any weapon in our arsenal in appropriate circumstances. The use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons by the United States is very unlikely, even if they are used against us. However, our overwhelming superiority in special munitions is a deterrent against their use by folks like Saddam and Kim Jong-Il.



It was a terrible mistake not to have finished the job at the time. Now it is time to rectify the mistake, not perpetuate it. The Gulf War was a UN action where the U.S. led a coalition with the limited purpose of ejecting Saddam from Kuwait. It did that, and to take Baghdad would have overstepped the authority under which Desert Storm operated. Many feared the instability that would result if Saddam were displaced. The decisive defeat of Saddam's forces led folks to believe that the Iraqi People would topple him themselves. However, he utilized the "peace" to murder those who we expected would finish him off. The UN and the United States must share some of the guilt for the murder of those people. This time lets stay the course until the Saddam is permanently removed from the scene.



Who are you going to believe; Saddam Hussein, or the leaders of the Free World? Saddam Hussein has never told the truth when a lie would serve. This is a man who has modeled his life on Adolph Hitler and Stalin. I really doubt that the Secretary of State cribbed a Master's Thesis, when he has access to state secrets and a highly skilled staff to prepare his remarks. There may be similarities, but that only makes the grad student insightful in their analysis. Though some have claimed that our government forged documents to mislead people into the belief that Saddam is seeking nuclear weapons materials, that is not shown. Saddam has sought nuclear weapons in the past, and is not the sort of fellow who abandons the quest. Perhaps someone did forge documents, but we don't know who it might have been. I expect that when the suspect documents were too quickly accepted because they merely confirmed what we already firmly believe. That is always a problem when doing intelligence analysis. We too often give up our objectivity when unsupported evidence is found that appears to confirm our beliefs. Mistakes, but not lies, characterize the public utterances of Allied leadership.

Frank,

You are certainly not alone in your opinion that use of military force to resolve the Iraqi mess is mistaken. Many others do not agree with that assessment. Many have faith that the humanistic values of Western Civilization and the United States will prevail. We shall shortly see what we shall see.

I take personal umbridge at the suggestion that those who support the American effort are "selling out this country". To support one's country is the very definition of patriotism. Most of us have steered clear of questioning the loyalty of others whose opinions are different from our own. Your remark is a disturbing departure from that rule of civility.

Perhaps it is acceptable to say outrageous things about our President, but to argue that he is worse than Saddam Hussein is just not true. The shrub has never murdered anyone, can you say the same for Saddam who has bathed the region repeatedly in blood? The shrub probably isn't bright, but he has exhibited the resolve to finally bring a halt to one of the most destabilizing regimes in the world. This is a necessary war, and one that hopefully will reduce the risk of other more expensive wars. Perhaps, that will not occur but the attempt is worthy and honorable.

If you cannot see that, shake yourself awake. You are sleep walking through history.

As--we should all remember--it has always been. Had Saddam disarmed as he promised after the Gulf War, we wouldn't be discussing this.

He can you be so sure he did not disarm? Where are the WMD the inspectors found?

And what about the rule "innocent until proven guilty" There is no evidence Iraq still has WMD!