I don't want to beat a dead horse but...

[djqwest]

How do you guys honestly feel about what the US is doing with respect to dis-arming Iraq?

In my opinion, I think we're taking the necessary steps against the leaders of Iraq. I was pleased that Bush was very clear in what he spoke about last night.

It's just a shame that force seems to be the only option at this point. Again, just my opinion.

Qwest.

[dolik]

I would have rather seen Saddam and his cabinet be kicked out of power. Obviously, by force - send some Special Ops units in there and just assasinate the top leaders or stage some revolutionary coup, like we usually do in South America.

That would've saved us time, money, human lives, and the embarassment of lacking international backing on the issue

With a budget deficit of $100 billion, it seems foolish to wage a war that will easily cost us just as much.

I am not anti-war at this point, since our troops are already there and it seems eminent...so now, of course, I fully support the American Army in the Gulf, and best of luck to them.

BUT...I think we could've done this whole thing without a full-out war. Of course, I don't want to wait 5-10 years more until Iraq builds enough biochemical weapons to make America exinct, but given our economic situation and the views of the international community, we should've saved the trouble/expense of sending in 300,000 troops. An elite unit of 100 professionals would've been enough.

To those that will start saying how hard it is to assasinate Saddam and how that does not guarantee that the regime will change, remember that no argument is flawless in this situation. But this seemed the most practical to me.

[djqwest]

I totally agree, with exception to what the rest of the world thinks of us at this point. I'm hoping in a way that Saddam does reveal any weapons of mass destruction but on the other hand I don't. If he does, it will prove to other countries that indeed we were correct in our findings but it will obviously have devastating effects on those over there.

Qwest.

Originally posted by dolik

I would have rather seen Saddam and his cabinet be kicked out of power. Obviously, by force - send some Special Ops units in there and just assasinate the top leaders or stage some revolutionary coup, like we usually do in South America.

That would've saved us time, money, human lives, and the embarassment of lacking international backing on the issue

With a budget deficit of $100 billion, it seems foolish to wage a war that will easily cost us just as much.

I am not anti-war at this point, since our troops are already there and it seems eminent...so now, of course, I fully support the American Army in the Gulf, and best of luck to them.

BUT...I think we could've done this whole thing without a full-out war. Of course, I don't want to wait 5-10 years more until Iraq builds enough biochemical weapons to make America exinct, but given our economic situation and the views of the international community, we should've saved the trouble/expense of sending in 300,000 troops. An elite unit of 100 professionals would've been enough.

To those that will start saying how hard it is to assasinate Saddam and how that does not guarantee that the regime will change, remember that no argument is flawless in this situation. But this seemed the most practical to me.