I don't think the Iraqis know whats good for them, they are all brainwashed by their "leader". However my question is does he really have weapons of mass destruction? If so then I think war is the only solution at this point. Although I do not think we have enough evidence of that, but if they don't have these weapons then we have no right to go invade their country just because the leader is bad.

Lots of countries have "bad" leaders, are we going to invade them and install what other government the USA decides is best?

I would like the Bush administration to explain how they are more likely to find WMD (if they exist) under conditions of war than they are now. If they exist, we're doing exactly what is required to see to it they Saddam Hussein loses control of them.

I'm amused by the idea that Iraqis don't know what's good for them. They're not 5 years old, wanting to spoil their dinner with chocolate ice cream. Read this blog for a better perspective. As an anti-war type of girl, I'm certainly not Pro-Saddam. I don't think of myself as "coddling" him, that's for sure! *grin*

well, I don't think I agree with your interpretation of their logic - but I am getting rather tired of the "there are only 2 choices in this" arguments popping up everywhere - like our Prez saying "going to war is the last resort, but it's better than doing nothing" ---- um, did the National Security Council really only give him those two choices??

Actually, there are a lot of columnists saying Americans don't care about Iraqi citizens, otherwise they would be willing to go to war to rescue them from Saddam Hussein. Others argue that we're killing them with sanctions, so it would be better to have a quick, short war to topple Saddam Hussein, and then we could stop sanctions.