1. Because he really would rather have UN backing. However, he is prepared to do what NEEDS to be done to end 12 years of games...even if the UN
2. Kuwait has "first hand" experience of the threat Saddam poses to his neighbors. The other nations have allowed their dislike of the US to
outweigh the threat Saddam poses to his more moderate Arab neighbors.
3. There is no direct proof of this no, but the threat is certainly there. After all, if he did get rid of some of them, chances are he did it at a
4. When the inspectors were there before, there were certain weapons tagged. These same weapons are no nowhere to be found. The thinking is, that
when Saddam finally is forced to account for where they went, they will then be found.
5. Because Bush has so far failed to provide adequete proof of the terror link, beyond sponsoring suicide bombers. The better way (imho) would have
been to justify it more as finally ending Saddam's flagrant continued violations of each and every resolution against it.
6. The UN cared not for Afghanistan, so there was little fuss. Iraq on the other hand, is a much higher profile case, and the UN already had quite an
investment in the outcome, and thus, it's approval was sought.
7. Actually, in my home state, Charlie Crist, the Attourney General, has done just that, and so far (at least in this state), been able to keep gas
fairly stable. However, there is also the issue in Venezuela (where we get a lot of oil from), which also impacted this, so they're a little off the
8. Because we were the ones who pushed for the resolution in the first place. Again, we just want to force Saddam to live up to the agreements he
made after the Gulf War. We have a vested interest to make sure the agreements are honored.
9. It will not, but it will serve as a preventative measure to keep more out of their hands, to eliminate a wealthy supporter of terrorism, and
eliminate Iraq's harboring of such terrorists.
10. Once the outcome is victory, yes, the decline is likely to halt...though this is more a question for Greenspan
11. Interesting question, and one I've not heard before. However, having lived with arabs, you must understand that many are still fairly nomadic,
and live in rural areas...and as such are pretty partial to their guns. Saddam knows he has nothing to fear from them, but more from educated people
in cities (who are less apt to buy them).
12. If any citizen (Iraqi or not) raises arms against an invading force, they are defending themselves...not terrorists. They are fighting miltary
men and targets, not civilians.
13. Most likely, there are various legal reasons involved here, at least until it is officially a battlezone....
14. The key phrase here, is "removed from power", not necessarily killing him. The US is forbidden to assassinate other heads of state. Unlike
Saddam, sometimes Yasser has been moderated through diplomatic means. Of course, currently, he is no longer taken seriously, after finally being
revealed to be the terrorist we all knew he was. We're content to let Isreal deal with Yasser.
15. Yes it would, but I doubt there is such info. After all, even Bush has stated that with Iraq, it is more about terrorism in general, not just the
sponsors of 9/11.
16. The move was purely diplomatic. We were just playing nice for the international community, as we certainly could fly one anytime we wanted
17. Because NK doesn't have the means to reach those targets, thus, it is seemed as the bluff that it is. We know, and they know, that if we did
attack their facilities, there wouldn't be anything left to launch at the US, even if they could reach the target. Iraq on the hand, has a certain
track record of lobbing missiles into Isreal, Saudi, etc. and other neighbors, thus it is more a viable threat.
18. I think they would be quite willing. Knowing a few Iraqis who made it out myself, there is a certain climate of fear of Saddam there. With that
fear gone, I feel confident the Iraqi people will come around and do what's in their best interests. No, they will not have to relinquish their
weapons, I'm sure that a goal is to keep the Iraqis happy after Saddam is deposed.
19. No, and it is not a reason this time either. The citing of Saddam using these weapons on his own people is used more as an example of his
barbarism, and willingness to use these weapons and not just stockpile them.
20. Yes, I think there will be peace in the region (if for no other reason that any upstarts will quickly realize that they are in danger of losing
power, and likewise being deposed). I think there will be diplomatic repercussions, but I think that Iraq at least will be a better place. Of
course, then there is NK. There, there will not be peace, at least not for long. Kim will obviously have to go, and then re-unification. I don't
think it will be as messy as people think, but it will likely take the next couple of years to come to fruition.