Hi Lindy,

In a nutshell, if we don't take Saddam very soon in the next years ahead we will likely wake up to a nuclear detonation in all our capital cities simultaneously -that effectively would end America as surely as the old nuclear armageddon feared with the former soviet union.

We can't secure our borders.

We can't be everywhere at once.

We can't recover from such a hit.

The only thing we can do is pro-actively pursue those who have a vendetta against the US who are also developing nuclear weapons.

Sure other nations have nuclear weapons - but most of those nations are not ruled by megalomaniacs as sole dictatorships.

Scowcroft has interests in the middle east much as Kissinger is defending the status quo where Israel is our sole dependant to whom which we funnel billions yearly to uphold their "quasi-democracy" in the middle east. When Saddam goes - and a US puppet democracy is installed - there is a very good chance (85%+) that all our resources formerly used to defend Israel from Saddam - will now go into our budget for sustaining and supporting the fledgling "quasi-democracy" started in Iraq.

This is why not everyone is on board - the money flow for many will be interrupted.

Imagine how the world will be when one of the world's major middle eastern oil fields is being held by an interest beholden to the US. Oil prices will lower slightly (not drastically) and the US economy will rebound quickly - and development and modernization will take place at a breakneck scale in Iraq.

Iraq in 20 years could clearly be the shining star of the middle east and a role model for all the other nations around it.

No, toppling Saddam is in our and the world's best interests. It may not be pretty - war never is. But we have a welcome invitation from the Kurds and many other oppressed peoples who will gladly shake off the Saddam nightmare.

Heck we toppled Hitler - and Hitler never called us "the great satan" or could even reach our cities easily - much less nuke them.

SDAI-Tech1