I have avoided posting on this subject for 2 reasons...

1) The discussions tend to degenerate rapidly with each side painting the other as the most insane extremists that share some of their views.... ie "anti war people are just neo-socialists that hate america..." or "Pro war people are blood thirsty ignorants that just want to stomp on opposing small states"

2) I HAVE thought the whole thing through many times and cant say I have decided which is the lesser of two evils...

Neither side is supporting something "Good". The hawks are pushing for war- I think EVERYONE here agrees war is an evil.... The doves are pushing to let an evil destabilizing leader remain in place- this is an evil too.

If the sole question was "should we use military force to create a regime change in Iraq" my answer would be "yes"... BUT that is NOT the real question... there are other global issues that need to be addressed... we need to consider our allies and our relationship with them. We are the ONLY superpower, but if we want to have the influence in the world we need, and deserve, then we need allies. We have dione more to advance the quality of life for the world in the past 200 years than all the other countries combined. I firmly believe that if one country deserves to guide world policy it is the US- can anyone think of another country better suited to do so?

If we become arrogant and say "to hell with you all what can you do to stop us", well then we will foster resentment and other "friendly" countries will seek to obstruct us.

In a perfect world we would wipe out the Iraqi regime, as well as China's and North korea's and a few others... but we do also need to consider the rest of the world too...

Personally, I think assasination is a viable option... I would much rather put a bullet in saddams skull than kill a few hundred thousand hapless iraqi conscripts- for some reason that is seen as "bad form". I see it as the humanitarian thing to do... and when saddam is replaced and if that replacement is a monster, then kill him too...

Yes I know assasination is difficult, and risky... but given the 10's of billions war will cost do you think it would cost that much to arrange his death? Heck I bet for a few hundred million we could get the leaders of Iraq and North korea...

The main argument against this approach I have seen is that "if we assasinate their leaders then they might go after ours".... This assumes they have our ethics... If saddam thought he could kill our president dont you think he would jump at the chance? He already tried once on George's Daddy...

The soldiers in Iraq fight because they are forced too- in a war we will be killing Saddams slaves- lets just kill their master... that way the slaves and our enlisted men that volunteered and believe in what they are doing all get to live...

I hate war, but I do agree it is sometimes the lesser of two evils.... like WWII. But lets not rule out the quick and dirty of asasination- especially when it may save 100's of thousands of lives...

I will agree diplomacy with the insane is a waste of time... There IS no diplomatic solution to Iraq, Korea, or Islamic fundamentalists....

end of rant