Re: Mass destruction and killing.....
I voted yes for several reasons, the main one being that Saddam is a horrible, horrible excuse for a human being and needs to go. No, I don't want to see our ground troops go in and risk their own lives and no, I don't want to see innocent civilians hurt or killed (contrary to popular belief). Personally, I think we should get rid of that executive order that says our country can't assassinate heads of state. I mean, I understand the reasoning behind why it was drafted to begin with, but I would much rather send in a small, elite group of soldiers, armed to the teeth, and let them go after Saddam and his pals. Less risk of mass destruction.
Secondly, it's not like we're "rushing" in to anything. We've been dealing with this for over a year. We've gone to the U.N. and stated our case. We've made the point that the Security Council drafted a resolution that Iraq HAD to follow to the letter, they haven't done that, and the resolution stated that actions would follow if Iraq didn't agree. By now, Saddam and Osama are probably cozied up somewhere in the deepest, most fortified bunker known to man, and able to withstand a few nuclear weapons dropped on their heads. Kind of like cockroaches.
So now that we've found weapons that Iraq isn't supposed to have, and we've shown they've been up to things they had no business doing, is the U.N. going to stick their heads in the ground and pretend nothing's wrong? What good is a Security Council if they're not going to back up what they say? They're not doing a real great job of it by looking at the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans, etc. There is NO REASON for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to exist in Iraq, in the Middle East, or anywhere on the globe for that matter. And would we rather get Saddam now, or wait until he's launched weapons toward Israel or some other country?
IMO, this has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with getting rid of people who want no part of peace and global harmony. Another reason why I could bi**h-slap the French. For a country that claims they want peace, they're certainly insistant on keeping Saddam in power in Iraq. But that's another rant....
These terrorist guys don't want to talk, they don't want to negotiate, and they don't want to cooperate. They just want to fight. So I say, we give them something to gnaw on for a while.
urple;font-family:georgia;font-size:x-small;">There are so many bad leaders all over the world who torture and abuse their citizens. No one here is arguing that Saddam is a bad man. He's evil. But if we start ousting bad leaders, we are going to have to hit Africa and start ousting all the dictators there (Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Liberia...), not to mention some countries in Central America, and, oh, hey! Let's not forget China and North Korea! Where does it stop? 
</span>
