>I don't think anyone is >against disarming a mad >man. Rather, the majority >of the world realizes that >there are ways of doing it >without resorting to war.
And those ways have worked haven't they?
>Overwhelming evidence >suggests the inspections >were working just fine.
And what evidence is this? Saddam decided to destroy a few missles once we put 200,000 troops in his backyard?
Inspections have never worked.
>What give the U.S. the right >or moral authority to invade >another country by force when >it poses absolutely no threat >whatsoever, to our safety?
No threat whatsoever? you have got to be kidding me.
Saddam Hussein gives millions of dollars to the families of suicide bombers, but you seem to be under the impression that this isn't supporting terrorism. You seem to be under the impression the he'd never give any chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups because "they hate each other, Saddam isn't a religious leader". If they hated each other, and Saddam wasn't an Islamic extremist, or atleast a supportive of those who are, he wouldn't be giving millions of dollars to the families of Islamic extremists who blow up little children in Israel.
Get your head in the game.
Saddam is not only a threat to America, he is also a threat to the peace in the middle east. The same peace that Bush is trying to accomplish with the creation of a Palestinian state.
It's also important to keep in mind, that the Bush administration gave Saddam several choices, several ways out..Saddam chose this war, not Bush.
Look at the war right now on TV. What's going on? The US isn't mass bombing innocent civilians, in fact, they are going out of their way, risking their own safety in order to end this war without the use of this "shock and awe" campaign. More Americans have died thus far, doesn't that tell you anything?