Is war inevitable at this point?

Hi everyone...

Do you feel that war in inevitable at this point? Or, can you foresee any realistic set of circumstances that might avert war? By realistic I don't mean situations such as Saddam voluntarily leaving Iraq for exile...I don't believe this is a possibility. More germane are situations such as Saddam destroying his missiles and Hans Blix reporting that Iraq is showing "substantive" compliance. Would the aforementioned by sufficient to avoid war? Or, is it necessary for us to remove Saddam and affect change regardless of what transpires over the next week? Are we committed and going or is there still some uncertainty? Any thoughts?

Taking into account Saddam's attitude, and Bush's desire to rid the earth of Saddam, I'd say that the odds of our not going to war are roughly a googleplex to one.

Greg

The one compelling reason Bush gave in his speach to the U.N. was that if the body was to have any value in preserving world peace, it must enforce its actions. I can't help but agree with that logic and Bush made a good arguement for multi-lateralism in making the U.N. live up to its mandates. Of course the U.N. behavior pretty much approaches the effectiveness of the League of Nations with Kadaffi in charge of Human Rights, and ten years of failed Iraqi disarmament.

So Bush now appears bent on going it alone and that seems to be our new foriegn policy. I don't like it, I think the trajectory we now are on is wrong, but so was the previous one. Perhaps it is a no-win.

If war does happen, I think that is what will shape how the U.S. is percieved in the future. Not that we went to war with Iraq, but that we decide what is in our interest and the U.N. be damned. I think for this reason, it seems inevitable and the world and the Mid-east will be a less stable place for Americans for the foreseable future. I think we get the opposite of what we are aiming for in terms of security.

I also think Bush is also assuming that in the event of war we will be hit with chem and bio weapons which will vindicate his choice, but it could leave a lot of egg on his face if Sadaam doesn't react as expected. Seems like a risky policy move to me.

Though no U.S. administration (R or D) would ever do it, I think we should broker a trade off, Saddam gives up his power in exchange for Isreal living up to U.N. resolution 242 (requiring the formation of a Palestinian state). Yes it would make Sadaam a hero, but it would have the same effect as removing him foreceably without the body count. More importantly, instead of alienating islamic extremists to want to kill americants perhaps they would see our actions in the Mid-East as more in their interests as well.

I realize I am way naive on how this all works, but I think I trust my gut better than I trust our Presidents.

I realize this would never happen, but that's what i would do if the Supreme Court elected me President.

...and you never will.