Should we attack, should we not attack? We have lost the support of most of Europe, Canada already has their 600 troops tied up with the war on terror, and about 30% of the US people are "undecided". About 2% of Republicans don't want us to attack Iraq, and 100% of Democrats want us to wait until after the November election. Domestically, there seems to be a growing appeasement movement out there that thinks Saddam Hussein isn't all that bad after all. Some appeasers are sticking their head in the sand while others are attempting to rewrite history.

So just what is so bad about Saddam? So, he's violated a few UN peacekeeping agreements that just happen to have his signature on them. Maybe he's killed a few hundred thousand Kurds, that is just a fraction of murders compared to such leaders as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Ghengis Kahn, Mau Tse Tung. Saddam isn't even in the Top 10. So, maybe he tried to have G.H.W. Bush assassinated, and perhaps he's funded a few terrorist attacks. That is no reason to hate the guy. And now, he's just doing a little R&D work on nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction. Just what does "mass destruction" mean anyway? It's not like he'll be able to take out an entire city or anything. Well, certainly no city larger than Topeka.

Saddam is very popular with his people. After all, he's been "president" for over 20 years, and he won the last election with 99% of the vote. Even though that is a common margin of victory for most dictators, it shows that democracy is working just fine in Iraq.

I agree with appeasement. We have no right to try to "topple" Saddam Hussein. I think we should wait until Saddam directly murders some Americans before we act. Lets pick a number. How about 50,000. Once Saddam murders at least 50,000 Americans, we'll attack. It's an easy attitude to have. As long as you aren't one of the 50,000.