Originally posted by SLY
If they aren't so sure how profitable the consequences of such a war could be , why are they going for it ?

As an outside viewer , I see that during the last decade Iraq was no threat to anybody , talking nicely on TV , complying with ALL the UN resolutions .

So why now ?

Saddam Hussein is clearly not complying with the UN demands, to say otherwise is to ignore a growing mound of evidence. The inspection teams want more time not because they're making any real progress, but because they can't say anything one way or another--they want time to make some kind of progress. Thus the history of the past decade repeats itself. The game of cat and mouse has been altered for a different playing field, but the spirit remains the same. Bottom line: the inspection teams have never said that Iraq is in compliance, inface they've said that Iraq is not complying and needs to do A LOT more. The issue before the UN is not if Iraq is in compliance or not, but weather or not action is justified yet. That is the disagreement. In fact, the only nation who's official standpoint is that Iraq is complying with the UN is Iraq itself. There is enough circumstantial evidence on the table now to show very clearly that Iraq is hiding something and the only logical conclusion is that they're hiding something that they're not allowed to have - weapons of mass destruction. And none of us have seen the sensitive intelligence yet!
Next key issue: The consequences for Saddam Hussein have always been that noncompliance will result in a continuation in the Gulf War ending with his removal from power. He is obviously not in compliance and he obviously has no intention of ever complying.

You said it's bec now will be easier than in the future ... That's not a good point and still sounds similar to the preemptive strikes bullsh*t.

It's a great point - The time is right. Saddam is not in compliance, he is an unequivically despicable person who has no business leading a nation, his people want him gone, and he is weaker than he will be if allowed to hold onto power. He could have put the UN demands to rest very easily many years ago, but he hasn't because that's not his goal. "But how can a nation ever really prove anything?" Well, the Ukrain did it, South Africa did it, North Korea does it when it feels like it; willing nations have never had a problem proving that they've disarmed. Waiting now only adds to the death toll.

I can tell you why now ... Bec Mr. Bush is so happy with his poor victory in Afghanistan (it will never become a complete victory till you get Bin Laden or make sure he's dead) , so he want to try his luck again in Iraq , so he might get a bigger victory , become more popular than ever , wins the next elections ... And wilingly ,his brother takes over from him after that .

His dad lost the election after a very successful Gulf War, and the Democrats are actually fielding some contenders with both intelligence, practical policies, and charisma. Bush's days in office are numbered - you should note that less than half of Americans would vote for Bush right now. Support for war in Iraq isn't directly support for Bush, you have to look at all the numbers, and all the statements being tossed around.
And Afghanistan is hardly a failure; An oppressive regime is out of power, a democratic government is shaping up, Al Quida is weakened, bin Laden is either dead or afraid to peek his head out of whatever rock he's hiding under, and most importantly, the Afghanis have their first real shot at peace in years. It won't be easy, but it's not like they don't have help this time.

He's gotta show the world real evidence to attack Iraq ... Something like discovering a hidden nuke or stuff like that , not sending Mr. Powell to the Security council to hear some clapping here and there.

I have yet to hear any reputable rebuttal of any information that Colin Powell presented to the UN. Not everybody agrees that it's enough, but all agree it's compelling. Well, a few suggest it could easily be fabricated, but if we were going to fabricate something, why not go for the gold and fabricate the "smoking gun" everybody is talking about?

It's war dude , real innocent people are gonna die there (from both sides) ... So why war for no good reason ?

There are plenty of good reasons, cheif amongst them is that not going to war will cost more lives than the war in question. 20 silent deaths is 20 times worse than 1 loud one. But for some strange reason, it's easier for people to accept the 20 quiet ones. And there lies the heart of the issue.