If posts can contain something more insightful than slogans perhaps there can be some good debate here.
It would be especially helpful if voters would post the reasoning behind their votes.
I voted for option 4 because I feel the "this is all about the US wanting to take over the world's oil" argument is ridiculous. America has had numerous opportunities to have taken over the oil supply of many a nation due to an overwhelming military advantage, yet we have NEVER done so.
We had the opportunity after WWII when we were the sole nuclear power. What did we do with our unprecedented, one-sided power? We helped the world rebuild. Indeed, we helped our greatest enemies in the conflict, Germany and Japan, become economic powerhouses.
We had the opportunity after Desert Storm. Did we take advantage of the beating we dealt to the Iraqis then and press on to Baghdad? Did we take over Kuwait's oil fields which Saddam tried to destroy? No. We helped Kuwait put out the fires and then..... left.
Those of you on other threads (Candle, Madison, traderfut2000, bungrider, et al) who have posted that Bush is doing this solely to control the oil have an opportunity here to state your reasoning. Hopefully you will not avoid the issue as you have on those threads. If you do avoid it, we can then assume you have no argument. Your silence will indeed speak much louder than your empty slogans.
i'm an american and voted 4 also. obviously, there are many reasons for what bush wants to do. however, i would say the main reason is to prevent a man like saddam from getting too far ahead with his objectives.
as others have said, we learned from hitler. he was let loose for too long. if he was stopped sooner, maybe the terrible events he caused never would have happened. why take a chance with this asshole?
it's clear saddam does not like the USA, if someone is going to make a nuke and give it to someone else to use it on us, he'd definitely be a prime suspect. nevermind nukes, he has all his chemical and bio weapons, too. who does he plan on using them on? bush's #1 job is to protect his citizens.
saddam violated his agreements from the previous war. if the world lets him get away with that, then really, what meaning does any wartime agreement have?
he kills his own people and gives them poor freedom.
he does control some oil, which gives him something to bargain with. if we can let a better person control the oil, why not?
add it all up and ask yourself why the world should put up with saddam hussein?