I'll take a shot at it.
We should not.
Saddam Hussein is a 6 foot tall turd. A waste of humanity. A burden to his people. A threat to his neighbors. A blight on US foreign Policy.
But until we can make a case before the world that we have adiquate cause to remove him from power, I do not think that we should. If you want to talk about further funding (since we are already spending tax dollars on this) Iraqi oppostion groups, then I'm for it. If evidence surfaces that connects Al Quada to Iraq, or Iraq to nuclear weapons, then I'm for military intervention. But as of yet, we have not seen any such intelligence. It is entirely possible that it exists, and is being held by the Administration (and possibly, but give the leakage not likely, the congress). But that evidence will need to be presented to our key allies (Nato, perhaps some of the moderate gulf states) in order for us to move forward on that.
I have a very conservative foreign policy outlook. I'm a big believer in power politics and the deterrence model. However, (and this is where I deviate from my conservative cohorts) I believe that our actions should be tempered by the opinions of our allies. When Germany says "no thank you" to participating in any operations, I don't think of it as "You Yanks are on your own, thanks for the Marshall plan, but kiss my ass!" I think of it as "Whoa, buddy, don't you think you've had enough to drink?" I mean, when the Brits are saying "Dude, give me the keys" I think it's time to pay attention. I'm not saying that every time we want to act, we have to ask Djibuti how they feel about it, but I do think that we need to consider our actions long and hard when, for example the Brits and the Germans don't agree. (I don't worry too much about the French and the Russians when it comes to Iraq though. I belive that there are money issues there that will forever keep our views apart there).
Also, If we were to take out Saddam, I would personally like to see us stick around and help build a democratic regime in his place. It will be one of the most difficult undertakings we've ever pursued, but if we choose to let them swing in the wind, then I don't see why we would do this. I don't believe that any autocratic ruler stuck between Iran (with an active nuclear program) and Israel (with an actual nuclear arsenal) would choose to not pursue nuclear weapons on their own without substantial security garuntees from the US, and I don't think that we are prepared to provide that (although I could be wrong, but then if we would enter into sucn an agreement, why not spend the time money and effort trying to build a democracy?)
In closing (and I know I'm rambling here) I think that there are too many unanswered questions right now. What makes Iraq more important for regime change than say, Myanmar or Pakistan? Will the US be able to get support from at LEAST the UK? What happens after Saddam is in a box? Once we have a few more of these (and of course "we" the public won't even know until after-the-fact, unless we present the evidence to the Security Council, A-la the Cuban Missile Crisis") then I will reasses my position.
-Sikboy
