I can't say I view the invasion of Iraq with quite the same level of enthusiasm as W and Vice W Dick Cheney.

I completely agree that Saddam Hussein is a bad man. He's done some very bad things. He used weapons of mass destruction against people in his own country.

That's just mean.

By the way, when did we start calling big bombs "weapons of mass destruction"? It's a relatively new term. But there have been big bombs for more than 50 years. I guess it just sounds more sinister and ominous than "big bombs."

And how much stuff does a big bomb have to be capable of destroying before it can be called a weapon of mass destruction?

Is a Sidewinder or Scud missile a weapon of mass destruction? Or does it have to be a really big bomb like an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile? Because I don't think Saddam has any ICBMs. Or does it just have to be chemical, biological or nuclear?

But I digress.

Saddam truly is a bad man and his regime is quite repressive.

Back in 1991 we had to push him out of Kuwait after he invaded that neighborly little country for oil rights.

Remember when he told his troops to burn the oil wells on the way out?

And he hates America, so it is likely that he would help terrorists bent on destroying America.

Something needs to be done about Saddam, but I don't think invading Iraq is the thing to do. Right now.

First of all, if we do go after Iraq, there is no incentive for Saddam to behave.

As it is now, even if he did have a big bomb - which I am not fully convinced he does - he wouldn't use it or give it to a terrorist to use because he knows U.S. missiles would rain down on him like a spring shower.

On the other hand, if we invade his country, he just might be tempted to unleash some nasty stuff, if he has it.

It's the trapped animal syndrome. Back an animal into a corner and threaten it and it will likely try to bite you.

You may be able to avoid the bite, but the animal will try anyway.

Secondly, and probably most importantly, is the apparent lack of worldwide support for such an invasion.

Back in 1991, Saddam had invaded a neighboring country. It was pretty easy for countries all over the world to condemn that.

The United Nations went along with it. Frankly, pretty much every country in the world went along with it, including Arab countries.

We were launching planes and missiles from Saudi soil.

That's really handy if you want to invade Iraq - having a place nearby where you can amass some troops, planes and missiles.

I'm not so sure there are too many places like that this time around.

In fact, most of the Arab world is dead set against us invading Iraq right now.

Just this week the head of the Arab League, General Amr Moussa, warned a U.S. attack on Iraq would 'open the gates of hell' in the Middle East.

And the rest of the Arab League ministers, after talking about the Iraq issue for a couple days, issued a resolution registering their 'total rejection of the threat of aggression on Arab nations, especially Iraq.'

They also said that a threat to any Arab country was 'a threat to Arab national security.'

I just don't think it's good idea to enrage a large percentage of the Arab world right now. Arab terrorists really don't need any more motivation.

The Arab League told Iraq it needs to allow a resumption of U.N. arms inspections to show the world whether there are any violations.

And if there are, they need to be corrected. Of course Iraq claims it has no intention of arming itself with a big bomb.

Unfettered inspections would go a long way toward making the world - the U.S. included - a little less uneasy about Iraq.

If Saddam is obstinate and obstructionist, perhaps over time the sentiment in the Arab world will change. But for now, I don't think we're going to be launching too many missiles from Arab soil.

The rest of the world - except for Britain - also would like to see a measured response from the U.S.

In fact, a fair number of Europeans perceive the U.S. as a bit of a bully.

A recently completed survey shows 55 percent of Europeans believe that U.S. foreign policy is in part to blame for the 9/11 attacks.

Only 38 percent of Europeans view W's handling of foreign policy as "excellent" or "good," while 56 percent say it is "fair" or "poor." W gets much higher marks for his handling of terrorism (47 percent "excellent" or "good") and the war in Afghanistan (35 percent) than for his handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict (20 percent) or the situation in Iraq (21 percent).

Sixty percent of respondents in the six European countries surveyed would support a U.S. attack on Iraq, but only 10 percent would do so without U.N. approval and the support of allies.

There are plenty of oppressive regimes out there. North Korea, China, even our buddies in Pakistan aren't the most socially progressive folks in the world.

And we know all those guys have big bombs. So it almost makes it look like we have this thing against Arabs and that's just not a good sentiment to be spreading across the globe right now.

And as for Osama and Saddam, I can't help but think that if there was any link between the two we would have concrete evidence of it by now.

There probably have been legions of our most capable intelligence agents working on establishing that link since long before 9/11.

I know what the government tells us. I know Saddam is a bad man. But I just have a hard time swallowing the concept that some sort of big bomb event perpetrated by Iraq is imminent.

And I really don't think we should attack Iraq without the blessing of the U.N. and the support of the vast majority of our allies - including the ones in the Arab world.

I'm glad at least W said he wouldn't act without Congressional approval.

That's sure to bring a more balanced outcome.

It also gives W some political cover.

If something does go awry in the future, he can blame Congress for tying his hands. [[In-content Ad]]