We've had a lot of discussion of late on the Iraq situation. In another thread, a member asked "Why don't they get it?", wondering why people don't get their viewpoint on Iraq. I think it's because we're really not fully understanding what the "other side" is saying... and maybe we're not really listening. So, let's find out what we're really thinking. What I'd like to propose is this: we use this thread, not to aruge who's right or wrong, but to come up with a statement of belief/arguement as to what each side (or all sides involved) believes to be true. So go ahead and argue as to whether individual points should or should not be added to each side's "statement of belief", but don't try and debate your side against the other. First we have to decide what the "sides" are, along with some questions to consider. For this discussion, I'd like to suggest: <b>Attack Iraq!</b>: We should attack Iraq because... We should ignore other options because... Defeating Iraq would/will... After defeating Iraq, I see this happening... <b>Middle Road</b> There may be reasons to attack Iraq. They are... There are concerns which should preclude attacking Iraq. They are... Not attacking Iraq could lead to... Attacking Iraq could lead to... Other options... <b>Don't Attack!</b> We shouldn't attack Iraq because... We should use other options because... Leaving Iraq alone will lead to... If we leave Iraq alone, I see this happening... Comments, thoughts, and additional "sides" are welcome!