Should U.S. go to war?   By Tina Trenkner Co-Editor in Chief       According to Resolution 1441, created by the United Nations, Iraq must comply with the U.N.'s requests or "face serious consequences." Yet some want to start war with Iraq regardless of what the U.N. requests. Others want to wait to see how Iraq responds to the U.N. People who hold dissenting opinions concerning the war are grouped as hawks or doves.      Those who support taking military action against Iraq are called hawks because they believe that there is no choice but to go to war with Iraq. Iraq has violated U.N. resolutions calling for destroying its collections of weapons of mass destruction, preventing creation of new dangerous weapons and cutting ties from terrorist organizations. Iraq has also denied the U.N. the full and unobstructed opportunity to certify that the country is following its resolutions. Most recently Iraq has refused to destroy its long-range missiles as ordered by U.N. Chief Inspector Hans Blix.      Hawks believe that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and will use them to devastate its enemies and its own people. They also believe that the only way to secure world peace is to remove Saddam Hussein from power and create a new government. The war might also prevent any future terrorist acts.      Interest groups such as Americans for Victory and Patriots for the Defense of America, along with nations such as the U.S., United Kingdom, Bulgaria and Spain support a strike on Iraq.      Those against a possible war are called doves. Doves do not support war because they believe there is no concrete evidence that Iraq wants to destroy its own country and other nations. They believe that there are more peaceful ways to deal with Iraq like letting U.N. inspectors continue to make sure that Iraq is not violating any resolutions it is bound to uphold. U.N. Security Council members France, Germany and Russia are calling for four more months of inspections.      Doves believe a war would cause other nations to look upon on the United States unfavorably if the U.S. strikes without the backing of other countries and/or the U.N. Some also believe that an attack by the U.S. would create the possibility of counteractions from terrorist groups.      The Win Without War coalition, which includes Greenpeace, NAACP, and Sierra Club, along with nations including France, Germany and Russia support peaceful means of dealing with Iraq.      YES! Student quotes. (I don't think they should be in the article b/c students are not experts on the issue.)      Junior Derek Pezotti says "There is evidence that he has not cooperated with the U.N. We need to do something about it.      Senior Josh Foster says "We should sent the CIA to kill Saddam. And we should use good agents this time.      Freshman Cristal Salisbury says "No matter what, Iraq will harm us, and we need a defense mechanism."      NO! Student Quotes:      Sophomore Kari Louchez says "We're just going to kill Iraq's innocents in a revenge against terrorism. Two wrongs don't make a right."      Junior Jason Yang says "It's a waste of people and a waste of weapons."      Senior Meredith Bach says "It seems pointless. He's had the weapons for so long and he has not done anything with them. It just seems like a repeat of the Gulf War."           [Front page] [Remembering Ryan Boslet] [Tensions Soar with North Korea] [Showdown with Saddam] [Hawks Versus Doves] [Columbia Calamity] [Shallow's knowledge goes deep] [Pop group brings 'colorz' to CHS] [Alpharetta: from grass to gravel] [Apollo at the hooch]