While the White House intensifies pressure on the UN Security Council, the debate between the "conquer" and "contain" camps has divided the American public: a new poll shows that Americans are conflicted over whether the UN should fortify the inspections or condone war on Iraq.

"Conquer" advocates say that containment isn't working. War, they contend, would deliver democracy to the heart of Arabia - a liberation that would spread throughout the Middle East.

Yet the "containment" camp says that an invasion to "liberate" Iraq won't be viewed as such by either the liberated or their neighbors. Further, they say, though a murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein is more cunning than crazy. By the CIA's own admission, he is unlikely to use weapons of mass destruction unless he believes he can't escape personal annihilation. Deterrence and containment will work better and cost far less than conquest and long-term occupation of a notoriously fractious region.

• The U.S. was able to "contain" its rival nuclear super-power, the Soviet Union, for well over four decades through "mutually assured destruction."
  
  
• Robust inspections would cost $80 million - invasion and reconstruction, as much as $1.9 trillion.
  
  
• New cargo-scanning technologies, like the "smart border" program, allow quick and thorough inspections.

If our own intelligence suggests that Hussein would only use WMD if gravely threatened by the U.S., why light that very fuse? What promises do containment and long-term inspections hold?