>>>I think the whole legal authority for the 'no fly zones' was wrapped in that and that included more thoroughgoing intervention.
>>>
>>>But of course international 'authorization' - like God - is on the side of the most artillery <s>
>>>
>>
>>In this case it wasn't. France and Germany (most prominently) would not go along with UN authorization unless and until WMDs were found. When they were not found soon enough to suit the Bush administration, the U.S. invaded unilaterally.
>>
>>In hindsight -- which of course is always easy -- I think the "go slow" nations were proven wise.
>
>The 'go slow' nations were taking the stand that there was more money to be made in corruption of the "Oil for food" program and if push came to shove they always had the US and Israeli military to protect them from the consequences of Saddam really going off the rails.

You know I respect your knowledge of global politics, not to mention history, so I will give this more credence than I normally would. Do you really think Saddam was a threat to us or to Europe? What might he have done if he had gone off the rails? From my layman's perspective it seems like he was pretty well occupied, and perfectly satisfied, just hanging onto his power and money in Iraq. Didn't the long, unsuccessful war with Iran and the unsuccessful invasion of Kuwait disabuse him of any notions of being even a regional power? Or is that exactly what made him unstable and dangerous?