To my knowledge this has only happened ONCE which doesn't make it the norm or a standard practice. Also, it was not the first tool that came to mind - or have you forgotten the 12 UN sanctions over a period of 13 years? Yeah waiting 13 years before military action was unheard of...


>Agreed. Historically military action has been a tool of last resort, when diplomacy fails. The past few years in the U.S. it has seemed like the first tool that comes to mind. Our first response to any foreign crisis is to decide whether or not to send in troops.
>
>>Well I'm not advocating doing nothing. I'm advocating using economic and political pressure rather than the rather blunt tool of military action. As to controlling Israeli hotheads I think they can do that themselves.If they couldn't we would have had their tanks in Damascus or cairo years ago.
>>
>>>>Oh thank god. The state the middle east is in isn't as bad as it would have been. Thats nice Charles that you can justify the mess we have made with "what might have been". Actually effective sanctions and political action where working but weren't exciting enough for the men in cowboy hats.
>>>>
>>>I think you are mischaracterizing what I said. I said we know the consequences of what happened, we don't know the consequences that would have unrolled hat another course been taken. i'm not justifying anything, I'm only saying it was analogous in that you had Saddam talking big and having a history of attacking Israel. That is not a recipe for long-term peace.
>>>
>>>"Do nothing" is a nice way to absolve onself from responsibility for anything, but there are still consequences. Things were going in a bad direction in 2002. We don't know where that would have led 6 years later. Two things are fairly certain : the UN would have been useless and the Israelis wouldn't have hesitated to do what they thought they needed to do.
>>>
>>>In hindsight, it might have been a much better idea to instigate another Iran/Iraq war instead of taking on the responsiblity of confronting each individually. Would have been quite disruptive to the region but may have been a lot better for us (yeah, I know how much I'll get flamed for this and Yoko Ono will probably cancel my invite to the Hamptons, but hey, I'm bored today.)
>>>
>>>>>No, I was thinking more in terms of Saddam's bombast which had convinced the world and his own general's that he had some very nasty stuff. Israel takes out suspected weapons facilities somewhere in Iraq, Iraq shoots *anything* at Israel (never know what is on the warhead) and Israel decides to put an end to the problem once and for all. Probably not Baghdad, but certainly a wider Middle East war that would have been far more destructive than what actually happened in 2003 and since.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> but there is also a chance that it forestalled another thread unreeling in which Baghdad would now be glowing in the dark or would look like the surface of the moon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm a bit surprized on the location:
>>>>>>I can easily imagine glowing spots somewhere in the wild if Saddam had started up WMD development hidden "out there" and no reaction from other countries happened. A Poe-inspired "purloined WMD factory" right in Baghdad I see as highly improbable, so for Baghdad to influence global heat statistics you probably speculate not on a surgical strike but massive (retaliation?) strike. As I don't see Israel trying to invade Iraq directly via Jordania, Syria or airlifting that scenario would as I see it only happen if Israel missed the right opportunity and retaliated to the gassing of Tel Aviv or Haifa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While I realize that Israel is automatically backed into a corner by their location they are too dependant on others to start with a massive first strike IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>thomas