>>
>>One of the justifications that has been given is that an attack would be justified on the grounds of pre-emptive self defence. No-one really knows the state of Iraqs build up of weapons, so the threat may be imaginary. But from Iraq's point of view there are real threats openly & repeatedly being made, is it reasonable for them to be able to take pre-emptive action in self-defence ? (Or do the rules on self-defence work in one direction only).
>

How about an attack on Kuwait?

>I'd bet we know far more than you or I are aware of. Our remote drones can take pictures from around 60,000 feet with a clarity that would amaze you or me. We pretty much know where a lot of stuff is.
>
Doug;

Our U-2’s at 20 miles altitude can take a picture of you on the ground, and our satellites do a good job also. The probglem is that most of this stuff is underground.

I think a major mistake made by the "original Bush administration" was to not "complete the job the first time". Who knows if we will attack or not. I do not think we will but that is just a guess on my part. I think we are trying to put pressure on Iraq and "test the waters" to see how other nations react to these "suggestions" by the present Bush administration.

Tom