>So you push more of your citizens into this buffer area.

I don't agree with that either. But the bottom line is that all you seem to look at is Israeli actions after they were attacked.

>...which (home) was carved off the land which was theirs for the last fourteen centuries. So this becomes a story of "who started this", which may extend to unrecorded history.

Israel was created by the same UN you seem to support.

>Oh, so we have valid and invalid votes in the UN. Didn't know that.

I don't put a lot of faith in the votes of countries that aren't democracies. Do you?

>I said "best". Can't have that each time.

No, you can't. We were hoping for Saddam to be overthrown internally after the 1991 Gulf War. Didn't happen. Now we are taking the next best action.

>Which was the first time? Iran? Wasn't he an ally of (and backed by) the US at the time?

Yes, and a bad mistake on our part. So, you blame the US for that too?

>The question is isn't two times enough for him? Hasn't he been severely slapped last time? And keep in mind that Iraq is a secular state, unlikely to assume a jihad as the main line of the state politics. Unless sufficiently provoked, of course.

You would have thought that after the Iraq vs. Iran war. His country suffered horribly. But he went right back at it, invading Kuwait, then bombing Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Who said anything about a jihad? But we are his enemy, and anyone who thinks he doesn't want to strike back at us is seriously mistaken.

>I specially like the idea that a country under an open threat of war should begin preparing its defenses by disarming.

It's pretty simple... disarm, or we with our allies will do it for him.

>Not that I like Saddam - back in '96/97, when we were rallying against Milosevic, the chant of the day was "Slobo, Sadame" (Sloba, you Saddam"). It's just that I think this war has no good reason.

And wouldn't you say they are better off without him?

Chris McCandless
Red Sky Software