Hi Jim,

While I don't disagree with everything you write, there is one portion of your text that I do disagree with. The messages that were intercepted giving the Iraqi troops permission to use WMD were REAL MESSAGES. They did exist because I personally know someone who saw the messages after translation. Now, whether or not that was just a fear tactic on behalf Saddam (very possible) to hopefully terrorize our troops or prevent the U.S. from attacking due to fear of the use of WMD I cannot say.

I also am not in agreement that the unanimity of the U.N. had anything to do at all with Iraq finally letting the inspectors do their job. Afterall, the U.N. passed numerous resolutions that had no effect at all. I personally believe it was the presence of the troops that spurred Saddam to allow the inspectors to proceed.

Having written that, I do not believe that there was ever any hope of finding WMD in Iraq. Not because they didn't exist, but simply because the Iraqi government had too much ability to prepare in advance of every inspection and to control the locations and times.

What is really sad is that the massing of the troops went beyond spurring Saddam into compliance and escalated into WAR. I know there were many reasons for it (the fear of the use of WMD, the weather, the cost of our soldiers being there, and also the fear that Saddam would get the WMD relocated to another country such as Syria which ocurred anyway) but I'm not so sure these days whether it was justified or not.

There are other examples of preemptive strikes in history. A so-called non-violent example would be the annexation of Hawaii. Imagine WWI if Hawaii belonged to the Japanese like it almost did. Additionally, look at Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's 1981 air strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor that was being built by Saddam Hussein. The Israelis claimed that under no circumstances would they allow an enemy to develop WMD that could possibly be used against them. After the strike, which caught everyone including Iraq by surprise, Israel was condemned by the United Nations.

That event caused immediate criticism, but but it wasn't ten years later when the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War ocurred. It is possible that that act of preemption made all the difference. How would the Gulf War would have played out if Saddam had the WMD that Israel took out ten years earlier via their preemptive strike? It is possible that the war might not have even taken place and Kuwait might still be in Iraqi hands. The leverage over the world Saddam Hussein would have have would have changed the scope of the conflict completely.

I think there are times when it is more an issue of government leaders managing risk -- not only the risk today but the possible future risk. I am not so sure these days whether or not the future risk to America was sufficient to justify military force in Iraq as I was in the past when the now-considered misleading information was passed out. I am also not so sure that the information was entirely misleading. I hope eventually we find out regardless of which way it turns out. I believe that we as citizens should have sufficient knowledge (as well as our leaders) to adequately determine whether or not we support a policy our country practices and these days it appears that our land of 'free exchange of information and ideas' is not so freely sharing afterall.




>>Actually, I don't think the French ever said they didn't think Iraq had WMDs. The French wanted to give inspections more time, although the only reason Iraq started to cooperate with the inspections was because U.S. and British troops were massing on the Kuwait border.
>
>Possibly it was the actual massing of troops that "convinced" Iraq to allow inspections, though I'm quite certain that it was the unanimity at the U.N. that was the deciding factor.
>
>In any case, with the benefit of hindsight, giving the Inspectors more time was the correct option TO AVOID A WAR. ASSUMING that U.S.-pronounced reasons for war - WMDs with possible imminent use against the U.S. or others AND direct links to Al-Quaida - were honest and legitimate.
>
>It still sticks in my craw that CENTCOM, on two separate days, reported communication intercepts of authorization to Iraqi troops to use WMD. Obviously they were so sure that some would be found quickly that they never expected to get caught on that bit of propaganda. It was OBVIOUSLY totally FALSE. Gotta wonder what was actually true where CENTCOM was concerned!!!
>
>In any case I do hope that JR's suggestion to sit back, take a breather and work out better ways for the future is taken. BUT with President Bush declaring that the U.S. will never wait for a permission slip before warring, I fear there's little hope.
>
>cheers
>
>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>We aren't adversaries; prior to the attack, all was speculation and we just speculated differently.
>>>
>>>It went bad when things got wound up into an issue of national integrity/relationships/antagonism which it should not have done.
>>>
>>>Dare I ... oh, why not. Put yourself in the position of the French(!) They refused to join the attack because they were concerned about the provided intelligence about WMD and preferred their own intelligence that said there weren't any. For this they were branded swine, retreat monkeys and all the rest of it. Feeling good?
>>>
>>>Now consider the French's behaviour now that no WMD have been found. Do you hear any gloating or "told you so?" What would you have done?
>>>
>>>And consider how pleased you'd be to be told "our boys are dying, so to make up for not joining the attack, give us some of your troops now to work under our command."
>>>
>>>OK, end of empathy session! I'm not trying to prove anything, just trying to suggest that sometimes people aren't as demonic as they are presented.
>>>
>>>IMHO the free west needs to take a big breath, sit down together, and just remember that every time we bicker amongst ourselves, the real enemies out there get to laugh at us.