Hi Tracy,

>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 sure have to express extreme surprise at that, but if it was seen the so be it.
I'd wonder more at some black-humour on the part of Iraqi troops, along the lines of 'OK boys, go ahead and use those WMD that the U.S. says we have. Who wants to ask them where they are' or something along those lines.

>
>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.

No, I don't think so. Unanimity is a rare thing in the U.N., actually, but more importantly, this unanimously passed resolution had TEETH. I do agree, though, that the mobilization of U.S. troops DID make the teeth far more credible.
We'll never know now, but I think that Saddam would have been emasculated to the point of insignificance by the Inspection "process" that I am sure would have become more and more demanding (all with world approval) to the point of Saddam having little real power left.

>
SNIP
>
>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.

I have no real problem with judicious use of "preemption" and the examples you cite and others I can think of are fine with me once facts/motives became known.

>
SNIP
>
>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.
>
SNIP
Historically, it seems to me, *current* (as in: Spain at one time, U.K. at another time, USSR/USA yet another time and U.S. today) world powers only make a mess of things when they tamper with other countries' internal politics. Propping up bad regimes, deposing/assassinating leaders or war all end up differently than planned. Saddam was once heavily propped up.

But, certainly, the citizens ought to be sufficiently informed as to be able to support a plan or not. To do so, though, they need the straight good in the first place!
And it sure looks like, not just in the U.S. but also in Canada and U.K. and who knows where else, citizens have far less freedom to exchange ideas/information than they did pre-9/11. And that is not good.

cheers