[Colorado Doug]

Sometimes those who do not learn from history are not only doomed to repeat it, but are just doomed.

I nominate this for quote of the day.

[Jewels1091]

Good grief, a voice of reason in the wilderness!

[VaBthang4]

Proverbs 21:1
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD ; he directs it like a river wherever he pleases.

The Iraqis arent gonna be able to get out of this no matter what they do. Long before Nebuchadnezzar ever strolled past the hanging gardens, Saddam Hussein and his Baathists were scheduled to be dispatched by George W. Bush and the US Military.

[marron]

The nuclear armament issue is an important one, but it is not the central one.

Lots of countries have nukes. Lots more are eventually going to have them. Possession of a nuke is not a crime. Possession of a nuke by someone who could conceivably pass it on to a third party for use against the US is the issue. The consequences of a miscalculation on either side, us failing to see it coming, Saddam gambling he could get away with it, would be so terrible that we simply won't risk it.

This is why, although we regret that India has nukes, we have no intention of invading. India would not pass them to terrorists for use against us. Israel, same answer. Pakistan, under the present government would not. But, to be clear, an coup in Pakistan that would place its nukes under Islamist control would trigger a lightening invasion by the US. We have already planned for it, and would not hesitate to pull the trigger.

The problem, then, is not the weaponry. It is "who" is commanding it. It is not about nukes, it is about Saddam.

And inspections do not solve that problem. Sooner or later, the inspectors must finish their work and go home, and when they do, we are left with Saddam in command of an army as large as all of Europe's armies combined. And several thousand engineers and technicians still working on his nuclear weapons program. You see, if the inspectors can certify that, at a shapshot in time there is no nuclear weapon, they will have left intact his nuclear armament research and design staff.

Were the inspectors planning to kill his designers? Blowing up a few warheads while leaving his experts only sets him back months. If we cannot destroy his nuclear R&D, the logical alternative is to remove the master of this ship.

In the end, its not about nukes, its about Saddam. Its not about finding an incriminating document in some dumpster somewhere. Anyone can read his career and know what he will do in the end, with or without nukes. If, knowing this, we flinch at dealing with him now, when we have the window of opportunity to do it, and a leader fully prepared to face the risks involved, and an army trained and prepared and positioned to do the job, then we have learned nothing from the past.

The inspections gambit is merely a ploy to delay us, and to tie our hands. If they are successful, they will be gone in three months. And we will be left with Saddam.

[The Great Satan]

If the country does not possess 'weapons of mass destruction,' then it has nothing to fear from UN inspectors, whatever the tasks they are called upon to perform.

Iraq has nothing to fear from weapons inspections, who will find nothing -- just as they found nothing the first time. The song-and-dance over the weapons inspectors is a passion play for the sake of world opinion. Iraq can balk for a while, then capitulate, so Bush can look tough (fine by Saddam), and Saddam can play defiant victim. Then the inspectors go in, they can't find anything, Iraq is vindicated, Saddam wins again. Just like last time around.