Who's at fault here?

I don't think anyone has proof of the WOMDs but rather a hunch. I think Iraq has WOMDs and I think the US and UK don't have much more than I do to back up their positions.

If they had solid evidence they'd have done something with it when they started losing the war momentum (when Iraq accepted inspections etc).

I think Craven has the right of it. There may well be some WOMDs of a chemical nature. There is probably no clear evidence of this or we'd have seen it by now. That being said, lack of evidence apparently means nothing to the Prez and his cronies. We'll go in anyway. All for oil and some twisted vision of a New American Empire.

What frosts me is, in the rush to dance to the drumbeat of war, we've apparently forgotten all about the true perpetrators of 9/11, Al Qaeda. And North Korea, who may already possess nukes, or at least has the capability to produce several quickly, along with a history of selling arms to just about anybody, gets a talking to.

I think North Korea is being dealt with correctly. I do not think a harder stance against NK is a good idea.

Re: Iraq, if they had evidence they'd demand that Iraq end the specific programs and launch war if they refused. I don't think they'd have let inspections get underway if they had solid evidence.

which, at least, implies that there is an agenda other than Iraq having WOMD.

I don't think WOMDs is the only concern. I think regime change appeals to some of the administration members regardless of WOMDs.

I don't buy the oil theory though.

Craven, That may be true, but the administration keeps changing why Iraq is a danger. First, they have WOMD; but the UN weapons inspectors can't find any. Second, they had relations with al Qaida, but there's no proof. Third, Saddam is a menace it its people, the surrounding countries, and world peace. Perhaps, but that doesn't justify a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. c.i.

I've long held that preemptive is a dangerous strategy and should oly be employed when it's certain to eb preempting SOME attack. The possibility of an attack is present bewteen the relations of every country and a bit more certainty than possibility (and in this case a "probably" hasn't been established) is needed to justify preemptive strikes IMO.

There is no sunstantial case for a significant alliance between Al Quaeda and Iraq that I am aware of. That is not being used as a casus belli by any proponents of the war.

The case for WOMDs is Sadaam's past but I don't think anyone has established the locations etc. I believe Sadaam has them but yes, it hasn't been proved yet and I am wary of war on those terms (for the effect it would have on geopolitics, not the war. Wars are interesting if I may be so crass).

I'm now thinking if Saddam has the WOMD that we seem to know he has (images of piles of cannisters have now been flashed before us) that he's likely buried them in some remote part of the desert. How he would do this undetected and in a way to retrieve them quickly is anyone's guess.

Hiding it is one thing I think is within his ability but I do not think these weapons can be deployed with the inspectors crawling around. Therefore I contend that the inpectors being in Iraq make for the safest situation. I don't think Sadaam would like indefinite inpections and think we have the luxury of waiting him out. I strongly doubt any attack from Sadaam while there are inspectors and if we put our weight against a policy of inpectors or war we would appease the peace camp (they wouldn't mind inspections but would be wary of what triggers war, so we make it clear that as long as the UN inpectors feel Sadaam is cooperating then the status quo would be maintained) and maintain a stituation that plecludes Sadaams use of weapons and puts the ball in his court.

We are already saying that Sadaam has the choice for war or peace. This is doubted by many and if we make it clear that cooperations with inspectors removes the war option there would be little argument that he has the power to avoid war (right now I think there is a good chance that Sadaam has few chaces of avoiding a war, even if he puts his mind to it).

of course i am generalizing and probably making much ado about nothing however: this morning i turned on the local t.v. 6 am news and heard this comment "Blix says no WOMD found in Iraq" and it was followed by what appeared to be ad lib comment "The Bush people must be disappointed" which indicated to me that us out here in "fly over" country are not listening to the Sabre rattling-drum beating so constant on the CNN-Fox News etc. but i am naive.

It would matter how much patience the US administration has to continue with the UN weapon's inspections. I'd like to see them there for the next twenty years. By then, Saddam will probably be gone. c.i.

... which certainly would be much cheaper and with less casualities than a war!

Exactly! c.i.

Does Saddam have WMD's ? If biological and chemical weapons are considered WMD's the answer is yes. Does he have nuclear armament? No. Will the inspectors find a what they are looking for? Not a chance. And now the $64.000 question. Will that deter Bush from ordering a preemptive strike? Can pigs fly, of course not.
I was reminded of the Korean war this AM when I heard that separation {discharge } from the Marines had been frozen for a year. Every action taken in recent weeks points to an imminent attack which will surely come as soon as all the ducks are in place.

Not listening or just resigned to the idea that it's going to happen no matter what is found? I'd put my money on the latter.

But.. If the US and UK have the intelligence data they claim to have it seems like it's time to put up or shut up. I still contend that stepping one single foot inside Iraq without publicly displaying some real proof is nothing but lots of long term trouble.

With all the saber-rattling that the Bush team has been doing, it seems as though the strategy might be to scare Saddam into running and hiding. This seems like an unlikely prospect, so where does that leave us? Hard to believe that Bush will just let things continue this way, but the support he's getting from other nations (apart from the UK) is minimal.

A subtler approach might have worked in the first place, but subtlety in U.S. foreign policy isn't the M.O. these days. Instead it's "Either you're with us or against it" and "We need regime change in Iraq."

Speaking of which, when did the expression "regime change" come into fashion? It has the tang of other euphemisms like "collateral damage" and "friendly fire." Nice sounds for bloody deeds...

D'art, Still not quite the "bloody deed," but that depends on GW. I'm not sure where I'd put my money; he keeps back-peddling. c.i.

If war is adverted the administration might claim that the whole thing was just to get Iraq to open up to inspections, and they can already be credited for that.

I don't think it's their end goal at the moment though.

Sigh - my country is supporting Bush - against popular opinion, I believe - (certainly against mine) - we got your planes creating merry hell in the deserts of Western Australia as we speak - and our SAS and a squadron of F18s and three ships are off to the Gulf. (Didn't know we had three ships!) I guess we are too small to count on anyone's radar - except that of the terrorists.

Craven - I think it is certainly crass, at the very least, to think of war as "interesting" - but I guess you are just being honest about a feeling many seem to share, but not acknowledge. Sigh.

You keep saying oil is not the issue here - others keep saying it is - would you mind giving your reasons for NOT thinking it is a major issue, in some detail?