OK, I've been staying out of this, but I want to throw in some observations.
The first is selective indignation.  In 1998 Bill Clinton proposed the very
things as GWB.  From a famous interview with Jim Lehrer:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june98/clinton_1-21a.html
Trouble in Iraq
JIM LEHRER: All right. Another subject. Iraq. Bad news today.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Bad news.

JIM LEHRER: Apparently, Mr. Butler left. What can you tell us about where
that thing stands --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well --

JIM LEHRER: -- in terms of whether the inspectors are going to be allowed to
do what they want to do, et cetera?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: They seem to want to wait until early March to open
the --

JIM LEHRER: Iraq does?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: -- Iraq -- that -- open the sites that Mr. Butler
believes that ought to be opened.

That's a problem for us because we believe that we have to do everything we
can, as quickly as we can, to check the chemical and biological weapon
stocks. And as I told the American people the last time we had this standoff
with Saddam before he relented and let the inspectors go back -- you know,
my concern is not to refight the Gulf War; my concern is to prepare our
people for a new century, not only in positive ways, like creating a big
international financial framework that works for them -- as we just talked
about -- but also to make sure we have the tools to protect ourselves
against chemical and biological weapons.

So I won't -- tonight, I can't rule out or in any options. But I can tell
you I am very concerned about this. And I don't think the American people
should lose sight of the issue. What's the issue? Weapons of mass
destruction. What's the answer? The U.N inspectors. What's the problem?
Saddam Hussein can't say who, where, or when about these inspection teams.
That has to be done by the professionals.

And sooner or later, something is going to give here, and I am just very
much hoping that we can reason with him before that happens, but we've got
to have those sites open.

 JIM LEHRER: Now, Ambassador Richardson at the U.N. and others in the
administration have said the military option, just to continue your
sentence, the military option remains on the table. The ambassador from Iraq
to the U.N. was on our program and he pretty much acknowledged that Iraq is
banking on that not being real, that the U.S. alone is not going to go in
and take out some suspected anthrax facilities, particularly if it's in the
palace where Saddam Hussein lives, et cetera, et cetera.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, the United States does not relish moving alone,
because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would
like to be partners with other people. <!!!>But sometimes we have to be
prepared to move alone.</!!!> You used the anthrax example. Think how many
can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not
just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head,
and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other
terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and
pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United
Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on
this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under
which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. That is not a threat. I
have shown I do not relish this thing. Every time it's discussed around
here, I say one of the great luxuries of being the world's only superpower
for a while -- and it won't last forever probably, but for a while -- is
that there is always time enough to kill. And therefore we have a moral
responsibility to show restraint and to seek partnerships and alliances, and
I've done that. But I don't have to explain to my grandchildren why we took
a powder on what we think is a very serious biological and chemical weapons
programs potentially by a country that has already used chemical weapons on
the Iranians and on the Kurds, their own people.

JIM LEHRER: So you would order an air strike or whatever it would take to
take out some facility if you couldn't get away from it any other way.

 PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I'm going to stay with my tried and true
formulation -- I'm not ruling out or in any option. I was responding to what
you said that the Iraqi official thought that we were just talking because
we wouldn't want to discomfort anyone or make them mad. That's not true.
This is a serious thing with me, this is a very serious thing. You imagine
the capacity of these tiny amounts of biological agents to cause great harm;
it's something we need to get after. And I don't understand why they are not
for getting after it. What can they possibly get out of it? If he really
cares about his people. He is always talking about how bad his people have
been hurt by sanctions. If he cared he would open all these sites and let
people go in and look at them. If he's telling the truth, and there's really
nothing there, and what benefit does the United States have now for stopping
the United Nations from lifting the sanctions? I have done everything I've
been asked to do. Even though we have got reservations about it, we would
have a hard time answering that question.

JIM LEHRER: Would you go along with lifting the sanctions.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Our position is if he complies with all the United
Nations sanctions, the conditions of all U.N. resolutions leading to
sanctions, that's what we want Iraq to do. But he wants to have it both
ways. He wants to get the sanction lifted because he thinks people want to
do business with him and he wants to continue to pursue a weapons program
that is dangerous, we think, is dangerous to the world and our position. I
want him to think about it and let these inspectors go back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
<!!!> is my emphasis.  Five years ago President Clinton said that something
has to give.  FIVE YEARS!  How many times do parents tell kids to do
something before there's some consequence?  And if you don't carry through?
Also interesting is at that time, Saddam was trying to stall past March, the
optimum time of the year for an attack.

But it wasn't just the President.  In 1998, Congress also passed the Iraq
Liberation Act that provided money to encourage regime change in Iraq.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/10/981009-in.htm

And it wasn't just Iraq.  The U.S. left the U.N. reservation and "went
alone" into Bosnia, much to the chagrin of the Chinese Embassy if I recall.

So where were those who claim we should have peace at all costs?  I never
heard a peep.  It's increasingly hard to not to conclude that many in the
peace movement are far more motivated by partisanship than pacifism.  If
someone can show they were against Clinton for the same views, I will offer
my apology and accept their views as genuine.

Christian wrote:
> But now, things are becoming dead serious. The USA, by the voice of
> its President, is pretty seriously considering going to a preemtive
> war, thus turning back centuries of political and military doctrine
> against pre-emptive strikes. I can't remember of another unprovoked
> war in history that did not end in a catastrophe. Think of the Nazis
> attacking the USSR in 1941 (if that was not a pre-emptive strike,
> then what was it ?), think of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor,
> and lots of others.

Very ironic you bring up the Nazis.  Like Iraq, Germany was defeated in a
war and like Iraq, Germany was to remain unarmed.  Time and time again
Germany continued to build up its forces, well before the 1941 invasion of
the USSR.  See timeline:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm

One has to wonder how different the world would be had France, England and
the rest of the League of Nations had stood up to Hitler before his strength
was too great to overcome.  The what-ifs are pretty spectacular to think
about.  Would there have been a holocaust?  Would there have been a
mass-exodus of Jews?  Would there have been an Israel and hence a
Palestinian conflict?  Pure speculation of course but it makes one wonder.

> As French poet Jacques Prevert once wrote, "If war only killed
> militaries, it would be a blessing".

I would think that all of those who lost loved ones in the World Trade
Center, Pennsylvania and those on the planes would have to agree with you.
If I understand Bin Laden, his was a strike against the US to prevent it
from exporting its culture.  A pre-emptive strike if you will.  Was it
against the militaries?  Only the Pentagon arguably.

> 1) If Saddam does not sponsor terrorism (who said rethoric ?), major
> misunderstanding (at best) will ensue, and (worst case) thousands of
> little Bin Ladens scattered all over the world, ready and willing to
> avenge their loved ones.

It has been widely reported that Saddam pays the families of suicide bombers
$10K-25K.  See
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004765039.html among
others.  It's not an if.  He sponsors terrorism.

> 2) If he does, bombing Irak back into Stone Age won't do much to
> remove the terrorist menace. Remember Sept. 11, which proved that a
> very small group (19 people !!!) can wreak quite some havoc, were
> they to decide doing so at the price of their own lives. The
> difference between John Doe and the terrorist next door is that John
> Doe cares for his own life whereas the terrorist does not.

I think that bombing certainly had an effect on one Col. Qadafi, but maybe
an isolated case.

While it took only 19 people, I think it required a bit of money for the
training and to establish them in the US, some for years.  And I don't think
the point is to bomb Iraq to the stone age.  Like pre-WW II Germany, Iraq
agreed to a disarmament treaty and like Germany, they are breaking it.  So
what do you do?  How do you enforce it and what is your resolve?

I think I know your answer, inspectors.  Why do we think that having
inspectors on Iraqi soil would not also provoke a bunch of mini-Bin Ladens?
If inspectors got close, what would stop a suicide bomber against the
inspectors?  How many inspectors would it take to find everything?  How many
are we willing to sacrifice?

> The conventional wisdom in Europe is that :
>
> 1) No doubt Saddam is cheating - He's proven adept at doing that
> since he came to power 24 years ago. We're not discovering much.

Much like Hitler.

> 2) So why the heck would he be considered more of a clear and present
> danger in 2003 than in, say, 2000 ?

Or Hitler in 1933 when he open the first concentration camp?  Or say 1935
when he introduces the draft?  Or 1936 with the introduction of the Gestapo?
Or...

> 3) Saddam probably has some hidden WoMD (NBC - Nuclear, Biological,
> Chemical, not the TV channel) somewhere, perhaps in his own basement.
> UN inspections are there precisely to uncover that WoMD program. So
> give Blix, El Baradei and their team a chance.

Chance to do what?  The stated purpose of the inspectors is to test
compliance.  I think they've done that job.  I am willing to be corrected,
but I don't think that Blix has any authority from the UN to "search and
destroy" weapons.

> 4) There are other clear and present dangers around. One is called
> Palestine. Youger people may not exactly remember that, but I spent
> most of my childhood watching prime-time news reports of PLO (and
> other groups) attacks in the early-70s. Whether those were plane
> hijacks, the Munich Olympics athletes or others is not that
> important. What's important is that the collective memory of
> Europeans of my age (I'm 42) is scattered with vivid memories of such
> attacks. At no price -AT NO PRICE- do we want these attacks to
> resume. So we would advocate fixing the Palestinian issue now and
> for good and forever instead of sowing the seeds of another wave of
> terrorism. In a nutshell, Palestine is a much clearer and much more
> present danger for us than Irak.

Are you sure they are not related as mentioned above?

> Now what ? Flame suit on ?

I don't know, but being Catholic I know folks are still waiting for the
Catholic Church to apologize for its lack of action during the holocaust.
It looks like they are on the same track too...

> Give Peace a Chance !

History indicates that sometimes there's a price for peace and the longer
you wait, the higher the price.  Just some thoughts.  Don't have time to
argue but I hope it sparks some thinking.  And for the record, I think war
sucks.  I would like to see the peace loving nations "love bomb" the Iraqis
with food, medicine and training for a lifetime free from oppression.

Wonsil

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *