>I have not stated that everyone should pack up their bags
>and go home and let SH carry on with whatever he likes. Lets
>make 3 assumptions
>A= He has no weapons of any consequence - So we destroy
>Iraq.
>(that one would go over to big in the world community.)
>
>B= He has weapons of MD - He has not used them yet and will
>not until attacked. Many combatants and Innocent people will
>die and like it or not GE will be a hero and get re-elected.
>(God forbid)
>
>C=Keep him contained and let the UN inspectors do their job.
>So far I see no smoking gun and if the U.S. has definite
>proof turn it over to the inspectors.
>Robert,It sounds to me that your problem is with Bush being
>President and that is slanting your view.Possible??

No I am opposed to anyone who believes that bombing is the solution to a problem - and then tries to justify it with untruths.

>Re A=He had many known weapons when he threw the inspectors
>out.The UN resolution said he was to account for them.He did
>not do so in the documents he submitted..So far he is not
>cooperating and they have found a few empty rockets capable
>of carrying biological or chemical weapons that he claimed
>did not exist.

I am in the process of wading through some pretty deep material on this subject and so far I believe that Iraq was allowed to keep missiles provided that they did not have a range of over 150 miles.
Also an empty warhead is not considered to be a WMD. Maybe further along in my readings it might though.

His son in law and defectors have told of his
>preparations.He murdered his son in law when he returned to
>Iraq.

I think we both agree we are against family violence. (sorry could not help myself at a little humor here).

>Re B=I believe he has them and will eventually use them
>whether he is attacked or not.Every effort will be made to
>limit his use.He has been warned not to but he will probably
>do so .I do have reservations here but believe the risk is
>necessary.Hopefully containment will be successful.

If it was his time to use these weapons he would have by now, but to stage an attack may well force the issue.


>ReC=Our troops can not be maintained in a ready status in
>the current capacity for a long period.The way Sadam is not
>living up to his agreement makes it difficult to find things
>even if they are aware of them.The head inspector has said
>that their rooms and phones and offices are bugged and the
>destination is known before they start out.Keep in mind that
>Iraq is the size of California.A test tube of some of the
>bioligical weapons is capable of wiping out a city if
>strategically placed.You can hide a lot of test tubes very
>well in a place of that size.I could go on but I hope you
>can see my point.I don't see a solution that will avoid the
>need to take Saddam out.:-( :+

I believe you are correct and think Bush has reached a stage of no return. Having said that I also believe that to have sent the inspectors back in and expected that they could do any type of meaningful search in the limited amount of time that they have had is also a mistake. In other words the build up was a little too premature and is pushing things to the point of no return.
In regards to the vials or biological agents will bombing ensure their safe demise. With the open market of such stuff to anyone who has the right amount of money- will bombing Baghdad stop terrorists?
Will pushing too hard now force SH to share his "goodies" with others of similar mind set as his,realizing his goose is cooked? All of these are very serious questions that require a little more sophisticated solutions than just bombing. And as long as war is the only "serious train of thought" the real solutions will avoid us.

I have said before and will repeat I belive there is a time for war but we have not reached that point yet. (IMHO)