[IrishHand]

Here's my problem with the "finding nasty weapons" scenario. We'll use the extreme example, since it makes the point quicker. What if the inspectors found a dozen missile silos with fully-operational ICBMs in them? Would we invade then?

If you prefer a lesser example, some people have bandied about the notion that he's got thousands of missiles with biological and chemical warheads. What if we found a huge stash of those, all ready for use (and aimed at US military bases and Israel, presumably)? Would we invade then?

I truly believe, as regards both scenarios, that we wouldn't invade. This, of course, leads me to believe that we're quite confident that he won't be able to retaliate in any meaningful manner when we do invade. The past 12 years plus has demonstrated quite clearly that our military does everything it can to avoid engagements where we might actually suffer casualties. Huge live-action excercizes are fine (Gulf War, Afghanistan), but we're not real interested in conflicts which might result in more than a handful of Americans coming home in body bags.

So it comes back to the concept of a purely 'preventative' war, based on the concept that (a) Iraq is intent on acquiring WMD, and (b) Iraq will then use them in some manner against the US. I believe that UN actions will eventually be able to determine if (a) is the case, and I believe that history has shown that (b) is most definitely not the case. Hussein attacked Iran because we supported him, and then likely invaded Kuwait based in part on US hints that we wouldn't stop him. Why he would decide now - despite the pathetic state of his nation and his military - to engage in a new aggression despite the guarantee that the self-appointed international policeman will issue a death sentance on his makes absolutely no sense. What exactly then is a "preventative" war supposed to be preventing?