Again, Tom, You are misrepresenting my words. I find you do this frequently when it becomes clear to you that you don't have a case (right before you bring up ANSWER and Stalinism).

tom wrote: "Your thesis is that we should have waited until we took a major hit from Iraq--or anyone--before doing something about it. There is no feasible way of detecting most terror attacks until it is too late."

No, we wait until we have definitive proof OR we are attacked, and if we are proven wrong in the aftermath, there MUST be a butchers bill presented to those who led us in this action. You don't do wrong actions off an argument that its possible that it will be in favor of your own ends, and you don't eschew correct actions when its not convinient to do them. Thats what being 'good' is all about. I am sure you have explained this to your children.

Definitive proof means definitive proofs. Not 'Believed', not 'likely' not 'believed by that guy and that guy and that guy'. Bush and powell left no wiggle room whatsoever. "this is a fact" they said. They were either incompetent or lied and they SHOULD be called to account for that EITHER way.

Again: if ANYONE on the left had THIS kind of gulf between their sworn avowed statements and reality, and if they led us into a war in this situation, LIKE HELL you would not be calling for their blood. Be at least honest with me, Tom!

Davin wrote "In any case, we did NOT go to war with Iraq for the reason that Iraq was being difficult with the UN and not living up to its lawful obligations, we went to war with Iraq because it was building and stockpiling WMD that it INTENDED to pass to terrorists for use on the US. A red herring, Tom"

Tom replied: "Wrong. Bush's ultimatum is here. We went to war because Iraq was a perceived threat, and intelligence indicated that Saddam was pursuing . Resolution 1441 was intended to force Saddam to prove he was not such a threat. He violated it six ways from Sunday."

From Bush's speech: "Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.""

You must expect that I am the dumbest man in the universe. Let me boil this down.

I say 'we did not go to war with saddam because of UN violations, but because of threat'

you say: 'nonono!!! We went to war with saddam because of UN violations.' and your support is to take an excerpt from Bushes so-called 'ultimatem' that speaks directly about the threat posed by Saddam? Who the hell do you think you are debating with to try to lay that down?

My point is that this conflict was predicated on the threat posed by Saddam, as per my 5 points which sum up the efforts of the admistration. You want to talk about Saddam being a bad guy, about him killing a lot of folks, about him violating the UN resolutions.

From the same speach that you quote:

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.
"

I'm sorry, but maybe you have thought yorself into a partisan dimension where you are incapable of reasoning, but the very speach you cite destroys your argument and supports mine: namely that this conflict was predicated on threat. Furthermore, thse " chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons" are nowhere to be found in Iraq, active programs are nowhere to be found in Iraq. That threat is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN IRAQ. If it is, then show me empirically those chemicals, those biologicals or those ACTIVE programs. Show me an Al-qaeda terrorist (read the quote above, it says Al-Qaeda) in cahoots with Saddam.

You. Simply. Can't. You have to jig and amble about what you really mean by 'active' programs and what you really mean by 'WMD ready to provide to terrorists'. This is my point here, Tom, and you don't yield it not because of any logical or empirical reasoning process, but by sheer partisan BS.

Tom wrote: "Just for fun, define a scenario where Saddam could have done something to convince us that he was about to attack, without actually attacking. Make sure you also discuss the means by which this is reliably detected. "

A red herring hunt, Tom. An attempt to shift the debate by constructing something completely different to argue about. Go fish.

Think for a moment Tom. Just think about this. Think about what you are saying VS. what was said before this war.

Davin L.