Hi Amazing - Based on the evidence that's been made public so far and notwithstanding the points you've made, I still have concerns about the authority for any proposed action against Iraq and (presumably) any states that give support to Iraq.
The West has (nearly) always sought to be seen to have the unquestioned high moral ground before taking military action. It's the actions where the proper authority has been doubted that has undermined the West the most (the A-bombs, Vietnam, Grenada).
Conversely, where the West's authority has been undoubted, their authority has been enhanced (WWI, WWII, 92 Gulf War, imposition of the No Fly Zones, East Timor).
In this case, the higher moral ground is ambiguous if the Commanders-in-Chief of the attacking powers act on their own authority given to them only by the people of their own countries at a past election. (Opinion Polls are just so irrelevant on these issues in a Representative Democracy!)
The question here is not of proportional response to hostile action or violation of a UN Resolution (Iraq is already being bombed almost daily under UN authority for violation of the No Fly Zone rules), or selective strikes on weapons plants to which access for inspection has been denied - it's a bloody, pre-emptive first-strike and invasion and prolonged occupation that's being advocated.
In my view, there needs to be proper higher authority, like an unambiguous UN Security Council resolution, for the West to use its military supremacy to invade anywhere. If that authority is granted, then there's a horrible job to go and do against an evil and powerful dictator.
The alternative to proper higher authority IS to wait for an Iraqi attack on the West. If that means waiting for an Iraqi Weapon of Mass Destruction to be launched at or detonated in the city I live in, well obviously thats a horribly bad thing for me and my neighbours, but it's that kind of 'bad thing' that gives just cause for an invasion of a country by the 'Good Guys'.
That's the same kind of clear authority given by Hitler's invasion of Poland, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, or the September 11 attack that gave authority to the campaign in Afghanistan (but is irrelevant to invading Iraq except for the hawkish mood its put the West in).
As I understand it, Liberal Democracies were not built to withstand being the 'bad guy' or being above attack by their enemies. On that basis I say its bad for the West to invade Iraq without a clear and valid mandate from a higher authority (like from the UN) or in direct response to overt military or proved terrorist action by Iraq.
The West needs moral supremacy as much or more than military might if it's to survive and thrive as the dominant culture in the world. I think were in serious danger of loosing that status.
Cheers
Divergent, Max
Edited to repair punctuation damaged in flight
Edited by - Max Divergent on 7 September 2002 6:36:24