[hermit22]

No, with every other tinpot dictator in the world, and especially with the Palestinians, who respect force and the will to use it.

Funny how that didn't work for the Israelis.

In many ways, that's an outdated thinking mode, my friend. It's left over from the Cold War. Sure, peoples and leaders fear retaliation for their actions, and that keeps war from breaking out every day. The world hasn't reached Fukiyama's New World Order (or was it Huntington? I always get them confused.) yet. But certain aspects do apply. When you're a population that is on the bottom rung of the world, being taken for a ride by the West (at least, according to your perception), no amount of force in the world will stop you from feeling resentful. And if that force killed your brother, and your neighbor's brother, and half the people you know, then you're going to fight back before that force is brought to bear upon you. Mary Robinson, the outgoing UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, called this the 'cycle of impunity.'
The difference is, in the Cold War, there were two groups that were on top - the US and its allies and the Soviet Union and its communist allies. Now you can't really choose a side if the ones on top seem to be bringing you down.

Just the fact that he's worked so hard to keep the effective inspections he agreed to from happening is suggestive, if not probative.

That could be as much to do with sovereignty as anything else. We don't have too many child rights abuses in this country - well, not gross ones, and those that do occur are generally dealt with (that's a whole different can of worms, but I'm trying to make a point here). But we haven't ratified the 1979 Child Rights Treaty (sorry, I don't remember the name of the treaty off the top of my head), making us one of only 3 or 4 countries to not do so. Our reasoning for this (and many other treaties, who can say Kyoto? ICC?) is that we don't want anyone invading our sovereignty. Now, if you were a dictator, wouldn't you want to ensure that you had the same rights to sovereignty that the most powerful nation on earth does? I wouldn't want inspectors coming in and poking around in my affairs, whether I had something to hide or not. In this country, it's called right to privacy. On an international scale, terms like "transparancy" get thrown about. I'm not disputing the possibility of wmd, I'm just saying that disagreements with inspectors don't automatically mean he's making them.

It'll double our credibility AND cut off one of the major sources of Palestinian support. It'll also weaken the rest of the area's support of Palestine.

I'm not sure you really understand the dynamics of the Israel/Palestine mess. The general sentiment in the Arab world is that Israel is a bully and the Palestineans deserve the right to self-determination, not to find themselves facing bullets, tanks and missiles (and the Israelis also have a right to not be blown up by a suicide bomber. I'm not picking a side in that argument here.). In fact, several UN resolutions have called for Israel to do just that, and Israel basically ignored them, and we supported Israel - so a lot of that anger got transferred onto us. So, how is our bullying Saddam going to weaken their support of Palestine?

Does Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? Only those who worship what George Jr claims would say yes.
That's a dangerous statement to make on the Cellar when we're supposed to be a couple of days away from being informed of the proof.

We're always a couple days away from being informed of the proof - which, this time, is coming from Tony Blair, not our leaders. (If our administration has announced any plans to stop hiding behind the 'national security' excuse - as valid or invalid as it may be - I haven't heard them.) Our administration seems to believe that secrecy and unilateralism are the only acceptable modus operandi. Hopefully, Bush's efforts before Congress and the UNGA will be worthwhile and not just lip service.

Is OPEC going to impose an oil embargo (or higher prices) in retaliation?

They can't; the economy of these countries is already at the bottom, and oil is their only source of income. The US strategic reserves are at capacity. If the Sauds cut the price of oil they will only find themselves in the midst of a revolution. Which would be good for everyone... except, of course, the House of Saud.

They most certainly can. Americans aren't going to stop consuming any less oil, our strategic reserve isn't going to last forever, and we only have 3% of the world's oil, even counting that 6-12 month supply up in Alaska. So there would be little to no economic impact in, say, Saudi Arabia, of higher price fixing on society. However, if there were, and there was a revolution, you'd better believe we'd be sending troops in there instantly to help the current monarchy. We wouldn't want an even more extremist regime to rise to power and tell us we couldn't have their oil anymore. That would really kill our economy.

The same thing would probably happen in many Arab nations. Israel's March attack on the West Bank is probably just a microcosm of how the Arab world will react.

Don't get me wrong - all the talk about WMD is important, and should be considered. But then why isn't Israel showing any sign of concern?

Three weeks ago they started smallpox innoculations.

I wasn't aware of that. But is that out of fear of Saddam or Arafat?

What has this nonsense about Iraq done to American credibility and international relations? It has damaged or destroyed virtually every relationship we have had with every nation. Need I cite the recent heckling of Sec of State Powell in South Africa this last week - not by third world nations but by nations considered America's closest friends - that fact stated directly in the Nightline broadcast. Nightline demonstrated these soured relations again in interviews among reporters of countries that are suppose to be our closest allies. Even many in Tony Blair's own party are not supporting his position on Iraq. Everyone else - yes everyone - considered an American ally is against an American unilateral attack - except one - the Likud party of Israel.

Or note that Anthony Zinni was forced to wait for 2 hours for the Moroccan diplomats to meet with him back when he was trying to stop Israel from rolling tanks straight through the West Bank. That's a huge diplomatic insult.

Tony Blair also reportedly warned Bush last week that attacking Iraq wasn't the best idea. So maybe even our closest European ally isn't too thrilled (their public definately isn't).

There's also the argument that Bush is just doing a masterful job of wagging the dog. Notice how there was a renewed fervor about Iraq in the press as soon as the media started looking into Harkin's business dealings?