Teriobus: Arne...." "no-fly" means (or was supposed to mean) that Saddam didn't use his helicopters to go after Shia or Kurds. So enforcing the "no-fly" zone should have been shooting down any errant helos in the "no-fly" zone (of which there were none)"

Well Arne, seems that you have the wrong end of the stick again. In interviews relating to the Ceasefire Agreement reached at Safwan, the subject of helicopters with regard to "no-fly" was raised by the Iraqis. They argued that with so many bridges destroyed the helicopters were needed to fly in aid, and as such should be allowed to fly the coalition members thought this point to be reasonable. 'Stromin' Norman said it was the biggest mistake he made.

Ummm, and this has to do with my point .... exactly what??? Or are you just tossing in a deliberate "red herring" to distract and avoid the issue?

Teribus again: An example of the odd logic applied by Arne:

(scroll up for the exchange)

Seems like good logic to me, Teribus. Care to explain why you think that 2000 U.S. soldiers is a fair price to pay for slaking Dubya's peeve that he got his panties in a twist? Care to explain why you think that techincal violations (if even that) are sufficient reason for a war of choice? Care to explain why the U.S. (or rather more precisely, Dubya and his PNAC cronies) get to decide against the wishes of a majority of the U.N. Security Council that their will is best exoressed by a war of aggression? Hoep you aren't married, Teribus, because they'd have to send out the CSI team if your toast was ever burnt....

Teribus again (the point zinging over his head): ...military action may be resumed to ensure compliance.

Even if that were true (and as I pointed out, the refusal of the UNSC to authorise such actions, along with quite a few other reasons, argues against it), the question is "shoukd [] military action be resumed". Even if there were legal authorisation, however slim or dodgy that excuse, most people think that a war ought to be the "last resort" (as even Dubya thought ... or at least he said that ... hmmm, noooooo, do you think he was lying?).

BB: When, IN VIOLATION of the cease-fire terms, the Iraqis angaged in acts of aggression against the patrolling forces....

Ummm, like turning on radars? Damn the photons, full speed ahead. And there were communications facilities that were bombed; reports indicate that a fair amount of the pre-war bombing was aimed at communications and other facilities, just to get a head start on the bombing (and perhaps also to provoke Saddam into fooolish moves). Your account fo just the amount of ordnance dropped puts the lie to the fact that this was all "defensive" fire in response to Iraqi "aggression". This is c*** you're spewing, Bruce, and you know it.

BB: Are you really comfortable clinging to the "it does not matter what Saddam did, we should let him get away with not complying with anything he does not want to" arguement?

Nice "straw man" there, Bruce. I bet you're proud of yourself. Getting beyond your dishonest argumentative techniques, I would say that our response to any level of (sometimes alleged) violation should take into account not only the seriousness of violation but also the price we pay, morally, politically, economically, and in human lives of our response. That seems to be someting that you are continuing to face up to yourself ... for reasons that I think only you could possibly explain. But I think you should make the effort. In particular, is human life that damn cheap to you (as long as it's not your own or that of your loved ones)? Please enlighten us, Bruce: How many dead for a incomplete document? How many dead for an Iraqi shadow on the inspectors? Let's see if we can put a price tag on some of this stuff.... Tell you what: How much of a tweak from Saddam do you think your son's life would be worth? Please be specific.

BB: How will YOU explain that you would rather have all those people dead than ask that Saddam comply with his obligations?

Well, here's the dead we do do know about: 2060+ (and counting) U.S. soldiers. Many times that more Iraqis. But, funny thing, Bruce, they're dead even though Saddam had already complied with most of the "obligations" pretty well. The dead that I can manage to identify came becauswe Dubya wouldn't take "yes" for an answer. And these are the dead that we have to deal with right now.... Now where's your charred corpses to line up alongside them? In your fevered head? I'd say they have drugs nowadays that can help with that.....

BB hallucinates again: The allowed range was 150 KM.

...

"Some 75 percent of the total U.S. population of 290 million people and 75 percent of its military bases are within 200 miles of the coast. The number of potential launch platforms is immense, with 130,000 registered merchant ships in 195 countries, NWIS said.

Ummm, we let a ship with SCUD-type missiles on to Yemen after boarding it. Wise move, eh?

But you're dreaming ... nay, sorry, let's get specific, hallucinating ... when you think that these 150 Km (give or take a couple) were any practical threat to the U.S. (particularly considering the large numbver of such missiles extant around the world), and considering that Saddam had no way of getting them near the U.S., much less undetectably....

BB: From his attack on Kuwait, we had some indication that Saddam was a danger.

Only if we hand him a letter that says that any possible designs he might have on taking over the U.S. so as to corner the world market on Hollywood movies is not of any concern to us.   ;-)

BB: "Earlier ambiguity concerning Iraq's residual missile inventory has been largely resolved, though UNSCOM maintains that Iraq is still concealing six to sixteen enhanced Scud missiles, potentially able to deliver chemical or biological warheads.

Still trotting out stale garbage from 1998 or so? As Blix's team reported, claims of remanent SCUDs were chicken$hit....

BB: Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

The al Samoud missile was arguably legal. But FWIW, just to placate the U.S. and make sure they didn't have an excuse to invade, Saddam agreed to destry them (and they were being destroyed even as Dubya went to war).

Cheers,