Sorry for the delay in getting back to you NicoleC - but better late than never:

Point by point - my reply to your post above:

"Teribus, I take it that yiou think the multiple time that the Bush administration has insisted they will go to war without without the UN is baseless?"

For the past eleven years Saddam Hussein, has, in varying degrees, thumbed his nose at the UN in the firm belief that they would do nothing - that is a fact. The rhetoric coming out of Washington, combined with the current evaluation of what could happen if Iraq's weapons programmes are allowed to advance unchecked, has caused the UN to re-evaluate its position with regard to the regime in Iraq and its inaction and flagrant contravention of existing UN resolutions. As a result, Saddam Hussein has agreed to the return of UN weapons inspectors - in his view, that's no problem, we've had them here before and we successfully got rid of them, we'll do the same again. The continuing rhetoric coming out of Washington is maintaining pressure on the UN Security Council to act, while serving to impress upon Saddam Hussein that this time, he will not be given the opportunity to interfere with intrusive weapons inspections in the slightest degree.

"Going to war without a local base of operations is HARDER, but the SOP of massive air strikes can be undertaken from the aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Action afterword is more difficult."

I tried to illustrate in my post above how limited your massive air strikes would be based from aircraft carriers. You also seem to believe the myth that countries can be bombed into submission - that has never happened in the history of the use of air power. Please don't quote Afghanistan as an example. What toppled the Taliban from power in Afghanistan was the Northern Alliance forces ON THE GROUND - American air power broke the stalemate and gave those forces freedom of movement by denying it to the Taliban forces - Air power alone would have accomplished nothing. The same applies to Iraq now.

"But that doesn't mean we'll have to go that route. Qatar is already waffling about troops. The smaller countries in the area like Bahrain and Qatar can probably be bullied or swayed into to. Let's not forget Kuwait -- not an ideal place to station troops, but it would work very well for landing troops in mostly friendly territory and then have them move into Iraq. When you're the 800 pound gorillla, these are minor obstancles."

Qatar's Foreign Minister is on record stating that action will only be countenanced with the backing of the United Nations. As to other countries being bullied or swayed, you forget the circumstances that brought about the formation of the coalition in the Gulf War - Iraq, a muslim country, attacked Kuwait another muslim country and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, leader of the muslim world. Iraq's actions were indefencible within the tenets of Islam - that is what forged the coalition then. The same arguement cannot be used now - in fact any muslim country assisting America in an attack not sanctioned by the United Nations, which of course includes the countries comprising the Arab League, will be viewed in the muslim world as the aggressor. As to the suitability of Kuwait as a forward base, or staging post? - Its too near and too small. You can deter an attack by stationing troops there (As the British did in the 1950's) but it is less than ideal for launching an attack from.

"YES it's impractical without. But Shrub hasn't shown himself concerned with such subleties up to now."

At the moment its all talk - to achieve his aims George W doesn't have to concern himself with the subtleties. The game is going his way within the frame work of internationally accepted protocols.

"And it's been reported several times in the news the Gen. Tommy Franks has already delivered plans for different scenarios or attacks on Iraq."

Essential paper exercise to maintain the credibility of the threat. This also has to be done should the UN agree to military intervention as the US would provide the major part of any force.

"Do you really think the the swollen Pentagon budget never built equipment to handle this kind of assault?"

Actually Nicole, it's not what I think its what I know. The swollen Pentagon budget you refer to, specifically built equipment to handle a global conflict - the threat then being Soviet Russia - not brush-fire type wars and not wars without allies. The track record of the American armed forces on the few occasions where they have had to respond to such actions has not been good. If you do not believe me, go to the web-sites for the US Navy, or to Jayne's Fighting Ships. Look at the armamnets of the destroyers and frigates, look specifically at what their armament is in terms of short range, rapid fire, small calibre weapons - you will find they are greatly lacking - the Phalanx system is of little use - that was designed for defense against anti-ship missiles - rate of fire is too high, degree of depression insufficient.

"Don't take my work for it. My bro (the West Point grad) and I disagree on almost everything political. His response was unequivically "yes, we can." (Of course, he thinks blowing people up is fun, but that's a military education for you.)"

The "Yes, we can." answer is based purely on paper not on reality - there again your brother is West Point (Army). Thankfully for western democracy both Hitler and Stalin thought in terms of army. This mind-set completely blinded both to the importance of naval power and strategic air power. If indeed your brother, due to his military education, thinks that blowing people up is fun, he is definitely, in my experience, the exception to the rule - or the selection process for West Point is greatly flawed. Without exception, I have never encountered any military man who was eager to instigate military action - for what I assume are obvious and logical reasons.

"Haven't we learned ANYTHING? Must we train a new batch of despotic warlords? So much for fostering democratuc rule.

Here's scoop from Reuters this morning:

"The White House, in a reversal of long-standing policy, is expected to seek approval from Congress soon to give military training to up to 10,000 members of the Iraqi opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

The goal of the training is to create an array of forces to assist the U.S. military in a possible attack on Iraq, the Times said, quoting Bush administration officials and Iraqi opposition sources...

In order to pay for the training, the White House plans to notify Congress it wants to use $92 million yet to be allocated from the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which allows the Pentagon to provide training, non-lethal goods and services to seven opposition groups, the Times said."

That means $92 million dollars of weapons instead of blankets, food, and education."

Utterly ludicrous and totally incredible and her's why:

1. The time frame is completely wrong. This would take years to put into effect and time is the thing the world does not have.

2. There is the matter of credibility: Hypothetically, Nicole, you are an Iraq Kurd, or Shia Muslim, you are in your mid-thirties. Through uncensored, clandestined, radio you hear of this American programme - in the light of your own personal experience, post "Desert Storm", are you going to believe it? are you prepared to trust it? - I would venture to suggest - NOT ON YOUR LIFE, NOT AS LONG AS YOUR ARSE POINTS DOWNWARDS.

With respect to brush-fire wars and limited action conflicts, the United States of America has never understood Templeton's philosophy of "Hearts and Minds", and because it is not understood it can never be effectively implimented. That is why you tend to leave situations having achieved short term objectives without achieving long term aims.

If there is to be any regime change in Iraq - that will come through the Ba'Aath Party - to date no other credible candidates have emerged.

There has been some mention of America supplying Saddam Hussein in the past with chemical and biological weapons - that is not correct - those weapons were originally supplied by Russia in the Soviet era - Iraq then developed its own capacity to manufacture the contents. FACT.