Having read through the Presidents speech, there were two sections that were fairly impressive:

1.

"Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world, where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

2.

"Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance - his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of 11 September showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al-Qaeda's plans and designs.
Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities."


Should the inspectors go back into Iraq under the same conditions and with the existing mandate, to perform "real and rigorous inspections" as they did during the period 1991 to 1998, what is the level of confidence that they will not be subject to the same programme of deception they experienced before? - Neither I, nor anyone here can tell. How long should those inspectors inspect? Iraq is obviously anxious for the lifting of UN sanctions.

Bagpuss, thank you for post above, intelligence material is raw data that requires interpretation. That interpretation can vary from being viewed through "rose coloured glasses" to it being viewed as "the portent of doom". Richard Cobbold, explained the workings of the JIC during his recent interview with Tim Sebastian on BBC's Hardtalk programme, information is gathered, it is evaluated and interpreted on the basis of best case and worst case.

Your point regarding the potential use of the hardened aluminium tubes - I note that the source you quote does not deny that Iraq has tried to procure these items - seems to favour the best case, but offers no reasoning why that should be regarded as the most probable.

In missile technology Iraq is permitted ballistic missiles with a range of 150 kilometers - A worst case interpretation of available information indicates that research is underway to extend the range capability of existing missiles to 1200 kilometers.

IF the inspectors go back in, and IF they are successfully deceived as they have been in the past. Within a fairly short timespan Saddam Hussein will be in a position to threaten the entire region. You may then hold all the Middle East Peace Summits you wish - there will be no peace in the middle east because for the first time Israel could be looking at the real threat of a nuclear attack.

I assume that you guys have been looking and reading the same stuff that I have - As part of Joe Public, I can see a potential threat that if not checked, could possibly kick off a nuclear war - A large number of you contributing to this threat do not - Hope your right.

By the way.

Quotation 1 belongs to President John F. Kennedy. (Oct 1962)

Quotation 2 belongs to George W Bush. (Oct 2002).