Hi there, Guest Forum Lurker,

If I may take your points and questions in order:

"We cannot assume that the Iraqi people will rise up against Saddam, or even that they will not fight as hard as the military."

In prospect you could well be correct. But in the light of past events the situation could be evaluated as follows:
The Americans have been financing and assisting dissaffected groups within Iraq and in neighbouring countries. My best bet would be that a group within the Ba'ath Party will get rid of Saddam Hussein, and that requires no uprising on the part of the people. Saddam Hussein sets great store by remaining in power - so does the Ba'ath Party. The Iraqi military did not fight hard the last time, the aerial bombardment they were subjected to completely shattered their morale. I do not believe that they will stand this time - If there is a this time. They could dissappear into the civilian population but if they do that they will be doing so to desert - the bulk of Saddam's forces are conscripts and don't really want to be there in the first place. In doing that they cede the countryside to the UN forces as long as there is clear understanding that this a "hearts and minds" operation, support for Saddam Hussein will diminish, more rapidly in some places than in others. The RG, SRG & FS units are different, they have received preferential treatment, while the general populace and regular army have suffered. The SRG and FS are internal security units whose principal duties are to protect Saddam Hussein from his own people, I do not believe that there is any love lost between the men in those units and the population they have terrorised for the last ten years.

"To use the tired example of Stalingrad, the civilians fought for Stalin, a dictator as bad or worse as Hussein, because they would rather deal with him than the invading dictator."

This is not the same type of conflict, in Moscow, Leningrad and in Stalingrad, there were no civilians - everybody served - but they were not fighting for Stalin - even the Communists were not naive enough to try and make the population believe that - their rallying cry in those days was "Rodina!!" - For Mother Russia, not for Communism, not for Stalin.

"Teribus, you say that "the Iraqis" are being given every chance to comply; if you hold them all responsible for the refusal, then they will all fight to support that decision."

In saying the Iraqis, I meant the Iraqi Authorities, I apologise for my phraseology.

"The fact is that we still have no proof that Saddam has or is developing nuclear weapons or intends to use them."

What we do know is that the Iraqi Government did not fully comply with the UNSC Resolutions resulting from negotiations at the end of "Desert Storm". The UNSCOM inspections were hindered and that a deception programme was undertaken by the Iraqi Authorities. From their reports, from reports of defectors, from aerial and satellite photography signs of activity and reconstruction work is evident at sites formerly associated with Iraq's WMD programme. Since 1958 Iraq has embarked on hostile expansionist campaigns on four occassions. Saddam Hussein has vowed to annihilate the State of Israel. All of which does not constitute proof - but it would be irresponsible to ignore those factors in making any assessment of the situation.

"The United States has engaged in an offensive war within the last year, though we did not bother to declare it;"

The offensive war you refer to; I take to mean the war in Afghanistan, although it could just as well refer to the war against terrorism. Once the link between the events of 11th September, 2001 and Al-Qaeda was established, the Taliban Government in Afghanistan were asked to hand over Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda personnel in Afghanistan, they were given numerous opportunities to do this and they refused. The legitimacy of the Taliban Regime was in dispute and the United States of America assisted the Northern Alliance opposition - there was no American invasion of Afghanistan.

"Hussein has not taken any military action against his neighbors in a decade, and never against America."

I mentioned four occassions on which Iraq has threatened its neighbours since 1958, they were in 1961, 1980 and 1991. As you state Iraq has not taken any military action against its neighbours in a decade, purely because Saddam Hussein has been denied the opportunity to do so, having been successfully expelled from Kuwait. Due to his non-compliance with the requirements stated in the UNSC resoultions and interference with the UNSCOM inspection teams, sanctions were imposed. This meant that Saddam Hussein could not make good the Iraqi losses in conventional military hardwear it is all too obvious - but development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons can be hidden, we've just had a very good instance of this in North Korea. If Saddam Hussein is only interested in defending his country, why are there good indications of rocket engine testing facilities that are larger than any Iraq has had before.

While Iraq has never taken military action against America, Saddam Hussein has threatened American allies and interests in the region.

"We will be the aggressors if we initiate this "regime change", and we need to be sure of our motivations before we do so."

What transpires, at the moment, is entirely in the hands of the Iraqi Government and the Ba'ath Party. They have made very clear statements regard their not having any WMD in Iraq. They invited the UNMOVIC Teams to return to the country unconditionally, stating that the personnel comprising those teams may carry out their inspections without let or hinderance enjoying the full co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities and military - lets see what happens.