petr,

Some questions for you related to your post:

"The US used the threat of wmds - and the fact that the US could be attacked by wmds - to gain support for invading Iraq (although everyone knows the decision was made at least as early as spring 2002 - I remember the rumours and the White HOuse denying that the US intends to attack Iraq)"

Exactly what decision was made? and under what circumstances was force to be used?

One recurring item in every single report that Hans Blix made to the UN Security Council was the absence of full and pro-active co-operation on the part of the Iraqi authorities. That full and pro-active co-operation was what was specifically required under the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441.

Strick, in his post, may well have identified the reason for this lack of co-operation. Imagine yourself as an Iraqi scientist, engineer or army officer, who has come up with a scam, involving proscribed weapons, you have convinced Saddam that you can deliver without the UN, or anybody else finding out about it. You then start to receive funds for this "project", no paper work because it's secret, no fear of discovery because no "project" exists. You are making a tidy sum of money, when all of a sudden, there are truck loads of UN weapons inspectors at your door. You are being told by your Ba'athist government to co-operate with those inspectors fully. You know that to do that will reveal your scam. Would you co-operate fully knowing that when the inspectors get back on the plane to make their report to the UNSC, Saddam will still be in power and will most likely want to have a chat to you about certain things?

Petr, regime change in Iraq has been US Foreign Policy since half way through Clinton's second term - that was when plans were drawn up for military action against Iraq 1998, it was not something the current administration came up with in 2000, or spring 2002.

Hand shaking, normally eagerly while the press are about, is what Heads of State and politicians do, so not much significance there. In addition I believe that there are things I would have said and done, almost 20 years ago, that I would not say or do now. Times, situations and people change.

Norman Schwarzkopf, admitted almost immediately that his decision to allow the Iraq army to fly helicopters was a big mistake. It was actually done for humanitarian reasons. The Iraqi's said that they needed the helicopters to ferry in aid as vital bridges had been destroyed. As you said the helicopters flew but not for the purpose the Iraqi's had told Norman.

You forgot to give thanks to the French for providing the Israeli's with something to bomb in 1981

Why focus on North Korea? Hasn't threatened or invaded anyone since it tried to take over the South in 1950. The little git in charge of the place has no grandiose plans for ruling the region. That is a situation that can be negotiated. The 1,000,000 strong North Korean Army with it's 10,000 pieces of artillery, were perfectly described by a US military spokesman as presenting a uniquely target rich environment. North Korea, even with nukes, is no threat in the way that Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya could be.

I believe that irrespective of principal export, if Iraq had behaved in the same way that it had in the region, then action would have been taken. Mugabe has only got away with it so far because he has confined his outrages to the domestic scene, he has not attempted to step out side his own borders.