Agreements made at the point of a gun are rarely wholehearted. It wasn't the buildup which led to war -- Great Britain and France outgunned and outpositioned Germany until their betrayal of Czechoslovakia. War came because of what the Allies allowed Hitler to DO with his buildup -- to invade other countries with impunity.
Doesn't matter. If Hitler didn't do what he did with Czcheckoslovakia he would've still started WW2.
Beg you pardon, but if you look back, that WAS the start of WWII. That aggression was the casus belli -- the proper point at which the Allies should have acted, and at which they had the means to crush Hitler.
I'm not saying that we aren't justified in attacking Iraq; I just don't completely agree with your historical parallel. If Bush has the evidence, he will present it to Congress and our representatives will sanction the appropriate action...
If we would have stopped him when he was just building up that would've been good enough.
Beg you pardon, but if you look back, that WAS the start of WWII. That aggression was the casus belli -- the proper point at which the Allies should have acted, and at which they had the means to crush Hitler.
They should've had him in check in mid 30's when he was stock piling when Germany wasn't supposed to.
If Bush has the evidence, he will present it to Congress and our representatives will sanction the appropriate action...
He have to hold him to the agreement that was made after gulf war.