[nunya bidness]

In the short term I suspect you could make your point but overall I think that my suspician would prove out.

I submit that 9-11 was over limited resources. The Saudi connection is just sitting there while we are being led to other countries.

UBL and Saddam are bit players while we draw the wells dry. It's not personal, it's just business.

And I don't have a problem with it.

[Texasforever]

NB you wear your cynicism well and honorably. I admire that even though I do not share it.

[ganesha]

A build up toward going to war in Iraq would probably be accompanied by a drawdown of forces in Afghanistan.

My question would be: Assuming that it is necessary to go to war against Iraq, lets say that there is a 50 percent chance that Saddam will aquire nukes within five years but only a two percent chance that he will have nukes in twelve months. Do we then go to war immediately because of that two percent? Some would respond by saying that if we have to go to war anyway, we may as well do it now. But what if the cost in American lives of a plan which brings down Saddam within the next 12-18 months is significantly less than the cost of an invasion which will bring down Saddam within the next six months? Also how do these considerations apply to other countries who are trying to aquire WMD?