Originally posted by SLY
Why didn't the U.S. remove Saddam back in '98 when the inspectors left ?

I've said this atleast three times; Bill Clinton, the sitting US President could have never built even the domestic support to try it. I know you're not as familiar with US politics as I am, but a member of the Democratic Party just can't build support for a war effectively - their support base is too liberal to try it.

The question is : Why now ?

About three thousand years ago, a Chinese man (probably) named Sun Tzu wrote a book called "The Art of War." I highly suggest it to anybody who has not read it. It's a tactical handbook but is mostly a collection of very common sense instructions and is very applicable to every day life and business - a huge part of the reason it's been in print so long. Anyway, one of those common sense ideas is "attack when your enemy is weak and you are strong." I very much beleive that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs are still active and that he is a threat to the world, but he isn't as strong as he could be. But as time passes his strength grows, even under UN sanctions because what food and wealth does come into Iraq goes to his army, then everybody else. Alowing him to build strength before attacking prolongs the fight, increases casualties on all sides and makes victory less certain. Striking now minimizes all of those factors and gives a much better overall chance for true victory.

I realize that you see this as a huge disaster about to happen, and I recognize that it could be. But I see a responsibility to help, and a responsibility to act, and honestly this as a chance to really do something good for the world, and especially for the people of Iraq. I think a rebuilt, prosperous, and free Iraq is as a good a way to prove that the bin Ladens of the world are full of crap as any publicity campagne or Voice of America broadcast.

Great successes only come with great risk.