Mark & Juanita posits:

But Charles, we were already there since the dictator of that country
invaded a neighboring country. We had been enforcing the no-fly zones
ever since the first gulf action; that situation had to be resolved at
some point -- simply abandoning the policy was a sure way of further
destabilizing that region.

Where's the "either/or" here? No one said a word about abandoning a procedure
that was working well.

The fact the dictator of Iraq wasn't
invading neigboring countries was because his freedom to do so had been
blocked by the continued enforcement of the no-fly zones. Remember also
that while there have yet been no findings of WMD's, there is
significant evidence that he intended to pursue development once the
sanctions were lifted.

If they ever were lifted. The fact is, Bush's buddies jumped on him and he
jumped on Iraq for reasons that are not yet established. Imminent danger to the
U.S. was not one of those reasons, AFAICT.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is of
significant concern as well -- I'm pretty sure that situation is not
being ignored -- a radical muslim funamentalist nation with the bomb is
not something to be taken lightly.

No one has said a thing about Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, a
pursuit that recently seems to be turning aside, at least a bit. Nuclear
weapons that exist and nuclear weapons that are intended to exist if a set of
circumstances changes are two very different things.

Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson