Stlhd

I don't see the logic in your post, at all.

You stated that the “U.S. is now tasking itself, without U.N. approval, to almost single handedly over throw the Iraqi government based upon a complete and sudden change in U.S. policy to one of pre-emptive strike”. There are a couple of things wrong with this statement. 1. we haven’t done anything without U.N. approval so far. GWB went to the U.N. and they decided to send weapons inspectors back in. If we do go to war with Iraq we will have U.N. approval, and we will have allies with us. 2. This is not a sudden change in U.S. policy. President Clinton’s policy was for regime change in Iraq long before he left office. 3. This is not a preemptive strike. We are going to strike someone who we have essentially been at war with for 12 years now.

You state that if we go into Iraq that the U.N. could become irrelevant. I would say that the U.N. has been irrelevant for quite some time. They have let Saddam ignore the first 16 resolutions, break the terms of the cease fire agreement by shooting at coalition airplanes patrolling the no fly zones, they let Saddam play cat and mouse games with the first and the current set of weapons inspectors, and they haven‘t made him come up with proof that he has destroyed his chemical weapons ability. Last week we found several artillery shells designed to deliver chemical weapons. The action that GWB is taking concerning Iraq are long overdue.

Herm
You are correct if Gore had been elected wouldn't have to decide wether or not to enforce the ceasefire agreement in Iraq. We wouldn't have to worry about dismantling Al Queda and other terrorist groups. He would have just iognored the problems just like he and his boss did for so many years.