WW3?

[Is Don on the phone?]

The way I see it, we have three options:

The "Give Peace a Chance" scenario:
Continue to negotiate with Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, because we can overlook their past deceptions. This allows them to continue the development of their CBRN capabilities and delivery systems, which should lead to the loss of several major US cities sometime in the next ten years, courtesy of either Iraq, Iran or North Korea (No, they are not an axis, they are three seperate threats. Defeating one does not stem the others, with the caveat that Iran would probably not strike if unprovolked by us, at least for now).

The "Compromise"
Attempt to sway the dove countries of Germany (who knew?), France (no suprise there) and Russia (again, who knew?) by instituting a U.N. led coersive inspection regime. This would change the face of the inspections, making them less inspectors and more investigators, so it would require a new mind set at IAEA and UNSCOM. This MIGHT work, if for once the UN didn't fold under pressure, and if the rhetoric could be toned down. Keep in mind that this closes the box around Saadam dangerously tight, you may see UN troops and inspectors killed (conventionally or with CBRN attacks), leading to hostilities.

The "Dubya" approach
Forced regime change by invasion. You all know the story here, so I won't bother with the details.

Which would I like to see? Well, Id LOVE to do some coersive inspections, but I think it will end up not happening. I think the peaceniks are living on another planet - how do you negotiate with a dishonest party?

Meanwhile, I keep my go-bag packed, and await orders.....