I have been following this debate with some interest. Indeed I have interjected thoughts before including a history lesson on the use of atomic weapons in WWII and the use of chemical biological weapons this century.

SMIRC I believe you willingly gloss over many good points made by Moby Duck about civilian casualties. I don't understand why. While I do not find myself as militantly minded as Moby I am free to admit that I agree with most of what he said.

As to civilian casualties they do happen in war. There is no way around them and that is unfortunate. America has proven as, or more, protective of civilian lives as any nation on earth during conflicts while still following accepted practices of that conflict. That means that you can point to the WWII and see many instances where numerous civilian casualties were caused. Bombs were not accurate and saturation bombing of cities was an accepted practice. This led to enormous civilian casualties. However, even there, America normally attacked cities of military importance and targeted industrial centers rather than civilian populations. Germany, on the other hand, targeted civilian populations in an effort to demoralize England. England and America learned from this because it was that shift that may have saved England since the previous bombing of industry and airfields had almost brought the RAF to its knees.

If you want to point out civilian casualties caused by the US (and her allies Britain, Canada, and Australia) you should look at Berlin or, better yet, Dresden. Dresden was a minor military target but was a huge political target, why? because the Russian army was close enough to see the effects of the bombing and moved into the city in a few days. That attack was a message to our Russian allies as to the strength of our air force. America bombed it by day, Britain and the Commonwealth bombed it by night. Deliberate saturation bombing followed by incindiaries to cause a firestorm that killed over 100,000 civilians. Historically Dresden stands out, not because of casualties, because it is one bombing campaign that should be considered a crime against humanity. One out of thousands. Historically the precedence is that the aggressor is to blame for the casualties. Only in this debate is America blamed for all the casualties caused in all the wars we have participated in irregardless of provocation, circumstance, or truth.

Civilian casualties are an accepted cost of war. Tragic, yes, but to say you should not go to war unless there are no civilian casualties is saying you will never go to war. We no longer meet on battlefields where a relatively few civilians can pack up and leave. In fact we never really did except for a few battles. Sieges of cities have been disastrous to civilians throughout history and it is a lot easier not to kill "innocents" with a sword than with a 500 lb. bomb.

To some the no war idea may be acceptable and in an ideal world I would love for it to be true. We do not live in an ideal world. There are madmen like Hussein around. There are dictators and tyrants who feel free to kill their own civilians and then extend their terrorism to the rest of the world. I believe that by stopping Saddam we are attempting to alleviate his killing spree. One report in the news shows that Saddam has already threatened the southern most Kurd city with chemical attack when the first US bomb falls. He has warned the city publicly that he will wipe it out in retaliation against any US aggression. I find that odd and insane that a dictator would tell his own civilians that he will kill them for the actions of a foreign nation. Odd and insane for most, pretty normal and common for Saddam. Of course since he is linking to American actions I suppose we will be blamed when he does it.

I do believe Bush made a mistake. I believe he wanted the same type of consensus that Bush Sr. had with the Gulf War. If he had prosecuted the war quickly then there would have been the standard hollow protests by a few nations trying to improve their stance with moslem nations (France for example) a few real protests by people who idealogically oppose all wars (I disagree with them but at least they are true to their beliefs and nature so I respect them) and a number who would wait to see if he was successful to decide whether to support a victory or profit from a defeat (I would put most people in politics in this category except for those who have hitched themselves irrevocably to Bush's coat tails).

As it is the debate has been allowed to rage and tensions have risen. I now believe that Bush would be wise to wait for one more UN resolution to be passed and wait for its time to run out, which I believe it will, then he should strike without seeking more UN approval. I honestly feel he should drop the US/UK proposal, allow France's and Germany's delaying proposal and then we should all hope and pray that Saddam and Bin Laden do not use the ensuing months (three I believe) to set up a series of terrorist attacks that I am sure will not be designed to minimize civilian casualties.