I agree that proof of WMD would be justification for war. However, any way you slice it, America and Britain (let's not beat around the bush [no pun intended] - there really aren't any other allies who amount to much) have yet to offer any conclusive proof beyond mere suspicion that Iraq indeed has these WMD. Do you not think that you should justify war before declaring it? If the justification were that Saddam is an evil, dictatorial tyrant that must be taken out for world peace - great, go ahead. But instead the justification, by your own admission, seems to be "we're pretty sure we'll be able to find proof after the war is over." Do you see nothing wrong with that?
Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com