crowMAW the Iraqi Nuclear facility was not a smoking gun in the opinion of the world at the time. At the time is was billed as a facility for the development and support of commercial nuclear energy production. The Iraqi's never came out and said we are using this facility for creating nuclear weapons or enriching material so that it can be used for making bombs.
It was very suspicious when you thought why do they need nuclear power plants when they have all that oil? But even then a good part of the world cried foul over the Israeli actions. Saying they had no just cause for attacking and destroying a commercial plant. Later it was proven that it was more than just a commercial plant.
Also it was shown that after this attack by the Israelis that the Iraqi regime then made efforts to disperse and hide its nuclear facilities and program so that in the future it could not be hit and disrupted by a strike that the Israelis did. Again proven after the gulf war.
So in this case it was not a smoking gun. And then afterwards they hid and dispersed.
In the case of NK it is a smoking gun since NK has come out and said publically that they are working on a Nuclear Weapons program. Their facilities were not a smoking gun before they said this since other countries argued they needed these so called commercial facilities for creating energy. Only after the NK said no we are working to creating Nuclear Weapons did the other countries then go .. oh, these facilities could be used to aid with that. Don't bring them online. Before NK said that it was .. oh, NK needs energy and these are just commercial facilities.
As for the World II analogy you are right no country went to war because of the holocaust. They simply would not believe the reports of it the recieved and dismissed it as propoganda.
You are right the smoking gun .. if you can call it that was an attack on Poland and attack on Pearl Harbor. And actually an attack on Russia. In all three cases the allied side had evidence pointing to a looming attack. In all three cases an argument can be made that they waited too long to start preparing for war and beefing up the particular forces in hot spots.
Russia refused to believe it was going to be attacked by Hitler until it was. If they had prepared for an attack things might have gone different. Might not have but might have.
Britain and France did nothing substantial to support Poland but make threats to Germany of what they would do if Hitler did something. This after allowing him the rearm, to occupy the sudentland, absorb in all but name Austria, etc., etc.
The U.S. knew that things might develop into war and had made some preparations for it and expected the Phillipines to be the real target. But even there they did not really beef up the forces their to the extent to resist and onslaught.
All three examples the evidence was there pointing to the fact that Germany and Japan were serious and were ready to attack but it was not given the weight it should have or the preparations to counter it that should have been done.
At the time you could argue we could afford to let the other guy take the first punch (attack Poland, attack Russia, attack Pearl Harbor). The problem today is to let the other guy take the first punch when he might be armed with chemical weapons, atomic weapons, or biological weapons and has shown that he will use what he has (chemical in the past) is something that can be much, much, much more catastrophic than in the past.
In my opinion Bush should have given more time and done more diplomatically than he has to get a consensus on the issue. But eventually it still comes down to the point that it is very likely that Iraq still would not comply and still be evasive and when do you say enough is enough? Or do you run inspections from here till Saddam dies of old age. Because if you stop running inspections then he will reconstitute his programs and he has shown the will to use these weapons when he has them.
Its a nasty situation no matter what way you look at it.
