I agree with you but what I am saying is you need a lot more than that before you take on a nuclear armed nation.

You need irrefutable proof...and the will to do something about it.

This was tried in a small country called Iraq. There was talk of nukes and alarm bells rang amok. Here we are today no better than before the shredding took place.

That' true. But I did not say that we are at war with them - I said they are at war with us.

;)

There are two major differences.

First, Iraq had no nuclear weapons, and had ended its ambition to get them years before Bush came along. Pakistan's nukes are no unproven suspicion. They are proven fact.

Second, Hussein did not actively support terrorists striking Western nations and people - for that, he was not mad enough, but quite rational: he knew he was under observation, and the Americans and British forces right over his head just waiting for a trigger to strike. What Saddam did was supporting propaganda coups, and paying "social aid" to Palestinian families whose members "martyrized" oneself from this life to the next. Pakistan on the other hand has given birth to the Taliban, they are their creation, and it is proven guilty to have a very heavy hand in directly supporting acts of murderous violence and terrorism outside Pakistan.

However, I am aware of the complications in the current situation. I am clueless on what to realistically do about Pakistan today. My point always was that one should have beaten this failed nation to death BEFORE they got nukes. Some threats you cannpot remove if you allow them to manifestate. You need to prevent them from becomeing reality.

Looking at other hotspots, namely Iran, I doubt we have learned from the Pakistani lesson.

Putting formality over substance is a new trend.
All you have to do is repeat and act by formality over and over again and every one will want to believe that you don't really mean what you DO.