pim,

According to the resolutions of the UN, following the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's regime was to destroy all WMDs in their possession. It was the agreement made, so we would not topple his government at that time. In reality, the man agreed to the resolution, then flaunted it as if it meant nothing, not only weakening the resolve of the UN, but making a mockery of their decisions. His decision to refuse disarmament happened long before Bush took office, so I don't see that as a pertinent issue.

Yes, I can agree, and see why he would not disarm when Bush began threatening him. But by then, the job should have already been done. We should have never been brought to this position in the first place, since he had over nine years to comply.

In fact, he "kicked the inspectors out," because they were getting too close to his arsenal.

I have no quarrel with your belief that we shouldn't be at war with Iraq. But, where does this all end? Do we, as a world community, allow terrorists to seek asylum in countries, then attack us, and retreat to safety again? In my estimation, any country that harbors terrorists, allows them to train there, or supports them, should be brought to task for what they are doing. If that means violating their country through military action, so be it. We have a right, as people, to protect ourselves from attacks by those who would do all they can, to destroy everything we believe in.

As for the UN, I think it's outlived it's useful life. They proved they were incapable of handling world matters, when they insisted that UN troops stand idly by, and watch genocide happening in Kosovo, simply because they had a "mandate" of non-interference. Disarming people, then watching them slaughtered, is not my idea of how you bring peace to the world.

Wolf