"Saddam HAD violated the terms of the ceasefire, and the US was authorized AND REQUIRED to act under the 1991 ( and later) UN resolutions."
"As I recall, the UN didn't REQUIRE us to go to war."


I did say "act".

The topic of a just war is certainly one that should be discussed. Was WWI a just war? The US entered it on the basis of a torpedo attack on one ship- hardly a danger beyond question, or a last resort.
Was WWII? The US had been attacked by the Japanese- but we declared war on Germany as well. What danger did they present at that time to the US?


"Remember the United Nations weapons inspectors who wanted just a few more weeks to do their work?"

Yes, I do. They had stated that they could not get the REQUIRED cooperation from Iraq that was needed to insure the detection, location, and removal of prohibited weapons.
Korea? A UN mandated war, still unresolved over 50 years later.

Basically, wars are caused far more by treaty obligations than by "just" causes. How many of the countries in Europe wanted to go to war over the asassination of a single Grand Duke? But each had treaties, that required them to act. We have treaties now that may involve us in many conflicts- should we repudiate them all?

But, the original invasion of Kuwait was the cause- that had NEVER been "ended" by treaty, there was only a ceasefire. If one wishes to discuss other actions we could have taken, that might be useful- but the US was within the bounds of international law and UN resolutions when it resumed combat operations. All the comments here, and in the press about the "illegal" war are just so much BS. Specific actions, by both sides, during this conflict may be illegal under the rules of war- but the war itself is legal.