CarolC:

"Should we (or anyone) invade all countries that are in violation of UN resolutions, beardedbruce? "

In the case where there are other circumstances, such as violations of ceasefire, and over 12 years of non-compliance, I think that we might consider it, on a case by case basis.


Clint:

"Do 19 prohibited but non-WMD shells justify all the killing and mutilation on both sides? "

NO, but how about the ttens of thousands in the mass graves, or the risk poesed by the other WMD and prohibited weapons that Saddam would not account for? I think your question is not fair- Does your right to drink justify the 30,000 plus killed in achohol related accidents each year? Answer me that.


Nerd,

"But Rumsfeld said he knew just where the WMD were, too. THAT we know was wrong."

No, we only know that by the time we did invade, MONTHS later, after trying to get a UN consensus, they were not there. You do not know whether they were where Rumsfeld knew at the time he said he knew.


"We could invade every country in the world on the premise that "you can't prove that they DON'T have stuff that violates their treaties." That's madness. "

When the country is in violation of a ceasefire, the war continues. Are you saying that the US does not have the right to invade a country that the UN and the US are at war with? THAT is madness.


Naemanson:

The US has, and should, act in the manner that it considers in its own best interest. Just like every other country.

The responsibility for the war lies directly on Saddam. If he had kept the terms of the ceasefire, there would have been no need to invade Iraq. Why don't I ever hear any of you asking why he did not comply?

If the US is to blame for "giving a green light" on the invasion of Kuwait, then surely the protestors demanding the US not attack Iraq, without asking Saddam to comply wit the UN, gave a "green light " for his continued non-compliance, and thus for the war.
Thanks a lot, you all.