sledge:

Look at it this way:

"The Iragis had greater rescouces and technology than Al Queda, they would have been able to deploy this against the US sooner or later if they had been left alone, it made sense to remove them first, even if most people couldn't see this at the time."



IMHO, the information that was availible at the time, from British, Russian, and US sources ( now suspect, but so what- one has to act on what one has) indicated that Iraq presented a "clear and present danger" to the US. In even giving the UN the time to act that Bush did, he was NOT acting in the best interests of the US.

And I cannot consider those who protested the US actions against Iraq to be for peace- if they were, WHY did none of them ask Saddam to comply with the UN resoulutions of the previous 12 years? Not one sign, that I could see- but a lot telling the US not to act.

As for the treaties with Kuwait, I will be honest- I do not know. But we had UN resolutions there, just as we did in Korea.