That just says, "If you don't see things my way, UN, then I will do what I want to do with or without you."

Your clear and present danger scenario has played out in the past. Russia puttin missiles in Cuba--that was a clear and present danger. Iraq may or may not having WMDs--that's a little shaky to me.

My nightmare during the Gulf War was that Iraq would arm a few Scuds with bio or chemical weapons. That scared the shit outta me, because if one of them had hit Israel, I really think that Israel would have used nuclear weapons in response. Given the nature of the conflict in the mid-East, I do think the Israelis would have had no choice but to hit about six countries that surround it. (I am not trying to open a can of worms here. I am not at all saying whether I think this is a good or bad response. However, I think it's the response that would have occurred.)

9/11 was a clear and present danger, and ostensibly that is at least part of the reason the US went into Iraq. But ther has never been a link drawn between 9/11 and Iraq. Hell, what was the worry about letting the UN decide what constituted a 'clear and present danger'?

How, exactly then, did Iraq pose a 'clear and present danger' to the USA? If possession of WMDs are a c and pd to the US, then there are at least 20 countries that have nukes, that many with chem weapons and probably that many with bio weapons. Hell, is the US gonna take the world saying the world is a 'clear and present danger' to the USA?