BB: Try looking at the facts. The UN DID declare hime to be in non-compliance, no matter what you belive they should have done.

And then he complied (despite the hallucinations of da Preznit to the contrary as I've detailed in a link above). And then the Security Council refused to authorise the armed invasion (which is a step beyond declaring Saddam in violation). The Security Council was instead in favour of letting the inspections (which Saddam did accede to after the first U.N. resolution) continue. What's so difficult to grasp about that concept? The invasion was Dubya's idea, Dubya's call, Dubya's mistake, and all his alone.

BB: ... programs that would lead to WMD, not possesion of completed WMDs.

"intentions of projects of weapons of mass destruction program related activies ... or anything, including cross-eyes glances, resembling such".

Moving the ol' goalposts again. Strange thing here, BB: While no WMD were found, no actual programs were found, no significant potential to do such was found even had there been any intent, we still have 2059 dead U.S. soldiers (and counting). Isn't it time for you to start talking about how democracy is in full flourish in the Middle East, with -- *miracle of miracles* -- an astonising 99% of the eligigle votes in some Sunni area coming out in favour of the new constitution?

BB: Hitler did not succeed in killing all the Jews- would you than state that he did not actually attempt genocide since some survived?

Godwin's Law. A deeply offensive comparison. But your problem here, even given that transgression, BB, is that essentially no WoMD were found (and before you start waugh-waughing about "but ... but ... the violations ... it's the violations of agreements!", I'd point out that the US is/was in violation of plenty of international agreements as well [including the requirements under UNSCR 1441 itself that nations with intelligence relevant to the resolution turn such over to the UN], and if it's the death penalty for Saddam, it's the death penalty for all). See my very early comments (under the name "GUEST"; forgot to put in my name). As other wiser folks have pointed out, even the malodourous Dubya maladministration flacks have given up pretending that any WoMD were found, and they'd be screaming it at the top of their lungs if they thought they could get by with that (one problem they had is that two separate investigations by their own chosen people found just that: No WoMD).

BB: The UN stated the IRAQ was in non-compliance, thus hostilities resumed.

Just saying it is so don't make it so. Try again.

Oh, and BTW: Your apparent notion that an actual armed attack across the Korean DMZ is the same thing as a disagreement -- with plenty of room for lawyerly squabbles, where no one's lives are lost -- is quite puzzling.... Do you really think they are one and the same thing??? Tell me, truthfully....

What mattered here was whether Saddam had dangerous WoMD, not whether he could walk whatever dotted line that Dubya and co. laid down for him blindfolded and on tip-toe. Even the law recognizes the difference; substiantial compliance trumps lawyerly nit-picking. And more so, when the consequences, both in Iraqi and U.S. servicemen's lives, are so severe. Perhaps if you think about it, you might be able to see that.... Or you can go tell Cindy Sheehan and 2000 other mothers that their son is dead because Saddam only gave us 1200 pages of documents....

Cheers,