Daylia, perhaps you should consider the following.
I posted this on another thread but I think it bears repeating.
Resolution 678 was passed on November 29, 2990, soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 678
"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait .. to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area."

Resolution 687, passed after the liberation of Kuwait, requires disarmament of Saddam Hussein and reaffirms
resolution 678. Since resolution 687 reaffirms 678, and since 678 allows Member States to use "all necessary
means" to implement "subsequent relevant resolutions", it follows that resolution 678 allows the United States (a
Member State) to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Resolution 1441, yet another resolution requiring Saddam to disarm, also reaffirms resolutions 678 and 687. So ..
same logic applies."
Larry, I wasn't being morally indignant. I think you must have misunderstood my post. My point was that Saddam has consistantly lied about everything from day one. He claimed that he had no Scuds capable of the range exihibited by those fired at Kuwait the other night.
Bobert seems to believe that Saddam has no NBC capability, regardless of the reports given to us by numerous defectors and despite the fact that tons of anthrax, which were discovered after the Gulf War, have never been documented as having been destroyed. Shells have been found containing the residue of mustard gas and we know that Saddam gassed the Kurds.
Bobert, I assume that the only thing that will convince you that Saddam has NBC capability will be for him to drop a nuke in downtown Tel Aviv, and I can't understand why that should be so. Is your dislike for our government in general and George Bush in particular so great that you must have eyewitness proof before you will accept that Saddam is a danger, not only to the US but to the peace and stability of the world?

troll