No nation is blameless and no people can honestly claim their hands to be bloodless. As such, slinging accusations of "Well, you did ______!" back and forth are a waste of time and effort (Ireland vrs. England, Israel vrs. Palestine, Red Socks vrs. The Yankees, etc). Nobody is pure enough to win that argument. Also, getting one's news from one source only encourages that argument as the news becomes nondescript headlines.
Here's an example: President G. W. Bush was elected by a minority of voters. That can be pretty damning, but when you consider that it is the result of the Republican and Democratic parties putting forth two really crappy candidates, it's no suprise. Then again, as I've said earlier, this current issue should have been resolved long before Bush ever took office, but that too is no suprise when you consider that for Clinton to try this would have been pollitical suicide.

So let's boil this down to it's essential elements:

• Iraq invaded Kuwait which ultimately resulted in a large coalition of nations removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War
  


• The terms ending that war were that Iraq was to disarm and submit to UN weapons inspections or face a continuation of hostilities resulting in Saddam Hussein's removal from power.
  


• Saddam Hussein has pursued weapons of mass destruction anyway and has impeeded every international attempt to enforce the terms ending the Gulf War.
  


• Left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will almost certainly begin to aggressively expand Iraq's borders.
  


• Keeping Saddam Hussein on a short enough leash to *possibly* contain him requires sanctions that have so far starved over 500,000 Iraqi children to death.
  

There is a solution, it's not pretty, and I too wish it wasn't being made in such a decidedly uni/bi-lateral fassion. Nobody else seems to be willing to solve the problem, they want to put it off until later. It's a human enough reaction, but enough is enough.