Originally posted by kingdavid
[B]Your position,and Rask's is to a large extent emotion based factoids:
"Saddam is hell bent on expanding his nation"
Yeah,yeah.He tried that in '91.Look what happened.

A). One Arab nation is a key point of the Ba'athist platform. B). There are HUGE holes in Iraq's claims to have disarmed, they've been caught lieing numerous times even since inspections have resumed, and you still take Saddam's word that he has no hostile intentions? Weapons, especially WMDs are intended to be threats, that's true of any nation. Now take a good look at Saddam Hussein himself, and his government; if he had good intentions this chrisis could have been over a decade ago. Give Saddam or whichever of his sons succeeds him five to ten years with no sanctions to rebuild their strength and see what happens.

"Meanwhile,several million people(the entire population of Israel)have been wiped off the map"
I won't even say yeah yeah.

Huh?

Rask says the result of not following thro' on UN resolution has always been invasion and regime change.I ask for examples(if you ask me,a lack of such examples is a rebuttal).He says to look up UN resolutions on Iraq.Is that an example?I was hoping(silly me)...

Here's one. Since those resolutions are so easily atainable I figured it would be obnoxious (and unnecesarily verbose) to quote them. If you really want, I can comb through it and quote specific texts that apply here, but again, that's a lot of words to say some very simple things... Lawyers!

Your basic argument is that Saddam signed an agreement to end the gulf war.

On Mar 3, 1991...

And he hasn't fulfilled the terms of that agreement.So technically we should revive the gulf war.
The argument is fine.

Thank you.

And don't ignore the power of precedent(how many times does someone tell you not to do X,then you ask if Joe is doing it,why can't I?Or look at the legal fraternity.You'll see the power of precedent).

So allowing Saddam Hussein to get his will sets a good precedent?
How can the UN expect to have any authority or credibility with the next dictator it decides to challenge if it doesn't carry through with Iraq?

The problem is why America would use such deviants in the first place.

In the case of Osama bin Laden, he was taught to use his faith as a weapon against the Soviets then taught a lot of guerilla tactics. I think we can all agree that those are reasonable measures for resistance fighters to take against an invading army. What then happened is that bin Laden applied those tactics against civillian populations - THAT is crossing the line in my book.

As to your other 'whys,' I'm pretty sure I've answered most of them in the last post.