[hermit22]

So does Israel. The number of SC Resolutions that Israel violates by controlling the occupied terrritories is more than the 16 that Iraq does, yet we have made no intention of invading Israel to liberate Palestine.

I'm not an Israel-hater, I'm just using it as a point. Many, many countries violate UNSC Resolutions and they do not get threatened with war like Iraq does. (OK, so Israel's been attacked a few times, and part of the justification from Syria, Egypt, et al. was their violation of 42, 61, 242, etc. - but not the US.) Consider that when you're developing your theories about UN's takeover of the world.

And Cairo...the Gulf War did end. Conflict may continue, but, as Jaguar said, it's low level conflict. There is a huge difference between full-scale war (I'm sure you could try to argue that legally there wasn't a war in the first place, so the conflict is the same, but, in modern warfare, the declaration of war is no longer required.) and low-level conflict. So I'll make a quick little ladder, since Jag's off watching Simpsons.

Ok, let's say someone insults you. Do you respond with a full-out nuclear response? No, you insult him or her back, and conflict continues at the same level. Or you turn the other cheek, and it de-escalates. Or you throw a punch, and suddenly, the level has escalated.

Similarly, what we've been doing since the Gulf War (and it wasn't directly after the Gulf War that the no-fly zones were established; they were put in after the Kurds in the North and the Shi'ites in the South couldn't handle Iraq's Republican Guard, despite our claims that we had completely demoralized them. They were established by Britain, France and the US to protect those groups from Hussein's revenge - ie. his destruction of Halabjel after the Iran-Iraq war.) has not been actual conflict by today's standards. We bomb a few buildings here and there, ensure that noone is flying where they're not supposed to - and that's about it. Occasionally, Hussein targets our planes, so we bomb those installations too. Fine. Conflict is kept at a relatively low and consistent level.

In all that, however, there is no indication from Iraq of a direct threat. Besides the attack on former President Bush in 1993 (which, I might add, is 9 years ago) and the withdrawal of inspectors in 1998, there have been no indications of a need to escalate the conflict to the level that the chickenhawks suggest. So, then, it is pre-emption. If conflict is on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being nuclear war and 0 being America and Britain, then pre-emption does not necessarily mean you go from a level of 0 conflict to 8 or 9 overnight. You could go from, say, a 3 or 4 to an 8 - and it's still pre-emption. Also, look at the argument that is being made - that Hussein needs to be stopped before he attacks us - that are all about pre-emption.

It wasn't just Powell that was calling for an end to the Gulf War. Much of the coalition agreed, and many of the military establishment did as well (they, of course, didn't want to go to war in the first place, but that's a different matter).

In addition, I wouldn't call Hussein an idiot. He's outlived an attack and a resulting animosity from the most powerful nation in the world. His positioning inside the country to become President is a case study in totalitarianistic politics. I've seen it compared, on a lesser scale, to Stalin's rise. None of that means he's a good person, it just means that rejoicing in calling him stupid is ignorant in itself. Same goes if you're Canadian or German.

Who's trying to solve problems by dropping nuclear bombs? Oh, right...Saddam is!!!!

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Even the harshest armchair generals can't admit to Hussein currently having nuclear weapons. Instead, they usually just incorrectly quote a report about his capabilities before the Gulf War and ascribe it to the present day.

irst of all, the Gulf war isn't over! And second, Saudi Arabia won't let our troops leave, seems they are afraid of being overthrown by bin Laden's terrorist network, and the Royals begged the UN to install US there in the first place!(Learn a little History, dude.)

You go learn a little history. SA is none too pleased with the American presence in their country, esp. lately. The reason they let Americans in in the first place was because they thought they were next on Hussein's list. One of the most contentious issues in Saudi Arabia today is the presence of troops.

In wartime, we don't need to P-foot around with Diplomacy, no need to ask permission to defend our Country in a 10+ year ongoing war, no need for a "smoking gun"...the "smoking gun" is the fact that the Gulf war has no ending!

It's a good thing you don't run the country. We are not an empire. Get that through your head. We may be economically and militarily superior to every other nation in the world, but that does not give us the right to act that way - especially when it's not in our interests to do so. You don't want to invade a country that has successfully painted us as the bad guy on the world scene (ie. sanctions) and use the "oh, I thought they were going to attack us" line. It doesn't fly in international relations. It a) infuriates the surrounding countries, some of which act scared, others of which become havens for terrorists, and b) tells other countries that it's OK to invade another country for no reason.

Look up the idea of a nations sovereignty, and their right to it. We constantly argue that we can not sign any human rights treaties because the transparency inherent in them makes them a violation of our sovereignty, yet we completely flubb that rule when it comes to Iraq.

Ok, I may have wandered a bit. But the point is that you can't view two nations in a vacuum. You need to understand their relations with the rest of the world in order to act coherently on the international scene.

If you want me to list the other reasons why we need UN support to invade Iraq, just ask. I'll do so in another thread.