Arguably Iraq was in defiance of Resolution 1441, althought they did destroy 68 of their Al Samoud missiles on schedule with the UN demands. However, Resolution 1441 does not automatically call for military action if it is not met. It calls for "serious consequences", which would be detemined by the security council. Compare it to the wording of resolution 678, concerning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which clearly calls for military intervention if not met. Resolution 1441 does not.

12 years of defiance, and still no call for military action.

"Give them time! Dubya just wants war!"

On the bright side, the peaceniks can't do much of anything if you ignore them.

12 years of defiance, and still no call for military action.

There's a very simple reason for that. There was no need for military action. Prior to 1998,Iraq had over 9000 inspections, and according to former chief UN inspector Scott Ritter, between 90 and 95 percent of their WMDs were destroyed. Although there were times prior to 1998 that Saddam didn't cooperate with the UN, in general he was in compiance and would back down when pressed. Saddam quit cooperating when he realized the economic sanctions would never be lifted, even with full disarmament (the Clinton administration said as much).
Look at how easily we defeated Iraq - this shows how much of a threat they were. We've been there a month and still have not found any chemical or biological weapons (although I wouldn't be suprised if we eventually do - theoretically they do still have 5% of what we sold them before the gulf war).

Perhaps you didn't get the memo. Saddam Hussein wanted revenge for the response to the 1990 conflict.
Someone even wrote a book on it:
The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge Oh! And the uprising in by the Shias in the south of Iraq? And the uprisings by the Kurds in the north? Yeah, Saddam reportedly wanted revenge for those too.
There's literally dozens of reasons why Iraq didn't like the United States. And after Isreal bombed Iraq in the 1980s, I guess there was no love lost between those two either.
Maybe all Iraqis hate the British for their efforts early in the 1920s.

Let's see: Destablize the Middle East by attacking Afghanistan, who did nothing to antagonize the US? Check! Destabilize the Middle East by attacking Iraq, who the United States has been aggressively controlling the airspace for over 12 years? Check!

Doesn't it just frighten the crap out of you when you think how the US is going to destabilize the Middle East next?

Sock Puppet, I hope you are right. I hope that the mideast does stabilize as a result of the Iraq war. Syria knows that its next in our sites and is trying to find a diplomatic solution, proposing that the mid-east becomes a WMD-free zone. Wouldn't that be great? However Syria claims to already have no WMDs, and the proposed treaty is aimed at eliminating Israel's nukes.

I'm afraid in the long run there will be more Muslims stirred to anti-US terrorism as a result of the Iraq war.

""What happened in Iraq just makes Muslims the world over feel humiliated, and they're angry," said Abuza, who faced death threats while researching possible links between Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network and other extremist groups in Southeast Asia, such as Jemaah Islamiah, or JI, and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, or MILF.
Abuza believes that anger will eventually translate into more terrorists in Southeast Asia.

The coalition's war in Iraq is "certainly doing Osama's recruiting for him," Abuza told United Press International."

from http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030416-102756-9758r

Yeah, yeah. But the link I provided above to the link from Saddam to the terror organization in Africa has a direct tie to Saddam pre Sept11Attacks.

In other words, Saddam wanted revenge for the 1990 Gulf War, and the terror link with Al Qaeda is just now being proven to the public. The recent capture of the one terrorist in Baghdad (Abu Abbas)and the knowlegde of the other well known terrorist (Abu Nidal) who died after retiring to Baghdad and whose organization (Al-Banna) relocated to Baghdad in 1998.

In other words, Saddam had a lot of money and wasn't afraid to use it to get weapons of all sorts, and fund terror of all types.

Terror organizations may well get new members, but without the funding and intelligent leaders, the effect of the terror shouldn't be more organized than it was some years ago.

As to Syria, the hammer that is the US Army is best only brought out of the toolbox to show strength, and using it on every opportunity would not be effective. It should give teeth to diplomatic efforts, though. Syria isn't a candidate for invasion.

OK. I'm gonna educate some of the fools here, because many of you seem to be among the 60% of Americans that believe Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind 9/11, and that it was perpetrated by Iraqis. Here goes:

A man named Osama Bin Laden planned 9/11 through an organization called Al Qaeda, operating out of Afghanistan with the support of a conservative theocratic government called the Taliban. Of the 19 hijakers, 15 were Saudis. None of them were from Iraq. Since 9/11, the United States has rightfully deposed the Taliban government from Afghanistan, but has been unable to apprehend Osama Bin Laden and most of his top men. The President has not mentioned Osama's name since June of 2002, and has publicly said that apprehending Osama is "irrelevent."

Considering the fact that 9/11 was the most covered news event in the history of this country, it is chilling to realize that 60% of the American public have forgotten the facts and the identity of the perpetrators.

Indeed, it is a testament to the massive propaganda machine the Executive Branch has been operating, that such high numbers of brainwashed dupes have been created.

Sock Puppet, you rely heavily on the book "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America" by Laurie Mylroie for your information concerning Iraq's possible connection to the 1993 WTC bombing and the embassy bombing. The book presents a theory which has not been proven. Many experts feel that the author's theory is wrong.

Hey, someone who choses to actually do a little research instead of outright denial! Congrats for at least that!

In truth of fact, it's been hard to prove exactly WHO Ramsi Yousef IS. He did travel on an Iraqi passport. That's not the only connection to Iraq though. Rumor has it that Yousef did a lot of the terror planning on his own, and was only picked up by the Al Qaeda organization much later.

Yousef's apt. in the Phillipines caught fire when he was working with fluids that would get through metal detectors, and yet still be able to bring down 11 jumbo jets all at the same time as they crossed the Pacific. It's suspected that this plan eventually turned into hijacking the planes and running them into buildings. In other words, Osama didn't come up with the idea himself, it is believed that the idea was adopted and then adapted.

I don't think I've mentioned Kahlid Sheik Mohammed (or as I like to call him, the "hairy terrorist"). We don't really (publically) know who he really is either. We caught him as he was carrying a Kuwaiti passport. Issued in Kuwait. In 1990. The only people that issued passports then were the occupying Iraqi forces. Why would they do that? No, no proof. But Ramsi's passport being Iraqi isn't propaganda. The hairy terrorist might very well be born and bred in Kuwait, and have nothing to do with Iraq, but the timing in which we know he got that passport suggest a friendly relationship with the Iraqis that invaded Kuwait. Getting this guy is the intel coup that makes getting Osama only propaganda.

But no, Laurie Mylorie's work hasn't been proven. Everyone starting with Ms. Mylorie has long maintained that the infighting between the FBI and the CIA before and during the trial prevented good info from being wrested from Yousef. And as long as the FBI controls Yousef's prison whereabouts and who he contacts, we probably won't know for certain - at least publically.

But the information that Mylorie had to work with has been bolstered by the amount of information that has been uncovered since the rounding up of Al Qaeda members began in earnest with the conflict in Afghanistan.

Random tidbits of info related to the current conflict are beginning to pile up, however.
Here\'s one where Iraqi spys trained in ...'s spy network.

Perhaps a tidbit involving the 1993 attacks may turn up. It's hard to tell from my armchair.

But I realize that no single tidbit I can provide today will be enough to convince those wishing for peace and love throughout the galaxy except for President Bush.

First, as a Canadian, I want to say that I continue support the US and the coalition in its liberation of Iraq. I disagree with my government's position. Although, as I'm sure you all know, there's not much Canada could have been able to contribute to the war effort anyway. Again, I'm proud of the troops in the Gulf.

I think the "real" issue around this whole thing has been that the Bush Administration has not communicated the "case" for action well. They didn't communicate why the Iraqi action needed to happen now -- i.e. what had materially changed. I agree they should have gone in with the Brits and others now, as I believe that President Bush Sr. should have gone to Baghdad 10 years ago.

Anyhow, I watched the Tonight Show on April 3rd and found myself agreeing with much of Dennis Miller's "rant", if not "how" it was delivered. I've pulled his quotes about Michael Moore and attached them below.

Dennis Miller's comments on Moore are BANG ON. He also indicated, which I couldn't find anywhere online to cut & paste, that Moore was selectively critical. He took on most everyone even before the Oscars -- everyone, BUT the Academy, because he really wanted an Oscar. Miller has a point there. Moore has complained so much about life in America and "fakeness", blah, blah, blah -- I was surprised about his own shallow selling out for an Oscar.



Just my two cents. God bless free speech and freedom.