Saddam had NO ties to Al-Qaeda too. They approached one of his minions, but no support was ever offered.
So I suppose the media is lying?
That's a Yes. As was revealed in
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S OWN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACK.One of the motivations I've seen for Juniors attack was revenge for the attempted assassination of Senior that Saddam tried to pull off. It's at least got truth in it, unlike every other reason we've been thrown.
As for broken resolutions, let's start with something easy.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510612004 Important lines:
Earlier, the Security Council had passed a resolution in which it reminded all states to "ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law."(36) That resolution was passed one year after the first prisoners arrived at Guantánamo Bay. Almost 600 are still held there without any sort of legal process, in violation of international law and flying in the face of the Security Council’s resolution.(37)
I don't advocate armed conflict against Iraq, why would I advocate it against NK?
As for troop casualties. Most of the 2000 casualties are from "After the end of Major Combat Operations"
And as for Illegal, we're talking in the terms of international law, not simply on a national basis. See:
http://www.ejdm.de/stop%20the%20war.htm and
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030318/2003031821.htmlBefore the USA declared War, the inspectors were getting everything they'd asked for. The USA attacked before they delivered their final report however. And it was expected to turn up EMPTY. So, why was there any need for War? NO WMDs, NO connection to Al-Qu'aeda (I've seen about 4 different spellings of the name in my linkhunting). Resolution 1441 only supported the use of force if there were no other options...ie if Iraq fobbed off other UN approaches.
As for Iraq stopping Terrorist attacks...it hasn't. They've gone up. Both within Iraq (dramatically), and outside Iraq. It's now a less safe environment globally, contributed to by unwarranted USA aggression.
And if Terrorists are being weeded out, how come their numbers are growing?
Bear in mind these Programs were in place from BEFORE the first Gulf War.
Not relevant.
So it's not relevant that he laid plans for that before he had any idea of what resolutions would be placed upon Iraq once the USA had finished?
Why would he bother to go round to all the people in the program and say "Forget about it, we're not going to bother" as opposed to just...not reactivating them.
...because he wouldn't need to use them ever again. But who believes that he wouldn't?
We'll just ignore the fact that developing WMDs isn't banned in any UN resolution. And why wouldn't he ever need to use them ever again? Or is Iraq supposed to be on happy friendly terms with all its neighbours and never be under the possibility of attack ever?
(yeah, yeah, too lazy to get the proper quotes for the points I'm replying to. It's late n stuff)