[Just mythoughts]

Saddam has had 12 years to stop building his weapons, something he agreed to do.

Saddam sends money to terrorists for bombing in Israel, we have to send money to help protect against bombs.

Saddam is trying to go nuclear and he does have a past, and if the "pervert" without asking the UN big boys to send planes to attack Iraq in "98" was ok, why is another standard required today?

"Government been phoney", yes Clinton was quite the phoney. Saddam agreed to do something, has not followed through on his agreement, and we are the aggressor.

[quebecois]

"Saddam has had 12 years to stop building his weapons, something that he has agreed to do"

So what? Lying about building weapons doesn't appear in the criteria for a just war.

"Saddam sends money to terrorists for bombings in Israel"

Well, that might be a legitimate reason for Israel to attack Iraq, but not the USA.

"Saddam is trying to go nuclear and he does have a past"

There are plenty of nations trying to go nuclear. That, in and of itself, is not a criteria for a just war. If he has violated agreements with the UN as per non-proliferation, then it is that body which bears responsibility for dealing with him over it. (Besides, several of our "allies" have gone nuclear as well. Pakistan and Israel, for instance. Should we attack them too?)