Do you have any sources to bolster your assertion that the facts posted were incorrect, or are you one of the myriad of posters who just decide they are right without a single piece of evidence to back it up?
What facts do you contest, and on what basis?
Have you/did you not ever read the U.S. diplomatic record regarding either the first Gulf War, the truce agreement Saddam signed to obtain a lull in the fighting, the US diplomatic record at the United Nations Security Council deliberations on Iraq’s constant breach of that truce for 12 years, the international history of wars and truce and peace treaty agreements related to them and the actions taken by nations when those agreements have failed and the record of the active diplomacy of the offended nations at the time. Within those record, within that history you will find the practical application of accepted terms of international law. Throughout that record you will find the exercise and practical application of what nations have respected in international law, and what they have not.
No where in that record can you find one nation successfully standing on the inviolability of their “sovereignty”, against their having abrogated a truce, as accepted grounds in international law for that truce having no legal standing against them. If you can find one, let me know.
No where in that record can you find those who obtained a truce against a belligerent, giving up their right to pursue, by any means needed, the enforcement of that truce if it has been broken, as their legal right in international law. If you can find one, let me know.
The problem that most people have with regard to Iraq is their divorcing the final acts of the play from its opening act - “Gulf War I”, and ignoring that the only applicable terms that respect the totality of international law must observe the entire play as a continuum, and not as isolated events.