Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.
To: exodus
"...Since Saddam has lost a war by might, he signed surrender conditions to prove that he no longer would possess WMM. His loss. The international community consented in 1991 that this particular dictator had forfeited his "right" to possess WMM in his "sovereign" borders..."
# 111 by sam_paine
Terms agreed to at gunpoint are not binding.
The "international community" agreed to leave Saddam in power. Saddam is still the sovereign of his nation, thus he MUST have weapons to fulfil his duty.
Finally, rights cannot be forfeited.
When you surrender because you no longer have hope of winning, you ARE at the mercy of the victor. Only in relatively recent times has being on the losing side not meant execution or enslavement for life. The U.S. has been a very merciful nation since 1900. The record of the American Indian Wars is how it used to be done.
Now I have been one of those calling for an official declaration of war, and admit to having overlooked the surrender terms. What is unusual is to leave the same leader in charge after his losing a war. Be that as it may, IF Saddam Hussein agreed in treaty to dispose of, and not acquire more WMD, THEN his violation of those terms is grounds for a Declaration of War. So the justification is there. Still, I would rather he had surrendered to the Allies sans U.N. , because this is another step in the U.N. acquiring supranational authority.
Remember that the U.S. of A. could be outvoted by the myriad little socialists, and could find ourselves at war with the U.N. ! Actually, the U.N. has been making war on American values for 60 years and using our money to do it.