So we're going to war for the UN, huh?
...or attempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush
According to Bill Clinton, that is.
Umm, in addition, there are also the small matters of shooting at US warplanes;
the desperate race to get a nuclear bomb or two, most likely for DC and Tel Aviv;
the murdering of thousands of Iraqis with chemical weapons;
the invasions of two neighboring nations for economic gain;
and the harboring, support, training, and coordination of terrorists (abu nidal, al-qaeda, hezbollah, etc)...
maybe you've heard of those? They made the news once or twice.
The truth is that the world is far safer without Saddam. We made the mistake of supporting this trained assassin and helping him gain more power and influence a few decades back. Now we're fixing that mistake. We are not going to go after EVERY dictator who kills his own people... but the ones that have been and continue to be a threat to their neighbors, the US, and to massive number of innocent civilians just might get on the list.
So we're going to war for the UN, huh?
No dufus, the 16 resolutions were passed in an attempt to protect innocents from terrorist murder. Those 16 resolutions have been breached, meaning the innocents aren't being protected... do you recall WTC I, WTC II, or any of the other world-wide terrorist attacks?
Perhaps you're one of the radicals who believe Iraq has nothing to do with terrorisism?
Idiot.