"Let's see- an insane dictator has WMD. That's sure as hell an immediate and present danger in my book." Saddam Hussein has never threatened to use WMDs against the US, except in defense against an attack. Iraq does not even have long-range delivery systems, which makes the alleged threat somewhat implausible.
Your premise seems to be: A belief that a nation or leader -- even though it is not stated by that nation or leader -- is threatening another, is enough to justify using military force in order to disarm that nation.
The problem with that premise is obvious: belief does not guarantee rightness. This becomes apparent when the argument is applied universally. North Korea believes that it will be attacked by the United States (the "axis of evil" speech might have been a clue). Therefore North Korea is justified in attacking US bases in South Korea. India believes that Pakistan is a threat. This justifies India in preemptively nuking Pakistan.
If that principle is extended to include NGOs, it even justifies Al Qaeda in attacking US military targets, like the USS Cole and soldiers stationed in Kuwait.
"Also, a UN resolution dictates that Iraq must allow weapons inspectors free access to his country to check for weapons that it has been decreed that he can not have and there is a no- fly zone in Iraq."
It is worth noting that the UN Security Council does not have to conform to international law -- there is no provision to have the World Court review Security Council resolutions. However, the resolutions calling for the disarmament of Iraq explicitly state that the entire Middle East is to be disarmed. This actually makes sense. But of course this fact does not even appear in discussions about this topic, as it would affect some of the most important allies of the US.
And just to prevent any confusion: the "no-fly zone" has been established by the US, not the UN.
"Whether or not international law specifically allows for 'probation' is besides the point; he IS under a type of probation."
That is the crux of the matter -- international law is irrelevant, or so it seems.
"Saddam Hussein has never threatened to use WMDs against the US, except in defense against an attack. Iraq does not even have long-range delivery systems, which makes the alleged threat somewhat implausible."
#1 Saddam is crazy, not stupid. Saddam will not openly threaten to use them; he doesn't HAVE them, remember? You've got to look at the game he's playing- the number 1 rule is "deny, deny, deny" In fact, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for him to threaten to use them if he does actually plan to use them.
A man who stockpiles WMD but does not want the world to know he has them can only be stockpiling them for one reason: to use them. Remember, this is the man who wrote letters to his son-in-law (who had defected) that managed to convince him to come back to Iraq (where he was promptly excecuted). That's how he does things.
Kimmy, "dear leader", on the other hand, is either just trying to get attention or just trying to get his own people to think he's strong.
#2 You don't need a long-rand delivery system to use a WMD. Nuclear bombs aren't that big. The real danger is of a WMD being smuggled in.
"It is worth noting that the UN Security Council does not have to conform to international law"
You're the one who brought up international law.
"However, the resolutions calling for the disarmament of Iraq explicitly state that the entire Middle East is to be disarmed. This actually makes sense. But of course this fact does not even appear in discussions about this topic, as it would affect some of the most important allies of the US.
And just to prevent any confusion: the "no-fly zone" has been established by the US, not the UN."
You seem to be under the false impression that I believe that the UN has any moral authority over the world. We've already seen the UN resolutions aren't worth the paper they're printed on. You're talking about resolutions and international law, I'm talking about what we're actually doing. I'm not trying to justify this war on legal grounds, I'm justifying it on moral grounds.
"That is the crux of the matter -- international law is irrelevant, or so it seems."
International law is an oxymoron. A law is created by a state of some kind. A loose confederation of nations does not qualify as state.