We violate UN resolutions too, so are we the same as him?

what UN sanctions against the US were there?

plain and simple Dragon...I'm giving my view point of it

and in my opinion...I am not even concerned about the sanctions. He was a madman and needed to be stopped...Same reason we went to Kosovo

UN Resolution Does Not Authorize US To Use Force Against Iraq
by Stephen Zunes

Despite successfully pushing the U.N. Security Council to toughen further its already strict inspections regime against Iraq, the Bush administration appears ready to engage in unilateral military action. "If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions," U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte claimed immediately after last Friday's vote.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The U.N. Security Council, in its unanimous adoption of resolution 1441, declares in Article 14 that it "decides to remain seized of the matter." This is diplomatic language for asserting that the Security Council alone has the authority to determine what, if any, action to take regarding current or future Iraqi violations of their resolutions.

The U.N. Charter declares unequivocally in Articles 41 and 42 that the U.N. Security Council alone has the power to authorize the use of military force against any nation in noncompliance of its resolutions. It was the insistence by France, Russia and other nations that any alleged Iraqi violations be put before the Security Council to determine the appropriate response that delayed for seven weeks the adaptation of the U.S.-sponsored resolution.

Originally, the United States insisted upon the right of any member state to unilaterally attack Iraq if any single government determined that Saddam Hussein's regime was violating the strict new guidelines. The U.N. Security Council categorically rejected the U.S. demand to grant its members such unprecedented authority to wage war. Instead, the resolution adopted insists that any alleged violations be brought forward by the inspection teams consisting of experts in the field, not by any member state. At such a time, according to the resolution, the Security Council would "convene immediately in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance."

Why, then, has the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress and the media disingenuously reinterpreted the resolution? Apparently, President Bush has been determined for some time to go to war regardless of the level of Iraqi compliance but -- given that public opinion polls indicate a majority of Americans would support a war against Iraq only if there was U.N. approval -- he needs to claim U.N. authorization.

Lacking such authorization, he and his congressional and media allies have decided to claim that the United States has such authorization anyway.

One can therefore picture a scenario like this: In the early stage of the inspections process, some technical or bureaucratic glitch will emerge that other Security Council members believe is resolvable, but the United States will claim to be Iraqi noncompliance. The rest of the Security Council will insist the problem is not that serious, but the Bush administration will exaggerate the nature of the dispute and will claim the right to enforce the resolution unilaterally.

The vast majority of the international community will not support this conclusion, but Bush and his supporters will claim that the United Nations is prevaricating again and that it is up to the United States to enforce U.N. resolutions since the United Nations is supposedly unwilling to do so itself.

Iraq agreed back in September to accept a return of UN inspectors under conditions put forward by the Security Council that were already far stricter than those initially imposed after the Gulf War. In response, the Bush Administration threatened war unless the Security Council voted to strengthen them still further, essentially moving the goalposts.

There are more than 100 U.N. Security Council resolutions being violated by member states. Iraq is in violation of at most 16 of them. Ironically, Washington has effectively blocked the enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions against many other nations, since they include such countries as Morocco, Indonesia, Israel and Turkey that are allied with the United States.

At the same time, the Bush administration insists that the credibility of the United Nations is at stake if it doesn't enforce by military means the resolutions against Iraq.

In reality, it is this kind of double standard that threatens the credibility of the United Nations.

Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus project (www.fpif.org) and author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2002).

###

But we allow other tyrants to continue to do what they have the right to do in their country. Why would Saddam be any different?

again

Again

I guess we should save the world...but not possible

as far as Hussein...my opinion...I would have chosen him if I were president for the murders...but also because if he got it all together...yes he could have easily come after us. he violated the sanctions.

why did we go into kosovo?

: yes a country with no navy or air force and a bombed out infrastrcter is a real t hreat

1st of all...I said MY OPINION. 2nd..he was a threat to his own people...3rd...he could have very well gotten it together to cause harm

he was a threat to hi people for 30 years or so and we aided and supported him. america is no stranger to supporting brutal dictatorships china and pakistan come to mind

so we should have just let him keep going?

he was contained he wasnt going anywere. he certainly wasnt worth the price this country has paid for his removal, unless of course you sit on the board of KBR or Halliburton

you keep saying they were contained when they violated the no fly zone

and america has violated the geneva coonventions many times yet we claim a moral high ground.please this is getting moronic

ummmm ok....but you asked about iraq and said they were contained. i just showed you they weren't

AGAIN....notice the MY OPINION part???

This country has far worse problembs than Hussain and many of those problmbs are related to this bankrupting war and in My opinion any one who supports this moronic war are traitors being that this war has ruined our economy and reputation in the world each passing day is more bad news for america, the dollar sinking to new lows gas prices ever riseing, more and more people without health insurance but hey if you dont support the war your unamerican, I dont understand how some people think.

So was an aspirin factory. Are you trying to say that Clinton was spineless? If so it will be the first thing you and I have agreed upon.