To: sea_biscuit who wrote (25546 ) 1/10/2005 5:57:35 PM From: Sully- Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947 "If he failed to comply with UN Resolutions, it is for the UN to decide how to deal with it." If? ROTFLMAO!!! You sound like you were taking bribes from Saddam too! The Oil-for-Food scandal proved once again how utterly corrupt the UN, France, Russia, China, Germany & others have become. The UN was never going to enforce the Resolutions against Iraq, but somehow you hold the UN out as if it were still a credible institution. George Bush made it clear that countries like Iraq with WMD programs & ties to terrorist groups were not going to be tolerated in the post 9/11 world. Iraq was had been clear violation of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement (and numerous other Resolutions) for more than 12 years. Iraq was a convenient & legal means to show the world we meant business about rouge dictators with WMD's & ties to terrorists. I'll note that Lybia got the message & came clean without a shot fired."After all, Israel has flouted several UN Resolutions as well. Did we invade Israel?" Ah, the strawman argument. How typical of a lib. The UN has passed a number of specious Resolutions against Isreal. All the UN has done is establish that it allows anti- sematic countries to bully Israel with fabricated BS, just like libs do here in America against Bush. None of the Resolutions were passed in the UN Security Council & none established that Israel was any threat to its neighbors, let alone the ME or elsewhere. Perhaps you could list a few of the Resolutions the UN passed against Israel & show me what proof the UN actually had to support them. Then you might try to compare those Resolutions against UN Resolution #687 & #1441 & explain to me how Israel is more of a threat than Iraq. You can't because they aren't. Not by any reasonable standard.