[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by gabrielzero

1) Resistance in letting United Nations officials into top-secret locations for weapons inspections.
I can understand this completely - it's a matter of their national security. No country would want to divulge all of their military secrets to anyone else, regardless of how confidential the inspectors might claim the proceedings are.

They didn't have an option. Since they couldn't be trusted not to use their chemical and biological weapons, the UN placed sanctions on them, including required inspections. If Saddam had kept his finger off the button for the past twenty years, none of that would have been required.

Also consider this; Iraq's military suffered a devastating blow during the first Gulf War, under Bush Sr. By releasing to the United Nations exactly what their defensive capabilities are, anyone who has a bone to pick with them will know exactly what to expect, even more so if their military is in a shoddy state (which, judging from the invasion, it was). Now consider that one of their neighbors, Iran, has had a long history of being hostile towards them, even so far as an outright war back in the 80's. Iran is also a member of the United Nations, and would conceivably have access to the results of the Iraq investigation. If this isn't screaming 'security threat' to you, it should.

Yes. They did something stupid, and they were taken down for it. The answer isn't to let them build back up with even more deadly weapons and do something stupid again, the answer is to make sure they don't build up again. Iran wouldn't really have access to Iraq's information unless they were on the council for it -- and I doubt the UN would be so foolish as to put a known enemy of Iraq in control of their military intelligence. Even if Iran did decide to invade them, Iraq was still a weakened country with sanctions on it, and the UN would have (or at least should have) defended them.

By the way, don't use the swiftness and efficiency of an invasion as evidence for a weak Iraq, but moreso a strong Coalition.

Imagine if, for whatever reason, the United States had to forego all forms of security ans allow inspectors to search the Pentagon, White House, and every other major military point for some form of check, knowing that Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, etc, all would be able to access the resulting data.

If we decided Mexico should be part of America and invaded it, and the UN came in and beat us back, then yes, that would be understandable. Because we'd deserve it.

2) Iraqi rhetoric against the US
While Iraq has frequently attacked the US (and other nations) verbally, also consider that so have the French. And Germans, Iranians, North Koreans, Cubans, and bunches of other nations, some of which pose a much more significant threat than the ruler of a third-world country on the opposite side of the world.

Most of the other countries that have "attacked the U.S. verbally" haven't threatened to launch nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks against the U.S., and aren't known for blitzing into neighboring countries to cancel national debts. (Save Germany, a long time ago, and North Korea.) Nobody posed a more significant threat to the United States and United States interests than Saddam Hussein.

3) 'Housing terrorists'
Afghanistan, Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Israel all have been known for problems with terrorists. Less recently, Ireland. It's known that there are terrorist groups within countries such as France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and even the United States. South America is never quite stable and, if Josef Mengele can hide there for thirty plus years, faceless terrorist minions would find it an easy task. Much of Africa is in a constant state of upheaval, and some countries simply can not control every square mile of their territory to keep training camps from poppingup, regardless of their feelings towards terrorist groups.

There's a huge difference in having "problems with terrorists" and state-sponsored terrorism. Yes, there are terrorists all over the world. No, most of these terrorists (well, outside the Middle East) aren't supported by a government. Saddam, on the other hand, built training camps and provided weapons and funding and information to Al-Queda. That's not even going into their hatred of Israel and Saddam's $25,000 checks to families of "Palestinian" homicide bombers. Again, there's a huge difference in having terrorists in a country and that country actively harboring -- and training, and financing, and supporting -- terrorism.