Iraq proved itself in many ways to be a serious threat to the Middle East. First in 1980 it waged an aggressive war against Iran which cost one million lives. Then in 1990 it invaded Kuwait, ransacked and looted the country and killed thousands of Kuwaitis. Then during the first Gulf war to oust Iraq from Kuwait it fired missiles at neutral Israel. Then after the war from 1991 to December 1998 when Iraq kicked out UN inspectors on charges of spying it had attempted to thwart UN inpectors effort to search for weapons of mass destruction. It had lied and tricked the UN inspectors at every turn. Iraq had orginally been given two months to declare all its banned weapons and offer them up for destruction but it had taken over seven years to destroy most of Iraqs WMD. Prior to the first Gulf War Iraq had also tried to aquire nuclear weapons.

Do you honesty think that if the UN and international community had left Saddam alone and lifted all sanctions that he would not have gone on to develop more weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons and to invade and conquer the whole of the Middle East or at least a large part of it?

"Iraq proved itself in many ways to be a serious threat to the Middle East. First in 1980 it waged an aggressive war against Iran which cost one million lives."

With, you omit to mention, the support of the USA...

Iraq was very anti-western during the 1970s! It was only in 1980 when the Iran/Iraq war broke out and it was clear that Iraq was losing that America decided to back Iran to prevent the spread of Islamic extremism by the Ayotallah. Back then it was thought the best thing to do at the time as Iraq was a secular state and was considered a counter weight to the Ayotallah's Islamic fundamentalist regime.

Iraq was never really a close ally of America it was the enemy of Americas enemy and the alliance between America and Iraq was one of neccessity rather than choice. America had obviously made a mistake in backing Iraq but back in 1980 did not know how dangerous and unpredictable Saddam Hussein was.

Just because America made a mistake in backing Saddam back in the eighties does not mean it was wrong to take on Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait or that it was wrong to stand up to Saddam Hussein when he refused to co-operate with the 1991 Gulf War cease fire terms.

Rockwell:

1. Saddam Hussein was put into power by a CIA-backed coup. Well documented. Read and learn.
2. Saddam Hussein was supported by America with WMDs. This is pure fact - it's in the Congressional library. America even went so far as to use government-backed loans to improve his credit standing so the world would trade with him again. Again, read more.
3. Iraq was always a friend of America and Britain during that time because he did what he was told. This is demonstrated by the fact that America knew of what he was doing against his people and the Kurds and attempted to cover it up. Again, well documented. Read. They knew "how dangerous and unpredictable Saddam Hussein was".
4. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was inspired by American actions. Read.
5. Invading Iraq in GWI was wrong, because there was an offer of peace on the table, put forward by Iraq, that would have had them withdrawl. The Americans ignored it (and it was censored from the press at the time and only released after the invasion), went against the UN's wishes, and attacked anyway.

If you still insist that we are wrong with no evidence to backup anything you say, I suggest you're better off reading Fox News than wasting your time here.

While we're at it, let's talk about Saddam's threat to the Middle East.

Pre-9/11, both Rice and Powell were seen on television stating that Saddam was being contained, that he did not have any WMD capabilities, and that he posed no threat at all. Again, well documented.

Two days after 9/11, Rumsfeld wrote down some notes stating that they must go after bin Laden. He also added that they must judge whether or not using 9/11 is good enough to target Saddam Hussein too. He then ended the note with "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

"Neutral Israel", as you put it, has the largest stockpile of WMD's in the region, and consistently refuses to allow in weapons inspectors, is in breach of dozens of UN resolutions (not to mention those that were vetoed by America to prevent criticism of Israel), routinely uses torture for interrogation, is building the next Berlin Wall, has described Palestinians as "cockroaches", has stripped most (if not all) of the Palestinians' human rights ... just as bad, if not worse, than Saddam.

Then Saddam kicking out the inspectors ... fascinating. You forgot to mention that there *were* spies in the UN contingent: American spies that were undermining the inspectors' work. I believe Blix even blamed them as the number one reason for the UN inspectors' failure.

Since you justify the invasion of Iraq for these reasons (a threat, a nasty dictator etc), are we to justify an invasion of Israel, perhaps? After all, they have attacked the surrounding countries previously (including a strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor), so they're obviously a threat, including having WMDs etc. as I've described above.

Thanks Rockwell, you let me vent some frustration. Much appreciated. Happy reading.