>>But this does represent a serious about-face for the U.N., including especially the Security Council's, member nations. I am quite confident that the vast majority of the resolutions of the past were mainly for show and to make a point, with zero intention of acting on them. Why has this need to act suddenly become so critical when Iraq cannot be shown to have ANY links with Al-Quaida or terrorism generally? Oh, people can say that "they must have" but that doesn't prove that they do.
>
>I don't know if they were mainly for show, but if they were as you say, that says more about the credibility of the U.N. than anything. My point all along is that if you continue to pass resolutions, they continue to be ignored, and you do nothing about it, then what good are they?

But you miss my point... heretofore, the acceptable practise at the U.N. was to make toothless resolutions. Suddenly, resolutions are to be enforced. I'm just wondering why the about-face and why it is suddenly so critical???

>
>As far as the links to Al-Quida go, I believe those links probably are there. I have heard reports that terrorists have trained in Iraq. But that link isn't required for me to want to use force to remove Saddam from power. He has attacked 4 of his neighbors. He has used chemical weapons on Iran, and his own people. He continue to defy the United Nations by developing chemical and biological weapons. What more do you need?

"Probably there" really shouldn't be acceptable as the deciding factor in the killing of thousands of people, and even if YOU don't feel it is a deciding factor, it is THE factor that is guiding President Bush in this endeavour (protecting the U.S. and the world from WMDs that Saddam may furnish to terrorists).

I'll refrain on comments on other of your points.
>
SNIP