What was the order after desert storm that said hussein had to let Iraq get inspected for weapons development?
456483
For a list of UN Sanctions and Resolutions regarding Iraq from 1990-Current visit:\n\nhttp://www.iraqwatch.org/un/Index_SecCounRes.html\n\nResolution 687, Section C (April 1991) established the weapons inspection requirement. Resolution 707 (August 1991) further established Iraq's need to fully comply with weapons inspectors.\n\nThese two are not exclusive, as the Iraqi government failed to comply with almost a dozen resolutions in the years following the Gulf War. \n\nAs a direct result of these failures the UN passed resolution 1441, which was designed to force them to cooperate, or suffer the massive consequences that have since been brought to bear.
462479
That person is in charge of advising the president of military matters that need to be addressed in both peacetime and war time.\n\nDuring the Bush 1 administration Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He played a critical role during the first gulf war.   Both Mr.  Powell and General Norman Schwartzkoff worked closely together as military strategists to win that war.   Unfortunately, President Bush Sr was a total schmuck and ended it before the job was complete.
703465
Weren't (I believe) these all seventeen (or so) UN Security Resolutions that Iraq had violated? \nThis takes care of UN SC Reolution 1441, the rest can be found here: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm\n\nUnited Nations\nNew York, New York\nNovember 8, 2002\n\n\nUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution\n\n[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]\n\nThe Security Council,\n\nRecalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,\n\nRecalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,\n\nRecognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,\n\nRecalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,\n\nFurther recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,\n\nDeploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,\n\nDeploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,\n\nDeploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,\n\nDeploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,\n\nRecalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,\n
1084897
WE ALL KNOW IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED THE USA. Pres. Saddam Hussein was trying to make sure the flow of oil to the Zionists and America wasn't as fluid as America would like. Hence the reason they got rid of him. The pretext of saving the Iraqi people from Saddam is nothing but a lie. Just like 9/11
459060
Donkey is right, we supported him throughout the Iran/Iraq war.  My unit personally found an ammo cache that included several mortars, artillery, and all kinds of other explosives marked US and with US serial numbers.\n\nAlso, during Desert Storm, Iraq launched SCUD missiles at Israel trying to get Israel to fight back.  Since many countries in the region don't like Israel, he was trying to get more allies.  Since they didn't fight back and we protected them with our patriot missiles, it didn't amount to much.\n\nBefore the war in 2003, America had put together quite a case for doing it and everyone believed Iraq had WMDs.  America encountered no resistance from countries other than Iraq.
770520
the dumb ass american government saw that iraq had a lot of oil and got jealous. so they made up a long story and said they had to protect the iraqi civilians. now they're just killing them (if you wanna call that protect them)\nUS wanted oil, that's the reason. and as for weapons of mass destruction. aparently sadam had some. let him have them, the US has them too. and it´s none of the US' business if they have them in iraq, it´s their land, let them do what they please
830148
Q:  Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? \nA:  Because they had weapons of mass destruction. \nQ:  But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. \nA:  That's because the Iraqis were hiding them. \nQ:  And that's why we invaded Iraq? \nA:  Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. \nQ:  But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? \nA:  That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election. \nQ:  Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? \nA:  To use them in a war, silly. \nQ:  I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them? \nA:  Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. \nQ:  That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back? \nA:  It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense. \nQ:  I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did. \nA:  Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. \nQ:  And what was that? \nA:  Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country. \nQ:  Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country? \nA:  Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. \nQ:  Kind of like what they do in China? \nA:  Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer. \nQ:  So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people? \nA:  Right. \nQ:  Why were people in Iraq being tortured? \nA:  For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. \nQ:  Isn't that exactly what happens in China? \nA:  I told you, China is different. \nQ:  What's the difference between China and Iraq? \nA:  Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist. \nQ:  Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
751383
this war and Saddam was not worth one penny or one life.if you think about it,Saddam got rid of all his weapons and was complying with all the U.N. sanctions therefore he should have never been attacked.Bush stated he didn't care what the inspectors said he knew there were weapons and would attack any way.2 years later he admitted he was wrong because he was given bad intelligence.so he should be tried for war crimes.too many people have died because of his bad intelligence.
13827
Because David Kay and the CIA's Iraq Survey group, appointed by President Bush to investigate WMDs in Iraq, concluded that at the time of the US Led invasion in March, 2003,  Saddam Hussein did not possess chemical weapons stockpiles, having destroyed them in 1991.  \n\nIn the Key Findings section of this report, the following paragraph can be found:  \n\n"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."\n\nThis document can be found on the CIA's web site. (see sources below)
156952
Well no ones answer will be objective (except for mine of course LOL).  The fact is that their were multiple  Terrorist training camps in Iraq and bush made it clear that we are against any country that harbors terrorists.  Sodom Hussein also gassed thousands of curds.  Leading to the weapons of mass destruction accusation.  Manly he was an incompetent leader who had invaded other countries before and wouldn’t have a problem with doing any thing that would kill innocent people.  And no it wasn’t for oil.  If it was than why am I pay so much for it.
1050293
the previous answerer is giving you the liberal spin.  Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs.  They believed it because he was no longer allowing UN inspectors into Iraq to make sure they were all gone.  His not allowing UN inspectors was a violation of the peace agreement that ended the fighting from Gulf War I, giving the US every right to resume military action.  Saddam definitly had WMDs (weapons of Mass Destruction) at a previous time because satalite intel picked up their use against Iran in the Iran Iraq war in the 1980s and against Kurds in the North of Iraq.  What he did with the WMDs is unknown.  Did he run out, did he ship them out before the invasion (we gave him plenty of time), did he bury them?  We don't know.  It is on record that Bill Clinton bombed Bagdad stating that Saddam had weapons or was developing weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam, himself, is an insane meglomaniac, and was a brutal leader.  His goal in life was to be seen as a great Arab leader and his choice of fame was to destroy Israel.  I would not say he had any chance of accomplishing that, but any attempt would have created a conflict that dwarves what is happening now.  Saddam was a time bomb that needed defusing, WMDs or no.\n\nIf you don't believe this guy was crazy, know that he starred in a TV piece instructing Iraqis on how to vacuum their carpets.
252476
Saddam was not taken out in Desert Storm.  The U.N. went in to monitor his illegal activities, and he was rebellious and uncooperative.  That finally led to the second conflict, which was of course easily won.  Now our troops are staying there until their government can become strong enough to protect themselves from all the terrorists and insurgents who are running around the middle east looking for a country to take over.
211623
If you make a mistake, do you clean it up or do you let it be?\n\nWe created Iraq by giving him military support durning the Iraq-Iran war. \nWe also created Iran through giving a dictator our support to opress his people. \n\nWe are responsible for Saddam's military appetite and the Islamic government taking power in Iran. \n\nWe made a mess and we need to clean it up.\n\nCountry girl you are right, We were attacked by radical Islam on 9/11 and we are fighting radical Islam in Iraq. Yes they are connected!!!
1144545
registrations001,\nThere's a big difference between making threats and following through with them.  Iraq had used chemical weapons.  They were ACTIVELY shooting at our planes over the no-fly zones on a daily basis.  They violated 17 U.N. Resolutions.  They supported Hamas and other terrorist groups by giving money to the families of suicide bombers.\n\nAt what point do you say enough is enough?  That's a question you don't seem to have a good answer to if you think the Iraq war was wrong.  Saddam truly believed we'd never commit to taking him out.  The problem would have only gotten worse had your line of thinking been abided by.\n\n\nsgtsnafu2,\nSaddam told weapons inspectors there were NONE.  Why would he care about hiding depleted resources?  Really ask yourself that.  Truth is that he had the capability to produce more weapon-grade chemical weapons.  He had the "know-how".  He demonstrated his willingness to use them.  He campaigned against everything the U.S. stood for.  You are naive to think he would never place them in the hands of the terrorists he was paying to blow up Israelis.\n\nThere is no question he posed a threat to the stability of the region.  Now that we're in Iraq, we can keep Iran in check.  You wouldn't happen to be one of the ruling mullahs there, would ya?\n\n\nTommyG,\nOh, I see.  We found weapons that weren't even on our list!!  Gee, I guess that means they don't count?  Are you going to avoid the question as well asking why Saddam would bother hiding them in the first place?
156942
LEARN and REMEMBER people. How many times does it have to be said?\n\n\n\nThe Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. It passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23, obviously receiving a limited amount of support from Democrats, and must be considered an overall unsupportive vote when compared to the "war vote" for the Second World War and other more poplularly supported conflicts. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.\n\nThe Resolution cited several factors to justify a war:\n\n    * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
235647
The goal of gulf war 1 was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. That was accomplished. The goal of gulf war 2 was to enforce over a decade of United Nations resolutions that were not being met. also, the terms of surrender that Saddam agreed to in gulf war 1 were not met. whether or not WMD were found is irrelevant, Saddam was not meeting his obligations that he agreed to. Saddam would not allow confirmation of the status of his WMD capability, and given his prior record, i am certainly glad we didn't take his word for it. One thing i will agree with you on, without question, is i wish the best for your son and all the other brave men and women deployed around the world. No matter what you believe about how we got into this situation, everyone needs to get behind that!
211206
The only logical explanation I can find is as follows:\n\nThe first assumption is that we had to go into Iraq initially to remove Saddam Hussein. The real reason may never be known (daddy, oil, the Baghdad battery, who knows).\n\nThis was about Americans being free from the threat of Saddam somehow managing to cobble together a missile that could reach the West Coast. Unlikely, I know, but you could imagine it at a stretch. Hell, he had a lot of aluminum tubes, maybe it would have been a very long blow tube dart.\n\nHe could also have withheld OIL from us, which would have removed the freedom to drive enormous vehicles to the store to buy groceries, unless you wanted to take out a mortgage for 10 miles of gas.\n\nOnce we were in there things changed. Having removed Saddam, it soon became clear that we'd messed things up. All the excuses for the war came tumbling down, so we needed some new ones. Luckily, the insurgency provided that. There were now terrorists in Iraq.\n\nThis was something the Iraqis hadn't known for years. Theirs was a very well controlled environment. There was no crime, and everyone was happy. Very much in the same way, as there is no crime in an area controlled by the mob, unless it is authorized. It also made for the next excuse - Iraq was now a (and still is) a breeding ground for terrorists.\n\nThese new terrorists do directly affect our freedom, so its important the soldiers are there to show that even the most powerful military force on the planet can do nothing about them. We should always be scared of terrorists - and that directly impacts our freedom.\n\nEven more insidious (and I thought of this before 24) is the through that terrorism may remove our freedoms altogether.\n\nThe plot is as follows. Terrorists created in Iraq infiltrate the US and manage a semi-devastating attack. The government has to impose martial law to deal with it. This is close to Nov 2008 and the election cannot take place with martial law imposed, so it is postponed. Bush remains in power as a (now) military dictator. Saddam is very jealous. In order to function better, executive power to make any decision to defend against terrorism means that the administration disbands congress since its getting in the way.\n\nIn this way, the soldiers fighting in Iraq are fighting for us. If they can defeat the terrorists, Bush may not be given the opportunity to remove all our freedoms.