1. The Desert Strom war was really based on a UN resolution. That's why it was legal. Therefore, US really got a permission from the UN. If you are speaking about the Desert Fox action, then it was an illegal act of aggression because it was not based on a UN decision.
2. They look in the wrong places... Now you are dodging, MagiK. We are not speaking about "know how", we are not speaking about pieces of information that must remain secret (like diplomatic encryption codes or the knowledge of the codes of others), we are not speaking about sources of that information or about methods of gaining it. We are speaking about information which we awfully need to publicize but which we cannot publicize for some reason. Consider these two situations:
Case 1: The CIA states that there is a storage of WMD below the Palace X.
We can believe it or we can not. We can ask how CIA knows it. Also, if we publicize the statement this way, the basement of Palace X will be emptied lightning fast.
Case 2: The CIA tells the inspectors that they should check the basement of Palace X. The inspectors go there unexpectedly, check the basement and state: "Yes, we have found WMD in the basement of Palace X. Here are the WMD" and show the WMD on the TV.
Now, it's hard not to believe that the basement of Palace X does not serve as a storage of WMD. The inspectors were there, checked it, and found the WMD.
As we can see, the current inspections are a powerful ally at our side because they allow us to publicize facts that we need to publicize. But they AREN'T our powerful ally! Why? Sorry, I cannot accept sentences like "Blix and Co. are pacifistic trolls" as an answer. It's no explanation. It's a war propaganda.
Also, you have added an obvious untruth. Where do you know from that the current inspections have found Mustard Gas? If it were so, MagiK, the inspections would be over, the UN resolution would be proclaimed and the war with Iraq would be going. Because Mustard Gas is a chemical WMD.
3. The palaces weren't searched? MagiK, who informs you about Iraq? The palaces are searched all the time! Please can you explain where you have got such false information?
4. Where have I stated that raping is okay, MagiK? You are trying to foist something I didn't say upon me.
As far as "your" (i.e., the USA) self-proclaimed role of the world's sheriff is considered, yes, "you" do it all the time and "you" force others to do the same. It's the law of the fist - something completely unacceptable in the civilized world. Civilized people use other ways of argumentation. A fist as an argument belongs to the lowest level pubs in slums and similar places.
5. My numbers are correct, MagiK. It's your numbers that are total nonsense in the better case. 200 deaths of civilians? MagiK, only the shelter in Baghdad that was bombed "mistakenly" during the Desert Storm war contained much more civilians! "200 deaths" is a plain lie.
Next, I would like to turn your attention to one interview with M. Albright in one well known TV programme. She was asked whether the half a million dead children in Iraq were worth it. She replied: "Yes, we think it's worth it". The reply shocked the whole world. This was, IIRC, in 1995. Now, we have year 2003. Be sure that the number of dead children did not decrease since then. Quite the opposite.
As far at my supposed "lecturing" is concerned, you are mistaking argumentation for "lecturing". I am not about to "lecture" anybody.
To Ronn_Bman. You are repeating the standard propaganda about Saddam not allowing his people to feed. If you want to know the reality then check, for example pages of D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck (
http://www.notinournames.org).
Note: D. Halliday was the first UN administrator of the "Oil for Food" programme. H. von Sponeck was the second UN administrator of the same programme. Therefore, both D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck are people that know what are they speaking about. Both of them abdicated after finding out what the programme really is.