Sorry to be responding so late, I had an issue with my email.....
Anyway, please correct me if I'm wrong...but the agreement was with the UN, not the US. The UN said "no" to sending troops in yet the US still went in. It appears that Iraq was conforming to the UN resolution and the inspectors were allowed access (granted, not quite full and complete access, but still access). International law is a funny thing, it's sort of a "wink" to everyone else that each country will abide. Outside of our Executive's legal team, I'm unaware of any international law scholar that has called our actions in Iraq legal.
Personally, I'd be suprised if Iraq didn't have some sort of biological/chemical warefare program....honestly, I'd be suprised if we didn't have a stockpile somewhere "just in case".
I'd have no problem with our actions if it was billed as a humanitarian effort...kinda like we did w/Milosovic (sp?). Bad dictator committing war crimes=moral duty to remove him. Saddam is a bod dictator and commits (or at least committed) war crimes; therefore he should be removed and it's our moral duty to do so. What I don't like is that the current US action is being portrayed as a spin-off of the 9/11 attack. Were it to be shown that there was a strong connection to that, or even that Saddam was actively seeking bigger and bigger weapons to destroy us, that would be one thing. However all I see coming out of Washington are conclusory statements without firm data.
I hate to mention that our Executive branch has personal issues with Saddam, and I'd certainly not mention the ties to big oil that are there...but I bet that the news would be alot different today if someone discovered how to run cars with kim chee.