The problem with this argument is that it rests on the language of Resolution 687, which was not officially presented as a cease-fire agreement. Moreover, it never specified what constituted a cease-fire, under what conditions a cease-fire would be presumed to have been broken, and what remedy or remedies would be taken to restore a cease-fire.

Where no formal codes specify the conditions of a cease-fire and its breaches and remedy for breaches, precedent may have to be used in its place, or the opinions of reasonable individuals as to what the words “cease-fire” actually mean must be the basis from which to proceed. Is not the breach in a cease-fire really the firing of a shot from a weapon? Is this the case? Does Bush invade Iraq because the United States has been shot at by Iraq? Has Iraq/Saddam shot at anyone for that matter? And allowing for the possibility that a cease-fire is breached by the belligerence Iraq alone, and by its threat of using force against another party to the cease-fire terms, has Iraq in fact threatened anyone with attack or invasion?

There is no point however in discussing a cease-fire (or its breaches) that is purely hypothetical, since that lends it a legitimacy it does not have. Resolution 687 was never a cease-fire agreement. It inserted the term cease-fire merely as recognition of the status quo with respect the actions of Iraq vis-a-vis the coalition forces, as part of its unconditional orders to Iraq as to how it was to submit itself to the United Nations. The United States and Iraq submit to the authority of the United Nations in the matter of Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. And it is therefore upon the authority of the United Nations that military force is authorized, absent any other violation of the United Nations charter, in which a nation can defend itself without prior approval of the United Nations.

Curiously critics of the accusers of Bush as a war criminal would have greater legal ground to stand on if they had asserted that Iraq had been subjugated and had agreed to a surrender agreement (as opposed to a cease-fire) whose conditions required, inter alia, its disarmament and its submission to weapons inspections. The seemingly uncooperative Iraq would then appear to be in violation of the terms of the surrender agreement, and a resumption of hostilities would most likely to be seen as the fault of Saddam. The surrender, by the way, would be of the territory of Kuwait seized by Iraq through conquest.

Supporters of Bush and the war also claim that Resolution 1441 gives them the legal justification for invading Iraq. It does nothing of the kind. It gives stern notice to Iraq that it must submit to the resumption of weapons inspections, which were abandoned by the United Nations in 1998 for reasons to be explained in the next paragraph. Resolution 1441 was sponsored by United States, whose original draft, in fact, threatened the use of military force with a trigger that picked the finest of nits. The United States had to tone down the language in the text of 1441 significantly to get it to pass, and to withstand a veto by the permanent members. The conclusion following its passage was the the Security Council would have to consent to the use of military force in a separate resolution, based on a finding of Iraq's continued obstinance. But the United States, in a deceitful attempt to “spin” both the letter and spirit of Resolution 1441, has attempted to intimidate the members of the United Nations into conceding that the resolution gives the United States the authority to act militarily, when it never did, and when the United States was forced to back down on that kind of threat.

Many critics have pointed out the weapons inspections (under UNSCOM) had to be ended because of Iraq's increasing lack of cooperation. Weapons inspections under UNSCOM has been ongoing for SEVEN YEARS already. Moreover, the United States and the United Kingdom were maintaining both northern and southern “no-fly” zones, a militarily enforced denial of Iraq to use its airspace in select regions of its territory.

Iraq was understandably irritated that weapons inspections were continuing and never ending. It was basically demanding to get a commitment from the United Nations Security Council for a list of the set of conditions that would need to be met to certify that Iraq had been rehabilitated, and by which its continued submission to weapons inspections would end. It also objected strenuously, as it had always done, to the no-fly zones. Iraq correctly stated that unending weapons inspections and the no-fly zones, as well as economic sanctions imposed upon it, were tools by the United States to harass and to intimidate it, and to interfere with the internal politics of the government of Iraq, a member of the United Nations. As such these were violations of the Charter of the United Nations. The no-fly zones were never specified in resolutions by the United Nations Security Council, and were unilateral actions taken on the part of the United States. Iraq never recognized these imposed no-fly zones, and attempted to shoot down U.S. and U.K. jets that patrolled these zones of its airspace, which Iraq declared was a violation of its airspace. (It is false to allege that Iraq has attacked the United States in attempting to shoot down American warplanes, since these warplanes have no legal basis for maintaining these no-fly zones.) The United Nations Security Council never put forth a plan that specified the future rehabilitation of Iraq, a state that was apparently to be on permanent parole, a convicted felon with no restoration of its rights.

In summary, all of the critics' charges in this section are answered, and Bush remains guilty of a war of aggression, and guilty of war crimes for all deaths of non-combatants, intended or otherwise, that are consequent to his illegal invasion of Iraq.

This is part of the covenant made centuries ago when the nation-state was born. It is covenant between nations respecting each other's sovereignty, and it is formalized in the United Nations Charter. The government of no nation must interfere with the government of another nation. Doing so is considered an act of war, and the government which is the target of such interference would be within its right to commence hostilities against the nation whose government was engaged in the interference.

So how does an evil and vile dictator get overthrown? Well, as it has always been done before: by his own people. Surely anyone so monstrous that even his own Praetorian Guard would want to kill him might nonetheless be deposed in a bloody revolution. If it is a fact that people choose the person who leads them, whether by a vote or by bullet, then that is the way it must be.

The United States also stands on no moral high ground in expressing its indignation for the brutal and murderous way in which Saddam treats his own people. Governments of the United States in the past have not only called right-wing dictators “friends”—these dictators had special police forces and death squads committing extrajudicial killings—but in a few cases, the United States actually used its covert intelligence operations to depose democratically elected leaders which were not friendly to the interests of the United States, and the United States helped brutal dictators to come to power. Not even the most vile nationalists in the United States, which hold power in the government today, dispute what the United States did with respect to Pinochet of Chile, Armas of Guatemala, Marcos of the Philippines, Franco of Spain, Somozoa of Nicaragua, and the Shah of Iran. Even today, the United States is almost certainly involved in covert operations—illegal by executive order under previous presidents but cancelled by Bush—to destabilize the government of Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, its elected president. It remains a question about whether the United States government is working with conspirators to remove Chavez from power by any means, including assassination.

There is also another reason for a strict observance of the sovereignty of nations. When it is allowed for one nation, the United States, to decide who is to be a leader of another nation, Iraq, or to determine the fitness of the leader, then this becomes a slippery slope. Suppose Canada decides that Bush oppresses Americans. Some of them or all of them, it doesn't matter. So Canada decides that Bush must be deposed, and forms an army to invade the United States. Who is Canada to decide for the American people?

The response might be, “Well, Bush is clearly the leader of republic with frequent elections, and there is a constitution to limit the term of his power at any rate. Saddam is the dictator of country which allows no opposition, and even murders the opposition. The recent show of an election in Iraq in which Saddam was the only candidate was a pretense toward legitimacy as the chosen leader of his people. But we are not fooled.”

This may all seem true, but who are we to question what the people of another country want. Perhaps there are cases where people nominate only one person for office, and the opposition, if any, is willing to bides its time. Moreover, those on the outside looking at the Election of 2000 between Bush and Gore are more likely to be impressed with the scandal of the election, and to see corrupt influences involved in deciding an undemocratic outcome. It is not at all so obvious, which is why the covenant of nations respecting each other's sovereignty, and the promise not to get involved in each other's internal matters, is the safest approach.

If people want their freedom in a nation, they must be willing to fight for it. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, and countless others were willing to fight for theirs. Why shouldn't others? They will appreciate the liberty they have much more when they risk more for it. And who says you cannot help freedom fighters, freedom lovers as an individual? Lafayette and Hessian soldiers helped the colonists two centuries ago in their cause, and they sympathized with them. There is nothing you cannot do if you strongly believe in it.

And a final reason why the United States is not to invade Iraq is because dead people are never liberated. If Bush kills tens to hundreds of thousands of people to liberate them from one man, then who has he liberated (as he has killed them in the process of hunting down one man)? It will be countered that Bush will save people who would otherwise be put to death by Saddam's policies, policies which starve and which brutalize them. But that is an argument that can be used against the leader of any nation on the planet. An army might well be sent to get rid of Bush because there is evidence that his policies kill or have killed Americans. Of course, Bush did not kill them directly with his hand, but his tax and welfare policies could lead to starvation and disease among Americans. It is a moral dilemma, yes, but it is a dilemma whose only conclusion is that Bush himself not kill one Iraqi even though Saddam might kill thousands. Let the stain of blood cover Saddam's hands, but do not let the stain of the blood of one cover Bush's hands.

Note carefully this is not the stand of pacificist. The strict pacificist would demand that the other cheek be turned. That no action be taken, even in defense of the nation. Rather this demands that Bush remain patient, and make war when it is legal and moral and when he would otherwise be vindicated.

The claim is even more preposterous in face of the overwhelming evidence that it is the goal of Al Qaeda and bin Laden to remove Saddam from power as much as it is the goal to wage war against the United States and Bush. In fact, Al Qaeda wants the United States to do its bidding by deposing Saddam. Then during the occupation of Iraq by the United States, Al Qaeda will work in association with terror and guerilla groups to kill American occupiers, with the hope of securing their withdrawal from the occupation, and then establishing a theocratic state in which they effectively rule Iraq. To associate Saddam with Al Qaeda and 11 September is ludicrous beyond belief.

That does not mean however that Saddam has not shown support to terror groups. Saddam sympathizes with the Palestinian Arabs trying to free themselves in the occupied territories. His government has openly stated that it will provide financial support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. However, if anyone is to view Saddam's actions as a provocation and act of war, it should be Israel and not the United States. Again the United States can attack militarily when it is attacked or threatened. When has Saddam done either?

Resolution 1441 essentially tries to propound a logical fallacy. It demands that Iraq prove the non-existence of forbidden weapons in its control and on its territory. What it should be demanding is Iraq's total cooperation—it does, but then it attempts to add the logical fallacy. Imagine the police knock on the door of a home and accuse its resident of being a child molester. The resident is shocked and indignant, and demands the police prove their accusation. But the police attempt to turn the argument the other way, and they insist that the resident prove he is not a child molester. Of course, this is an argument that can never be proved to anyone's satisfaction, and it is the chief reason why we insist that prosecutors representing the state prove the claims and accusations they make, not that the defendant prove he committed no crime. Still the United States attempts to assert this logical fallacy.

Since UNMOVIC has final authority as to whether progress is being made in weapons inspections, and it is the latest testimony of Dr. Hans Blix that there is cooperation, the motives of the United States become transparent. Their entire agenda has been involved with the overthrow of Saddam. No one will surely be unhappy if Saddam goes, but the price for forcing it to happen is too high. It makes a mockery of the United Nations charter, but more importantly, it will be done over the dead bodies of thousands of Iraqi women and children. This is a price too large to hunt down one man. And one that cannot be done anyway when the legal basis is not established.

The illegal invasion of a non-nuclear power such as Iraq by a nuclear (super)power such as the United States has also opened up another can of worms. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has already been severely abused by the recent addition of Pakistan and India to the list of nuclear powers. Now smaller states will fear attack by states with larger conventional armies, and their only defense will nuclear deterrence, that is, to advertise the fact that they are in possession of nuclear weapons that they can deliver to large population centers by missiles with proven range. North Korea and Iran will be in a particular hurry to acquire and to develop, or both, nuclear weapons based on their well-founded fear that the United States will target them for invasion. Other small nations will be unwilling to take chances as well. With the potential abundance of nuclear weapons in every nation as part of its security structure, this greatly increases the likelihood that rogue states or terrorists will acquire control of these weapons, and to use them. All because a big nation decided to pick on a small nation.