It's hard to answer this poll. You could pick a couple of the answers.

Unfortunately, while we would've liked to have taken Saddam out the first time, that wasn't the overall goal of the international coalition (which was to liberate Kuwait). The short answer is that many of the other countries said going into Iraq and taking out Saddam and his regime was a "no no". So we didn't do it.

A few unpalatable facts.
The Gulf was not about the 'liberation of Kuwait', it was about retaining the supply of oil to the West under a 'friendly' government.
The Coalition (read 'US') policy was not to remove Hussein as (in the view of US 'strategists'!) this would result in a 'power gap' which it was feared Iran would move to fill.
Of course, Iran were not in a position to be a real threat then and remain so today.
An unwritten policy exists (and has done so for at least 100 years)to the effect that 'Heads of State' are NOT to be targeted for liquidation, despite the US 'Keystone Cops' attempts on Castro over the years.
Last week it was reported that Turkey 'warned' against any attempt by the Kurdish People to establish an independant 'Home State', not a new situation BTW, but as Turkey is part of NATO their persecution of the Kurds has to be OK, while the Iraqi's must be the bad guys?
I'm unimpressed with both sides and it smells as bad as the present situation in Gaza ..... a situation far more dangerous than Iraq.
Hussein is a 'soft' target (speaking metaphorically) and an easy one to attack via the media.
Behind the rhetoric and the John Wayne style bullshit you will find a lot of Iraqi supplied oil entering the US (and other Coalition countries) via Turkey ..... 900+ tankers a week at last count.
A war is always good for the US economy as well, and an excellent way of diverting attention to domestic problems.
It is a strange business, 'War'.
The people who are the first to want it are never the ones who come back in a 'GarBag' ...... they always want to watch it on CNN.(1SAS/7RAR 'Humour')
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
Very correct Lecrayon, a skinsite is not the place for politics.
And before I retire to my Level 7 bunker, this Wombat has no enthusiasm for the present Iraqi regime, and equally, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Kuwait are not that flash, Turkish policy is one of 'convenience' and I'm saddened to see the disaster that the Palestinian-Israeli 'situation' has become.
And just in case the Brits are feeling overlooked, Mr Blair is not exactly playing with a full deck.
Unpalatable fact #1 .... "The first Casualty of War is Truth".
Unpalatable fact #2, the major casualties of a war are civilians ..... on all sides.

Doh! "Diverting attention FROM domestic problems."

bakerstreet. You understand History and I (might!) understand it as well, the point re 'French Indo China' is only to keep it in the context of 'Modern History'
My 'unpalatable' prefix is relating to the average person (aka 'the bastard public! ) as I know the solution, one that has nothing to do with trying to conduct a 'war' with Tomahawks, Stealth Fighters and every last BUFF that can lurch into the air.
Body bags and the realities of the Human Body vs a Kalashnikov are 'unpalatable' to the average civilian.
MOSSAD used to be very good at 'removing' problems.
In these times, rat cunning, a silenced SiG-Sauer 22 and patience are not good enough for a 'media driven aministration'.

Another fact is that the US only violated Vichy France sovereignty with the illegal Normandy invasion to secure French wine via a friendly (i.e. non-German dominated) regime.

The subsequent conquest and occupation of Germany only served to destabilize the region for nearly half a century. The American public, nay, the world at large, was duped by Roosevelts lies about "freedom" when all he wanted to do is serve his wine drinking / cheese eating friends with the goods at low costs.

Similarly, as the 70s and 1991/1992 showed, war always helps the economy. The booming economy of the Vietnam era and post-gulf war demonstrated the political calculus used on war which enabled President Bush to win an overwhelming re-election in 1992 over Governor Clinton.

Turkey, whose atrocities are well known to Greeks and Armenians are much like the Americans who won't allow the various native American people to have their own seperate state. We can only assume that such barbarity is condoned by NATO as well. All people everywhere, regardless of method or means should have the right to form their own nation states laying claim to lands and properties claimed by anyone else because anything else is just wrong.

The nice thing about my planet is that it's always 72 degrees all year round. I just wish I didn't have to wear this tin foil cap to keep the radar beams from reading my thoughts.

hmmmmm......

Starting a war is the most brutal form to get personal gain. Whether it is about controlling land and its resources or about keeping the economy "growing" or shameless personal interest at the "cost" of others. Every 10 years or so, the US seems to need a war. Why? Because then they can rebuild what they damaged by a follow up of the Marshall plan, or because they can control resources to earn from. Capitalism is just as brutal as communism, it has only different faces. The "new economy" doesn't exist. Nobody can eat computers or mobile phones. The fact that sales are slowing down is because almost everyone has bought the stuff.
What happened to Osama? Do we hear mister Bush calling his name lately? Is the terrorist group conquered? Afghanistan is a mess, ruins everywhere, Kabul seems to be the safest place and still there are bomb attacks in that city.
Well, lets get our eyes at Saddam then. He is a sitting duck, there is no proof he has nuclear arms, nor is there proof he has missiles with ugly content to shoot from his country onto the US.
Within one year mister Bush has accomplished to get a shortage on the american budget. His values aren't taken seriously. While people from Enron go to jail, he just stays in power having made some dark sharedeals himself in the past. He has managed to rip a solid coalition apart with his extremistic stance. Most Europenas see him as an ultra right winger. Remember he was elected by 50% of the voters plus a few votes in a state where his brother is governor. To go to war is the last chance he has to get easily re-elected. >

I love Australia

As far as I know there wasnt a peace treaty signed when Bush sr ended the gulf war. Maybe that would entitle the US to invade Iraq without having to comply to UN resolutions. I wouldn't be surprised if that will be a government policy. The real reason behind this, however, will be covered up. One of them might be what I have written already.
If UN inspectors are sent in, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't find nuclear warheads. They will probably find some chemical warfare stuff. Saddam has been proven to be a genius in the cat and mouse game. Planting the seed of doubt in the western world by the Us government will also be a valid point to invade.
There is no doubt in my mind the US is going to. It will set new rules and will contribute to the already instability of the world. The UN will be proven to be a non-instrument. If the US is able to overthrow the Iraqi government, it will install another puppet on a string in the name of freedom and with the help of God that only blesses America. (I have never heard mister Bush saying God bless The World)

It only ends when having power is worthless. Then people would stop hunting for it.

Well, I think we should just sit back, with our wine and cheese, and wait for Saddam to hand out a few dirty bombs, or worse...... where did I put my tinfoil hat?