Well if you "guess that" then you have built a poor strawman, given that none of them have a history of attacking US interests, working with jihadists to do so, or using WMD against their neighbors. Perhaps you need to work on the question again before you spout wrong answers
Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Pakistan hasn't worked with Jihadists? Iran is directly responsible for the death of 6 members of my unit in Iraq, and the wounding of 27 others. Two killed are good friends of mine. Another is getting his skull put back in at Walter Reid currently. Ever heard of Sadr? What about the hostages in the 1970's? Syria actively funded and supplied the factions in Beruit during the Marine's stint there. Syria and N. Korea have colluded on nuclear weapons technology using a Pakistani nuclear scientist. North Korea has had and probably will have an active NUCLEAR weapons program. Oh, what about the Korean war? Pakistan's foreign minister warned Bin Laden about incoming American cruise missles. Pakistan has WMD's. Pakistan refuses to actively engage AQ in their western border region. Pakistan was the starting point for all of the 9/11 hijackers trek to Afghanistan.
Pay attention to what people say--there are loads of direct connections between Saddam's Iraq and terrorist groups, including AQ affiliates. NOBODY of consequence has said that there is an absolute link between Saddam and Bin Laden in regards to attacks against US persons or interests. Yet he did in fact work with Abu Sayyaf in the Philipines to attack US interests (multiple times); he provided shelter to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and the ANO, and Carlos the Jackal; Ramzi Yousef (the '93 WTC bombing leader and an AQ operative) came from Iraq and ran back to Iraq afterwards; etc. Oh but since he did not actually have an extended cooperative tete-a-tete with Bin Laden Himself then he must not be a threat!
And 19 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, miss our target a little to the North? The hijackers were in the US for months prior to the attack. Is the US at fault for that as well? A bad guy residing in your country doesn't make your leader a 'sponsor' of terror. We're the most powerful country in the world and we can't control access through our borders. Many of those countries listed above have done more to sponsor terror than Saddam ever did. So back to my original question, should we just invade them all?
That argument doesn't hold water because it is nonsense. The US did not need explicit approval to act like you think. First of all, resolution 678 granted all member states the authority to use any force necessary to uphold the resolutions:
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
Obviously the US is "a member state" and obviously the cease-fire agreement in resolution 678 is a "subsequent relevant resolution" which the US (under both Clinton and Bush) felt needed to be enforced.
Sure, enforce it all you want. But it had been relatively successfully 'enforeced' for 12 years prior to the invasion.
Second, Saddam's Iraq was provably in violation of the terms of the cease-fire, as demonstrated already, and as UNANIMOUSLY agreed to and stated as fact in resolution 1441:
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
So if the US is pre-authorized to use "all necessary means" to "enforce [...] subsequent resolutions" which 1441 explicitly stated was the case, then what kind of additional authority do you fantasize was necessary? Show me a resolution that limited the authority please?
The resolutions required Saddam allow inspectors from the UN and the IAEA to verify weapons disposal. In late 2002 Saddam did allow weapons inspectors back in. They didn't find any weapons. But Bush was SO convinced they were there, he invaded anyway. He manufactured an impossible situation for Saddam: if he doesn't have weapons then he's lying , if he does then he's in violation of the resolutions. Bush wanted a war no matter what. He got one.
So you agree they were in violation of the cease-fire, thanks
I highly doubt Saddam even realized he had those 122mm rkts left. Hell, the Air Force 'lost' some nuclear bombs for a few hours a while back. And having personal experience with the Iraqi way of governing, I doubt they knew which end was up. Besides, we've been there for five years, where are the WMD's Saddam was hiding?