You can't be bothered because they aren't dismantable, though you lack the intelligence to recognize it.
I can say U.N. Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously by the U.N. Security council for the simple fact that it was adopted unanimously (15-0) by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002.
And the day of the vote, Kofi Annan said, "the U.N. Security Council resolution adopted today has strengthened the cause of peace and given new impetus to the search of security in an increasingly dangerous world" and that the adoption represented an example of multilateral diplomacy serving the cause of peace and security. He then urged the Iraqi leadership to seize the opportunity, and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people stating, “If Iraq’s defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities.”
Afterwards, of course, two camps emerged. Those who advocated a multi-force coalition invasion of Iraq and those who didn't. Both camps published their respective arguments that integrated 1441 to comport with their view.
Personally, I argued against the invasion of Iraq and was not a supporter of it. As a traditional conservative, I do not support the present global neo-conservative and "progressive" liberal status quo with respect to global military intervention except in cases of world war such as occurred during WWII when it became necessary to align against the Axis powers to first contain and then end their hostile military aggression and invasions of peaceful Western democracies.
One area that I differ from you is that you support Islamic military aggression and terrorism while wrongly demonizing multi-national coalition efforts (whether or not they are sanctioned by resolution in the U.N. Security Council) which seek to contain it.
Nations have formed alliances, exchanged resources, engaged in trade, etc... for their mutual support, protection, and benefit as long as there's been civilization. It's very hypocritical and telling on you when you assert that it's illegitimate for Western nations to do so but it's legitimate when despotic military aggressors and Islamic theocracies do likewise while providing material support and training to Islamic terrorist organizations that then go out in the world and engage in terrorist activities.
And coalition efforts certainly were rewarded upon review of the more than 600,000 Iraq documents they captured during the war. Though no firm direct link to al-Qaeda was uncovered, a great many other facts were including Saddam collaborating with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.
A few examples:
Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.
Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.
Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.
In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work—How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.
In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.
Etc... etc... etc...
Now I have a couple of questions for you. Though the false religious cult of Islam sanctions lying to non-Muslims (Taqiyya and Kitman), there may still be a spark left in you so please make an effort to be genuine in your responses:
1. At what age did you become a Muslim?
2. Did you begin supporting Islamic aggression and terrorism immediately or was it something that occurred slowly over time?
I thought you were of some intelligence. You are just another narcissistic soul.
I can't be bothered dismantling all your statements but I will go to the worst of them.
How can you possibly say Resolution 1441 was unanimously passed when Kofi Annan declared the invasion illegal. Remember that ?
France said they would veto any resolution that leads to war. A couple of days later the US and UK decided they would not seek authorisation from the UN and go it alone.
Of course in your mention of the 41 countries in the coalition you did not mention the bribes involved. Georgia was leaned on to send troops to repay US military training. Turkey was given 8.5 billion dollars worth of loans. UK was promised 1.1 billion in reconstruction contracts (lucky they did that much damage). US reopened trade talks with Singapore that stalled, they got a free trade agreement. Australia's free trade agreement was fast tracked.
Punishment went to the ones that did not support.
The US withdrew planes from Paris Air Show. Chile free trade agreement postponed. Trade sanctions for Syria.
The US is just another oppressive regime that rather than kill people inside it borders as most oppressive regimes do, they kill people outside their borders. The people they represent are fine with that and just keep electing the war criminals in to represent them. Some like you, convince themselves they are actually keeping the world safe.
