I agree (ed)
with most of what he's talking about. Until it is proven that Iraq is breaking the treaty, there can be no justification for war. Like I said somewhere else, "innocent until proven guilty" should apply to everyone, even an established bastard like Saddam. Saddam should be deposed (though not in the names of 9/11 victims) and the country should be handed directly over to the Iraqis. Yes, it is Very likely that Saddam has weapons in violation of the treaty; but until this is Proven, there is no justification.
But talking about the nuclear bombs of WWII is not a way to support that argument. That is mere mudslinging, and it surprises me to see Mandela talk like that. Everyone knows that we didn't know enough about radiation to gauge the true effects of the bombs, and the bombs killed no more people than would've died in a landwar in Japan. It was a tough decision and, really, no one besides those who have made decisions of equal weight are in a place to judge it.
If they PROVE that Saddam is breaking treaty, then I will support an invasion of Iraq. The US is not a nation with sovereignty over its own affairs if defeated countries can just walk all over the treaties they signed with the US. Treaties are to be enforced, and economic sanctions that slightly impair a ruler but put people into starvation are not means of enforcing. There is only one sure method: combat.
Sometimes the straightest path is through the mud.