Yet another question about Iraq

I searched but none of them fit the bill. This will probably end up somewhere other than GQ but Im looking for facts first.
Rather than talk about getting rid of Saddam why not just enforce the agreements of the surrender? Why not send in weapon inspectors to do the job as it was meant to be done and if they are thwarted, then use force? I’m trying to decide if I’m missing something, but calling for the ousting of Saddam is vastly different than enforcing agreements that the UN themselves made. If we insisted on inspecting Iraq up to the standards we originally set, Saddam would have to take the first aggressive action to stop us, right?
Also, and this is more of an opinion, but, doesn’t it send a terrible message to future agressors when the UN just backs down from the sanctions/restrictions it imposes?

'Cause sending in weapons inspectors is boring, and won’t help Bush get re-elected. Although his speech to the UN seemed to indicate (to me) that he’s wavering on the “let’s all run out and kill Saddam right this second” crap. He probably realized that it isn’t helping his popularity polls.

KC. That’s exactly what’s happening atm, AFAIK. Bush & Blair are taking the position that the UN has to enforce it’s resolutions on Iraq, otherwise they’ll do it for them.

BBC