"But even more clueless is the fact that you unwittingly made my argument for me by:

"A country merely having WMD is not a reason to go to war. "

However, what you seem to be glazing over is that the THREAT posed to Iraq, as told to us by our administration was constituted by 2 things
1) The possession of WMD
2) The intent to use that WMD on us or our allies, as demonstrated by the Terrorist links."

Having WMD is not a reason to go to war with another country [lots of countries have WMD {we have lots of nukes and these certainly classify as WMD- in MAD proportions} but if country signs a cease fire and one of *demanded* conditions is the get rid of WMD, then in order to end the war that country *must* fulfill it's obligations. If the country choose not to fulfill it's obligation then the *unsatified* party [s] may take various recourses- sanctions could be one such recourse but the parties are not limited and may resume hostilities in order to get compliance or return to the state prior to cease fire agreement (war).
This is basic stuff of the Rule of Law. A country could choose not to follow any Rule of Law- it could claim the whole notion was nonsense. But that belief by another country does not change how we regard it. In a world with a superpower that does abide by the Rule of Law it would be *wise* if weaker countries pay attention [lots of attention] to this concept.

Now whether we choose to go to war may depend on various factors- a simple cost anlaysis *could* indicate it wasn't worth the effort to enforce an agreement. For example, say instead you had a cease fire agreement which was solely that country would pay 10 billion dolllars. Now, since resuming a war could cost far more than 10 billion dollars, you could say it wasn't worth going to war *over* 10 billion dollars. Or you could decide that there was more at stake than merely the 10 billion dollars, so even if you spent 100 billion to get the 10 billion paid, then it was *worth it*.
Btw, since you know it will cost you *something* if the party refuses to comply, then it wise to not make *unreasonable* demands. Since UN and Left in general seem to want other countries to get rid of their WMD, having an agreement to have Iraq give up it's WMD seemed like a good thing to put in a cease fire agreement. Also since one of the main reasons Iraq invaded Kuwait was because Iraq owed Kuwait billions of dollars, it was also a good idea to restate Iraq debt in the cease fire agreement (thereby having the US further "back" this obligation and not allow Iraq to have successfully used force in order to not repay it's debts). Plus the agreement of not allowing Iraq to use most of it's airspace (which we "held" at the time of cease fire). Generally speaking, the cease fire agreement was pretty easy for Iraq to accept, so they did [and thought they had "dodged the bullet"- to the extent some Americans didn't think Saddam had paid a high enough price and Saddam claimed to have "won the war"].