Middle-East Mission to Peace Talks

[northstar]

oh give me a break, The U.S DID NOT " started the Iraq war illegally and without cause."[qoute earth]
THAT IS JUST YOUR OPINION, no facts to back it up, and yet again and again it has been proven that the Iraqi's have been nothing but a bunch of Pirating Decietful Jihad's with Weapons of Mass Destruction that they have just moved around to avoid being caught.

That makes the leaders who committed these offenses war criminals and responsible for all the resulting carnage.

-earthazonre

LOL The only criminals are Hezzbollah, Hamas and the other fanatical Jihad Islamic that vow to kill and torture and take over the world in the name of ALLAH, they need to be locked up in Krazy Kim's Concentration Camps, l hear he needs some new workers, maybe he can make a deal a smuggle some of the IRAQI JIHAD war lord's opium in for them...bunch of mafia drug sniffing baby killers...

The Iraq war has evolved from mostly American coalition forces killing Iraqis to mostly Iraqis killing Iraqis.

-another earthazone

well they just HATE-HATE-HATE, I am sorry for you earth, l know you sympathize with the Jihad terrrorists but you see it is scripturally approved, you can thank the demented Muhammad for this...it is ALL HIS FAULT.

:director: :blob6: :headbang: :kermit:

 

[northstar]

issues of the Middle-East that make it so trickey, or how to make nice with baby killers...

the president of Iran, this fella, Muhamoud AHMADINEJAD, has directly threatened the US and Zionism [Which means Canada} by saying

"God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."

Recently, he added a few more lovely little comments, to Ismail Haniyeh Ahmadinejad the Palestine Prime Minister with this little tid-bit -

"... Zionist regime was created to establish dominion of arrogant states over the region and to enable the enemy to penetrate the heart Muslim land." nice hatred touch there Iranian -dude...


The Palestinian P, claimed that Israel had just reached a time when it was ""on the verge of disappearing."


At which the Iranian fella, Aheladinedjadd consoled his new found friend with this promise "There is no doubt the Palestinian nation and Muslims as a whole will emerge victorious,"



And more recently, the USA has finally found evidence to link the direct shipment of weapons to insurgents in Iraq....nice.

What about our military's recent report of "smoking gun" evidence of Iran's direct shipment of munitions to "insurgents" that were blasting our troops to smitherines in IRAQ?


This follows the free Iraqi elections, the constitution, the openning of doors to freedom of speech in governemnts that allowed all groups [even criminals], The hypocritical Iranians send everything possible to destroy the young government....

and while Iran promises to 'wipe Isreal from the map of the world" , Israel,follows the treaties and in good faith moves out of the gaza strip .

The answer is for the Palestinians, now with the inflow of money and munitions and a criminal run operations, kidnap a soldier or two and send rockets into homes.


MEANWHILE in Lebanon, while being 'protected' by the United Nations, er... the peacekeepers aka Hezbollah, paid for by Iran, kind of a corporate sponsership, begins to import rockets, lots and lots...and every one are planned for Israel's residential district...the babies asleep in their beds.

Now Syria is a whole other story...

Now Iran is being sold Nuclear Technology by members of the United Nations [eg. RUSSIA] and thankfully for Iran, right when they begin to wonder if they need credit counselling, they get a deal for oil with ...CHINA!!!Way to go China, help blow up our world...

Now with the United Nations Member selling atomic bomb technology to this Terrorist Minded country, how do they stand with another United Nations memeber being targeted and Wiped Out?

How about the U/N being wiped out, after all they are so corrupt they have no credibility left...[and not to mention the 2.5 billion dollar luxury TRUMP tower they are messing around with while they complain about the injustices of starving nations...and do nothing}.

iN 1998 AL Queda urged all Islamists, in the name of Allah to target the U.S and all it's people as a duty to Muhammad's teachings {cia report}, and many believed he was the new visionary prophet that ALLAH had promised, and the sicko fanatasism picked up on warped Quarnic verses, backed up by plans and fatwas issues by a saudi shiek that planned atomic attacks on the U.S. AND guess who is their neighbour...duh?

I can go on and on about all the factual threats coming out of the middle east, the sinister writing on the wall that these old geezers are ignoring....but my point is that l have no idea how they will find peace in this situation,

it is like these people will never stop, each thinking they are right and the other is evil, threats going on and on...

they just don't seem to be even close to compromise. It is like a bad divorce, and fighting over the appliances, the only problem is that it comes down to who has the most money.

I think the opium crops should be bombed to smitherines and then we should all convert to solar and stop buying both of these weapon supply fundraisers .

Oh and finally Lebanon's PM Rafik Hariri was found murdered with the smoking gun to be SYRIA {UN report. oops and l almost forgot that Pierre Gemayel, the Lebanese Industry Mininster who spoke out about SYRIA was also found to be a hit funded by Syria.


So with all of this as a backdrop, these old farts are wanting peace talks...yikes.

Just bomb all the opium crops, convert to a solar and natural wind energy lifestyle and dry up all the resources...and the running noses of the coke users...every snort is a bullet or a bomb that murders our soldiers....

 

[earth_as_one]

The Iraq war was illegal:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published on Thursday, September 16, 2004 by the Guardian/UK [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish." He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal." Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimized by security council resolutions...[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-01.htm[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The US stated that UN Resolution 1441 contained "no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force"[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2002/1108usstat.htm[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]France, Russia and China made a joint statement that this was their understanding of UNSCR 1441:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2002/iraq111302.asp[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here is the legal advice Blair got:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

...

the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. I have already advised that I do not believe that such a resolution need be explicit in its terms... ...The key point is that it should establish that the Council has conduced that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441...http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The UN inspection team did not have any evidence that Iraq was a WMD threat or that it was violating its UNSC obligations.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hans Blix of the UN weapon inspection team:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003​

​

Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC​

Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix​

...[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998...[/FONT]

...the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision....

...There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken....

...How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes....

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

The UN charter and international laws which regulate international relations are very specific about justification for the use of force. Read Blair's legal advice above.

Iraq did not attack the US or any other country.

Iraq was not about to attack the US or any other country.

The UNSC did not authorize the US to use force against Iraq.

The UN weapon inspectors found nothing in Iraq support which supported American allegations that Iraq possessed and was hiding WMDs.

Yet ten days after Blix described Iraq's cooperation as "active" and "proactive" the US illegally invaded Iraq:

March 17, 2003
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours [/FONT]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

 

[northstar]

LOL, me-oh-my you are having to work very hard but still you can't prove a thing. The UN is the same UN that has been sharply criticised by the US FOR oversspending 9.2 BILLION on their new building in New York....now they are in payback mode...and what a joke.

Were are you located Earth?

Seems to me that all this anti-american propaganda smacks of terrorism...clearly terrorism.

 

[earth_as_one]

Anyone else want to share an opinion about whether the US led Iraq invasion was legal or not?

 

[gopher]

Anyone else want to share an opinion about whether the US led Iraq invasion was legal or not?

See my previous posts about Judge Ben Ferencz (world's foremost authority on the Nuremburg Doctrine) and conservative Republican Kevin Phillps (lawyer and Republican party's greatest political strategist). Both are in agreement that Bush's war is illegal.

For anyone to say that those who oppose Bush's war are anti-USA is a slap in the face to the 70 % majority who also oppose that illegal war.

 

[northstar]

When considering the Iraqi war in all it's complexity, one has to look into the crimes of the Iraqis and the part they played in sheltering and funding terrorists as well as threatening prior to the attack, and having been found as having the WMD [although they were moved around to avoid intital detection they were eventually found}.

We can look at the Security Council findings-

Attorney general: war is legal


Staff and agencies
Monday March 17, 2003
Guardian Unlimited


A series of UN security council resolutions provides the legal basis for military action against Iraq, the government's top law adviser said today.
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, said in a written parliamentary answer that the authority to use force against Iraq stemmed from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.

Lord Goldsmith stated: "All of these resolutions were adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security."
... Lord Goldsmith stated:

"In resolution 678 the security council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

"In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the security council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.

"Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

"A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

"In resolution 1441 the security council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

"The security council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq 'a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations' and warned Iraq of the 'serious consequences' if it did not."

Lord Goldsmith's statement continued:

"The security council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

"It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

"Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

"Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the security council to sanction force was required if that had been intended.

"Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the security council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,916078,00.html

now if we consider these resoultions it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that Iraq brought on the situation by infacto declaring war on NATO.

Just in case anyone needs more clarity we can find quite a lot about the situation on the web, and it suits the Islamic terrorists, who have vowed to destroy Jews and Christians, to cast all kinds of conveluted falasehoods to try to create division and chaos within our united backing of those who have answered the declaration of war.

Yes, this war is legal
March 19 2003
By Greg Hunt

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/18/1047749770373.html

Military conflict in Iraq will have the full legitimacy of international law. I make this statement as someone who is a multilateralist by nature. I believe in international law and was a strong advocate for Australian participation in the International Criminal Court. I have worked for the United Nations in Geneva chronicling the abuses that occurred during the Bosnian conflict and I was Australia's chief electoral observer in Cambodia during the 1998 elections.

In each case I saw the tragic human consequences of a failure to uphold international law and the decisions of the UN. Now, in Iraq, we are witness to the same violation of international law and Security Council decisions.

There are three requirements if Security Council members the United States, Britain and Spain are to lead an international coalition to enforce the council's resolutions on Iraq.

First, there must be a clear and unequivocal duty on Iraq to comply with council resolutions. Second, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of that duty. Third, there must be a legitimate and continuing authority for enforcing those actions. All are present.

The first element, Iraq's duty to comply with international law, has been reaffirmed through 17 Security Council resolutions over 12 years. This duty began with resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, which authorised use of "all necessary means" to force Iraq to quit Kuwait and importantly "to restore international peace and security in the area".

After operation Desert Storm forced Iraq from Kuwait, the Security Council authorised a ceasefire under resolution 687 on April 3, 1991. The ceasefire was conditional on Iraq destroying or removing all its chemical and biological weapons. This condition was reaffirmed in resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002.

Critically, resolution 1441 declares Iraq "in material breach" of its obligations, offers "one final opportunity" to comply fully - not partially - and threatens "serious consequences" if it continued to violate its obligations. The term "serious consequences" is the same enforcement provision that underpinned Desert Storm.

So, Iraq's duty to disarm is continuing and absolute.

The second element is the question of breach. Again, the Security Council has repeatedly found Iraq in breach of its obligations to disarm and has authorised the use of force on many occasions.

Since November, UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted some co-operation, but he has repeatedly affirmed that Iraq has chemical and biological stores, missing anthrax and VX nerve gas supplies, and active development programs. So the Security Council itself has concluded that Iraq remains in fundamental breach of its obligations.

This breach has been compounded by Saddam Hussein's clear and unchallenged support for at least three active terrorist groups: the Abu Nidal Organisation, the Mujahideen e-Kharq and the PLF.

The third and most difficult question is who can legitimately enforce resolution 1441. Previous enforcement has followed a declaration of material breach, but has not specified the means. On all occasions it has been led by the US acting in accordance with Security Council resolutions.

In this particular case it has been asserted there may be duty and material breach but that US-led action would be unilateral and therefore illegitimate. This is false. In February, US Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman identified 26 countries that had already given access, basing and over-flight rights for action against Iraq. A further 18 had given contingent approval for such co-operation. So a minimum of 44 countries have provisionally agreed to participate in an enforcement operation.

Of course, it would be preferable to have a further resolution for purposes of unanimity. Such a resolution would be the best way of avoiding conflict. But Australia, Britain, Spain and the US have exhausted every avenue to achieve the moral support of an 18th resolution. However, France, while calling for UN solidarity, has at the same time categorically ruled out any further resolution authorising force. It has blocked the very avenue down which it wants the world to travel.

Make no mistake though, full authority to enforce resolution 1441 already exists.

Saddam has been under an express UN Security Council duty for more than a decade to terminate his chemical and biological programs. He has been found to be in material breach of that duty by maintaining an active chemical and biological weapons program. Moreover, his regime's active support for terrorism remains in breach of Security Council demands.

Above all else, moral legitimacy is stripped away by the fact that Saddam runs perhaps the most oppressive remaining regime in the world.

In all those circumstances, there is clear legitimacy for enforcement of Security Council resolutions by a coalition comprising more than 40 countries and that is led by three members of the Security Council.

Greg Hunt is the Liberal member for the federal seat of Flinders.
He was a senior fellow at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Law at Melbourne University and taught international human rights law at Yale University.

Happily the successful mission has placed this Dictatorship behind bars, headed for this Moon God, and with the successful new government in place, we can only hope that history does not repeat itself again, the Islamists, like earth, honour Allah the Moon God and so threatening and breaking the law is acceptable and scripturally approved.

I can only pity those who are busy defending unlawful actions of an evil beast like Saddam Hussien.

 

[Chukcha]

I don't believe the west will ever be at peace with the Extremest in the Middle East, not only do they hate us they want us to convert to Islam and if we don't well read world news and it aint purdy.

No, not the Extremists, the suitable name is Plankheaded-Dumbinosaurs-Neurososauruses, and there is no remedy at all, they will have to become Extinct some day.

 

[Chukcha]

See my previous posts about Judge Ben Ferencz (world's foremost authority on the Nuremburg Doctrine) and conservative Republican Kevin Phillps (lawyer and Republican party's greatest political strategist). Both are in agreement that Bush's war is illegal.

For anyone to say that those who oppose Bush's war are anti-USA is a slap in the face to the 70 % majority who also oppose that illegal war.

Lets just say that word illegal is completely innapropriate, because nothing is legal over in Middle East anyway. And 70% sound a bit tough to utter up so bravely, where is that figure coming out from?
Maybe out of the 70%, the 30% is definite, 30% is scared to death, and 10% is brain washed about "illegal" b/s. Huh?

 

[northstar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassylassie
I don't believe the west will ever be at peace with the Extremest in the Middle East, not only do they hate us they want us to convert to Islam and if we don't well read world news and it aint purdy.

No, not the Extremists, the suitable name is Plankheaded-Dumbinosaurs-Neurososauruses, and there is no remedy at all, they will have to become Extinct some day.

--chu.

LOL!!!
NO, not extremists, the suitable name is MAINSTREAM ISLAMISTS Plankheaded-Dumbinosaurs-Neuososauruses.ukeright:

MAINSTREAM ISLAMISTS! Yes, l was shocked to find this out, thinking oh, this isn't the followers of the LAW of Islam, can't be. So l looked into it. The basic verses that l have quoted are MAINSTREAM ISLAM.
Now l am wondering, what do they teach in the private ISLAM SCHOOLS in our country? Because they obviously are teaching from the Hadiths, and these teach HATE, VIOLENCE, and MURDER to all Jews, and all Christians and verything in between...from the MAINSTREAM ISLAMIST TEACHINGS.

 

[earth_as_one]

So the Iraq war was legal because Iraq failed to disarm. The flaw with that argument is that Iraq was disarmed before the invasion. Nothing found in Iraq since 1441 supports the false allegations of hiding WMds and links to al Qaeda which were used as justification for war.'

No the war didn't violate Amercan or British law, but international laws trump national laws regarding international relations. The UN Secretary General's opinion (Annan wasn't just SG, but also an expert in international law) overrules opinions by an advocate of one of the belligerents.

 

[CDNBear]

So the Iraq war was legal because Iraq failed to disarm. The flaw with that argument is that Iraq was disarmed before the invasion. Nothing found in Iraq since 1441 supports the false allegations of hiding WMds and links to al Qaeda which were used as justification for war.'

No the war didn't violate Amercan or British law, but international laws trump national laws regarding international relations. The UN Secretary General's opinion (Annan wasn't just SG, but also an expert in international law) overrules opinions by an advocate of one of the belligerents.

With all due respect, there was no evidence that Iraq was dissarmed, they failed to let in the UN investigators to examine anything. Thus breaching a UN resolution. That in and of itself, should have had the UN at the doorstep, but because the EU was getting a steady oil supply and the complete uselessness of what has become of the UN and Pearsons vision, the UN was at a stand still.

So the US took matter in to there own hand. I do not beleive that the actual invassion was illegal, the subsiquent actions of Bremmer and his orders were most definetly in contradiction to International Law.

 

[Logic 7]

With all due respect, there was no evidence that Iraq was dissarmed, they failed to let in the UN investigators to examine anything. Thus breaching a UN resolution. That in and of itself, should have had the UN at the doorstep, but because the EU was getting a steady oil supply and the complete uselessness of what has become of the UN and Pearsons vision, the UN was at a stand still.

So the US took matter in to there own hand. I do not beleive that the actual invassion was illegal, the subsiquent actions of Bremmer and his orders were most definetly in contradiction to International Law.

Just like everything you write, you are wrong again, and here the proof.



WHite house memo before the war in iraq.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661


President Bush said that:

"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''

President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

He went on: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddams WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."

Speaking to Channel 4 News, Mr Sands said:

"I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."




Here is what Un inspector has to say about WMD , where everyone knews there was nothing for a long long time.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/03/hardtalk/ritter06oct.ram



And yes the war was illegal, because it violated UN charters, those are the facts, however i know you have an hard time with facts.

 

[CDNBear]

Just like everything you write, you are wrong again, and here the proof.



WHite house memo before the war in iraq.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661


President Bush said that:

"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''

President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

He went on: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddams WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."

Speaking to Channel 4 News, Mr Sands said:

"I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."




Here is what Un inspector has to say about WMD , where everyone knews there was nothing for a long long time.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/03/hardtalk/ritter06oct.ram



And yes the war was illegal, because it violated UN charters, those are the facts, however i know you have an hard time with facts.

You challenge my grasp of facts, where is your response to all my posts on the Native position on the separartion of Quebec? Nowhere, none, nothing! you know why? Because you made it up, you have no proof to support your claims so you will continue to ignore the facts and not admit you were wrong. Something I am completely capable of.

In this case I am not, there was no difinitive proof that Iraq did not have weapons hidden. It as much made the myth a fact, because it expelled the UN inspectors. It only changed its position once it realized, the outcome would be severe. Which left them enough time to possibly funnel weapons into caches or out of the country. Seeing as you missed it, because you are innept. I do not feel that the proof was there fully to bigin with, but in light of their actions, Iraq drew on the outcome. Does that make it OK? No, of course not. But I do not expect you to see past the spite you have in regards to me, you're to much of a bigot.