"The legal case for going to war "

As I have stated, we were already AT war. The 1991 invasion of Kuwait ended with a ceasefire: When the terms of that ceasefire were violated, the state of war remained in place. All the posturing and resolutions in the UN were for political, not legal reasons.


"Also, if something is unknown, you have a duty to assess the liklihood of each scenario, if either one is going to lead to death. Not just assume one is true because it would lead to more loss of life if true."

I did not see enough doubt in the information to risk a thousand-fold increase in the number of deaths. I did not assume it was true- just more likely given the information available.


"You might have been asking for my point of view, but in your arguments, you displayed a breathtaking ignorance of issues of major importance. Thats why I told you to go and do some research. "

The research I have done indicates that the best estimates were that Saddam did have WMD. I was giving you the chance to present other information that I did not find. Since the "SRS information acceptability " rules state that any information that comes from a source that disagrees with one's opinions need not be looked at, I may just have missed something. I have seen nothing presented to indicate that.

I have stated that the US SHOULD have gone into Iraq, and other places such as Rwanda and Sudan. But those people who now bemoan the loss of life in Iraq are the same ones ( with the exception of CarolC) that don't want the US to be the world's policeman, and prevent such atrocities. But Iraq and N. Korea are the only ones with "active" wars ( and the ceasefire in Korea has not been broken) We do not have the right under present law to invade a country without the UN resoluins ( that we had in Iraq) unless they attack us , or a country we have treaty commitments with.