1: "They probably had a hundred credible reasons, but the one that Bush and Blair sold to their respective citizens WAS WMDs, and it was a carefully constructed lie!!"

The reasons they had were clearly defined there were 32 of of them:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

That states precisely what Iraq under Saddam Hussein agreed to do, and were required to do at the insistence of the international community. Did they do it? No they did not.

Example 1:
"8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;"

Never happened did it?

Example 2:
"9(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;"

Again never happened - in actual fact I believe the Iraqis made something like THIRTY-Odd full, final and definitive declarations over the course of thirteen years

Example 3
"31. Invites the International Committee of the Red Cross to keep the Secretary-General apprised as appropriate of all activities undertaken in connection with facilitating the repatriation or return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or their remains present in Iraq on or after 2 August 1990;

Another thing that Saddam Hussein failed to do out of 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted only three were ever repatriated Saddam Hussein murdered the 602 others and their bodies are interred in mass graves containing Saddam's victims in Iraq.

The important bit of UNSCR 687:

"33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

The ceasefire established was NOT a ceasefire between the UN and Iraq, but between Iraq and the other combatant powers - If Iraq breaks the ceasefire, which it would be seen to have done if it did not fulfill its obligations under the terms of the ceasefire then hostilities can be resumed to enforce compliance.

2: " the fact that I haven't read a newspaper in forty years and get my news from radio or BBC TV News, both of which regularly broadcast live, what people like Bush and Blair are saying, so I do get to hear it direct from the horse's mouth."

The BBC one of the most biased news services on the planet - that figures. By the way in listening to the BBC either on radio or on TV, you do not get to hear what people are saying, you get to hear the bits of what they are saying as selected by the programme editorial staff.

I will give you an example of BBC reporting and how they shade things.

Early days of the invasion of Iraq the BBC reported that a US cruise missile that had gone "rogue" had hit a Maternity Hospital in Baghdad

- that was reported on BBC World Service at about 5 o'clock in the morning UK time.

- next bulletin their man on the ground was there and clarified the situation somewhat. No Maternity Hospital had been hit, the missile had landed and exploded in an empty square at 03:30hrs local time killing no-one, a near-by maternity clinic with no-one in it had received slight damage (windows broken).

- next three bulletins issued by BBC? - US cruise missile hits Baghdad Maternity Hospital and they immediately replaced their man on the ground in Baghdad (Penalty for not following the Party Line)

Here is another one:

How many people think that the £20 billion spending plans being talked about in the UK are being spent to replace Trident missiles? Judging by comments I read it would appear to be quite a large proportion of the British public - all thanks to way it is reported by MSM in the UK. The £20 billion of course is not being spent on any missiles at all, it is being spent on replacing the submarines that carry the missiles as the Vanguard Class SSBN's are reaching the end of their design life - yet MSM in the UK keep banging on about £20 billion expenditure on replacement for Trident.