Fionn - 15 Aug 03 - 06:55 AM

Point 1.
"So even if Iraq had possessed WMD, that would have been OK so long as Iraq had not signed the treaty?"

Nope - In 1990 Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. A UN coalition led by the USA fulfilled the terms of it's UN mandate to expell Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The ceasefire agreement signed to end hostilities, among other things, required Iraq's disarmament with regard to WMD and further required that Iraq dismantle its production facilities and research and development programmes. Among other things, Iraq failed to comply with those stipulations.

Point 2.
"In which case the war was merely about regime change - which was not OK, because those in the "coalition of the willing" (he-he) had all promised, as signatories of the UN Charter, not to go round doing that sort of thing."

Nope - Having been offered one last chance to honour its obligations to the international community, Iraq accepted the terms and conditions outlined in UNSC Resolution 1441. Warned of serious consequences resulting from any material breach of that resolution, Saddam Hussein, for reasons best known to himself, decided that Iraq would not fully comply. The United States of America and the United Kingdom held the belief that the situation left unchecked constituted a threat to themselves (indirectly) and to the interests of the region (directly). Iraq was in breach of the terms of the cease-fire signed at Saffwan in 1991. The major obstacles to the disarmament of Iraq were Saddam Hussein himself and the ruling Ba'ath Party in Iraq, therefore regime change was considered desireable.