"Now did Bush have UN approval for his invasion? Yes or no? No agonized explanation necessary." - Ron Davies

Actually Ron Davies and others on this forum the question is not whether or not George W Bush Bush had the approval of the UN, he didn't require the approval of the UN. He was presented quite clearly with the case that Iraq under the governance of Saddam Hussein would pose threat to the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America or the Interests of the United States of America. That answer had actually been given three years before during the Presidency of one William Jefferson Clinton - that answer was yes Iraq did pose a threat to the United States of America. Now this is not the opinion of Teribus it is recorded fact, now I know that the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd here on this forum do not want to acknowledge this fact but the least you can do is have the honesty to give your sources if you dispute anything that I have said, you will be hard pressed to refute what Bill Clinton laid out in February 1998.

By the bye, for any of you American Mudcatters out there, if you are in any shadow of a doubt, you elect YOUR President to look after the interests of the United States of America, and solely the interests of the United States of America. Now on this Forum I want to hear from Mudcatters from the United States of America who disagree with that premise, and I also want to hear why they think otherwise.

Please note that since 911 you have not been subject to one single attack, I would like to ask those on this Forum who have proclaimed that the the terrorist threat has blossomed because of the actions of the United States of America why there has been no, absolutely no, evidence of such activity.

Much as you tossers care to deny it, your military are winning in both Iraq and Afghanistan, all that remains is for the internal politics to consolidate the gains.