"There WAS no threat from Iraq until WE went in there with faked justification,(without any resolution), and created conditions that LURED various Al Qaida operatives there," - BillD

Well you have stated your opinion, and just under ten years ago Security advisors and the combined intelligence agencies of the United States of America correctly believed otherwise and briefed their President accordingly. At the time I believe that they were better trained and equipped to form their opinion.

Why is it BillD, that you completely dismiss the threat that "The Axis of Evil" poses? Why is it impossible? Why can it not happen?

Guest282RA do not put words into my mouth or have the bloody nerve to tell me what I mean, especially if you cannot be bothered to read the text you seem to so bloody keen to argue about. Very simple rule in life if you believe in equality - "What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the Gander". The question I asked before if the justification for Clinton to attack Iraq on a number of occasions was UNSC 687 and there was no uproar about it, why all of a sudden did Bush need a special dispensation in 2003 when exactly the same reason was invoked backed up by 1441 "Iraq's Last Chance". By the bye Guest282RA if you do not believe in Law based on precedent, then whatever law you do believe in is subjective and worthless.

Ron, having studiously ignored all previous questions relating to the UN, here's another one for you to ignore:

"Call it US self-interest, as seen by Bush, not carrying out UN wishes." - Ron Davies.

What are the UN's wishes Ron?

The others were:

Who was present and represented the UN at the signing of the Safwan Cease-Fire Agreement on 3rd March, 1991?

The UN enforces things with what exactly Ron?

For those who do not want to wait for Ron to ignore those questions the answers are as follows:

1. The UN has no wishes.
2. The UN was not a signatory to the cease-fire agreement at Safwan. They were not represented at Safwan therefore have no say whatsoever in the combatant countries interpretation of that cease-fire agreement.
3. The UN itself can enforce nothing as it does not have the means to enforce anything and has clearly demonstrated time after time that it most certainly does not have the will to enforce anything.