So, if the inspection team comes back to the UN on 27th January and reports that it has found no evidence of any stockpiling of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or preparations for manufacturing them, and that the Iraqis have made no effort whatsoever to obstruct their inspections, which involved unannounced visits to all kind of places (and palaces), including those identified as suspicious by the USA and the UK ? What then? We can take it that there can be no attack on Iraq?

And can we also take it that, if any attack were made, this would be an act of aggression, such as is outlawed through the treaty which set up the United Nations, which the USA and the UK are pledged to maintain?

And can we agree any state carrying out such an act of aggression would by definition be a Rogue State. And of course everyone seems to agree that Rogue States cannot be allowed to hold on to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Interesting times.