KrustyKidd

Agreed. The fundamental change occurs when marriage is taken away from the union of a man or woman. You can throw in the issue of procreation and whatever using barren women to make the point but the main focus of marriage is still the same. August made a great point in the legal consent issue, however, the point that I make is that a door is opened that those who invented marriage never intended. Now, marriage is up for grabs to whoever wants a piece of it - gays, dogs, cats, fire hydrants.

If it is hopelessness and inability to control one's own life then I would beg to differ. in a sea of mental, political and physical restriction, Iraq is begining to be a beacon of hope. Other than poverty, lack prosperity and freedom as well as restriction of religious freedom, all of which are becomming less and less each day in Iraq thanks to the US, what other problems cause terrorism? I never thought Iraq had feasable WMDs. I did however know they were in violation of enough UN resolutions to make this action a legal shoe-in without that. BTW, I have an open mind. You are the one who seems glued to WMDs. Co-operating? It took South Africa less than a year to rid itself of WMDs. All traces. Why then did Iraq, fully co-operating as you put it, take over twelve years and still the Chief UN inspector was giving instances of material breaches? Holy cow! You are bitching about invading Iraq and now you want them to take on the rest of the world? Who knows, maybe they are planning their next action against all of them. The key was to install democracy in the Middle East. iraq is a centralized local that had an irritating and disposable dictator. The population were inmates and not likely to be unhappy with the action. Pakestan and North Korea are not in central Middle East, nor do they have big buckeroos to ensure funancial freedom for the populace. People died to set a hopefully infectious democratic process in motion. If Iraqis strong, then democratic changes will occur in their trading parners and nieghbors. If not, then at least one country will be prosperous and less of a recruiting center for terrorism. People keep going on about oil. Better check your facts and who gets the revenues after Jun 28, it's not the US. Also, check the shipping and purchasing contracts, 85% non-US. French and Asian mostely.

I think you have proved that you understand my point while thiking you were posting anti Bush staements. See, my point is that no matter who is in charge, events will by and large be the same. Such are the safeguards laid in place by the democratic process. Bush did not do this on his own, he did it with the help of Republicans and Democrats alike through the Senate and Congress. As for being a puppet, yes. Like every high profile leader he is by and large just that in things not directly associated with being the President - like flying a large aircraft, or being a security specalist, or navigating an aircraft. In these aspects he relies on others to do that while he gets briefings from those who have things to tell him. I imagine that on Airforce One that day he did not know where he was going, I imagine that the fifty odd staff that accompanied him did. I imagine that he didn't fly the plane himself, you probably think he did. If you were in his place, would put off briefings on national security and the overall situation to find out what airport you were flying to? If you would then you wouldn't make much of a president. Did you know that Kerry didn't have time to get a crutial security briefing the other day because he had much more importent things to atend to like Whoopie Goldbergs jokes? Larry King knew about the Al Queda threat as did the press. Kerry didn't, but that is his job as the head of the Democratic party. If he can't take that postition serriously then how can he the postion of the President? That's what a thinking person does, one who doesn't know that a president is supposed to be handled so that he can give full attention to his office, not the pilots. Now this is where you show you get it. See, he makes no decision on his own. If he falls, the office goes to the number two man and so on. The policies would be the same so in effect, he is dispensable. If you choose to call it a puppet, so be it. If Churchill fell, there would be every effort to ensure that a replacement puppet would be found. Here, we have one - Cheny. If he falls then there is another and so on and forth. All great speakers practised. Kerry should do some, his monotone diatribes put people to sleep. He should take a lesson from GW and get some life into his rants. I suppose that if he doesn't think his audience is worth the best, he gives his usual Al Gore imitation mediocre performance. Really though, Kerry would do better to pick a point to hit Bush with and then go into his own policies with a bit more detail. Show us all how he plans to defeat terrorism and make Iraq free better than Bush. The economy, what is he going to do exactly? things like that.

In order to make this statement true, you would have to show me how terrorism was going to go away and how. Was the US and the west to suffer 911s time and again until some grand event made the thousands of dedicated terrorists stop their mission? Is this a bigger mission than taking on the Soviet Union in a war of wills, idealology, economy and military might? I think the US is in Iraq and has it under control as it is. The UN did help but bailed out the moment the bullets came their way, opnce again showing their ineffectiveness. Bush has once again offered them a chance to be counted. He needs them like a hole in the head. In what aspect? What particular points are they recognizing that they are wrong? WMD? Intelligence. Action in Iraq? Only those in opposition or retired looking to sell a book. Congress is wrong. How many congressmen are saying that who voted for the action and how many have resigned? USA Courts? WTF are you on? What courts? What jurisdiction and who are the plaintiffs and who are the defendants and what are the damages and what are the penalties and what have been the payouts? And ..... seeing as how three years after the fact, the 911 commision is just rounding up it's findings, what officail evidence from a year ago are these 'courts' finding their own asses with? Got to hear this one ...... waiting .....

More I'll bet. It's not the weather either. We are more concentrated per person on our land than the US popuulation. I am one of the few who have actually gone to the Northwest Teritories to vactation. You are right, we depend on the US more than they do us. Mexico is only a few regulations away from being their top trading partner.

August, you are out to lunch with this post. Bush doesn't decide what time he wakes up in the morning, it is handled by his handlers. Would you be able to take agenda with the world falling to pieces around you? Was the White House safe on Sept 11? Was Times Square? What was? I think that North Dakota was a good choice. If anything happened to Bush the President of the US would be gone and the leadership as well. The figurehead had to be protected and if any serviceman or woman or staff member allowed him to comit himself to dnager they should be fired. You want somebody to go to the White House and shout 'Kill Me?' hire Whoopie Goldberg. This is reality, not theatrics. Even Churchill didn't parchute behind enemy lines to show he was brave. He stayed in private, his travellings secret to avoid assasination, not because he was a coward.

Country in a state of chaos? I take it that you refer to the division of 50/50 in America. It's called democracy and the two partys carry their ongoing vendetta on through thick or thin using whatever ammo they can. Not too separate in intent, they are separate always on issues as to agree means the other party is right and they are at the best followers. Hower, you seem to feel that the Republicans under Bush did something that is something that they alone would ever have considered. That I think Mr Farrus is our bone of contention. I see an act that had to be made sooner or later, preferably sooner, unpleasent as it may be while the damage done by Islamic nutbars was minimal. You, on the other hand, feel that they could have been dealt with by appeasement and ignoring the problem. Leaving everything the way it was and throwing more money at them like the Saudi government does. I don't put my life in their hands and think that the best way to deal with bastards like OBL and Co is removal of their means of operation ie: finances, hopeless populations that give plenty of recruits, anhialation of their leaders and pressure on governments that aid them for fear of their influence like Saudi. Other than that, I feel strongly that I like Iraq to be free. You feel that it being captive is better than Bush being right. I don't look at it that way, I relish the free Iraq and you ignore that blessing. That alone is redemption for Bush. You would rather have 27 million in captivity to make your point? I doubt your scincerity as we are talking about 27 million lives that previously were all possible vicitims and are now probable free people. Free to tell you that you are an idiot, free to tell Bush the same or even badmouth Saddam without fear of his secret police that comprised 10% of the population. At least you can admit that Bush did right there, intentionally or unintentionally. If you don't, then I doubt your scincerity in any discussion with freedom or human rights as the core point.

No. To his skipping out on military service. It is one thing to do a Cassius Clay and face up to it all, another to be a weekend warrior and an AWOL one at that.. Myself, as a soldier who, as a young man was at the front lines of his country's forces and remained so until retirement, I know that had I been in America I would have been so as well. It is not a matter of courage, as nobody knows who is a coward and who is not in advance. Even heros become cowards and vice versa so there is no way of telling what, where and who. There is, the element of pur-oseful conieving a shirker feels if he is old before his time. A young man should feel immortal, be proud to serve his country and take affront to the fact that others are doing his duty while he is not. But it is between him and God, or his consience, as well as to every American youth who carried the load in his place. Meaningless now in reality, but a factor that would preclude me from ever calling him friend. Before the left calls this a victory, remember that Viet Nam was just, if not more contreversial than Iraq. It is not the duty of the young to question the call of the government but to serve. Their privilige as a citizen is to question, as is all of us.

Wonder why. Could it be that they have been hurt badly? They see the winds blowing against them and know that the world, with the US leading is not going to let them have their way anymore? I would increase my resistance as well if somebody was inflicting damage to me, damage that was conducted on every front that I needed for survival. Point being, increases in terrorist activity will be or relevence five years from now, not the year that the hornets nest has been chooped off the tree or disturbed. Your observation is like saying that traffic activity is greatest during rush hour.

Right on! Good idea. We can incade Iraq, install a democracy and support it so that they can spread freedom and such across the Middle East through trade and social exchanges that are bound to occur. In the meantime, just in case North Korea makes it past 2003 and into 2010 and on and on along with other countries that have not yet come to be able to produce weapons that may become a threat, we can have a MDS. The more protection for my kid, the better I like it. Politics is fluid, alliances change through the years. Friends become enemies and enemies become friends. You cite NK and others who may, in the next decade become the greatest of buds with the US and places like Pakistan and Russia may become enemies. Nobody knows the future. The SDI is a possibility and can become a viable psossibility for defence. In the first or second post I put up an artilce of the X Prize. It hailed the first venture into outer space by a private enterprise carrying passengers. The technology and opportunity to have an idividual company make it's own ballistic weapon is there and will certainly grow in the future. A threat need not be only from a country They hijacked planes .........

You're playing checkers on a chess board Ceasar. WMD had dick to do with the actual reasons for America taking out Saddam. Terrorism breeds in places where there is dictatorships, theocracies, poverty and so on and forth, not in democracies and countries that are run by the people themselves. Iraq is situated in the heart of the Middle East. To turn it into a democracy would provide a solid foundation to move freedom outward into all countries. It had oil to ensure it's survival economicly, a fairly educated population and nobody of any worth would miss Saddam. To illustrate that, there is no way this would have worked in Egypt or Iran. His human rights and resolutions reguarding repatriation of Kuwaitis as well as WMD and delivery systems violations provided the legal basis and not one leader on the planet has called for his reinstatement. Saddam was a thorn in everybody's side and so was probably the most dispensable leader in the entire world. I mentioned it over and over again that WMD was at best, a sell job to the American publ;ic and world to gain support for an action that had been decided on over two years earlier. And as soon as the focus went from WMD to 'Regime Change' any dolt would have seen what was really going on. I know I did and I'm sure as hell not the sharpest pencil in the box. As for their being no need to invade, I agree. However, sooneer or later you would have had to invade, Saddam had every intent on holding onto whatever fragments of his WMD programe that he could in order to reconstitute it once inspections had been completed and sanctions lifted. Five or ten years down the road, with WMD in his pocession purchased from other countries as he was attempting, manufactured in Iraq using the bare bones remanents of his programs he would have invaded Kuwait or threatened Jordan, Saudi or whatever kind of mischief a blood thisty dictator would do and point an Al Samoud missile or two at Israel and dare us to boot him out. Disarmament of WMD, As Colin Powell put it reffering to South Africa and the two months or whatever it took them to totally get rid of theirs under the auspices of the UN "This isn't f***ing brain surgery." What was the hold up Ceasar? Why, after twelve years and threats on the lives of the Inpectors ans well as their families back home, and fourteen resolutions did nothing happen? Nothing that is, until the US poised a hundred some odd thousand troops on their border. Then they were still trying to make conditions in an area where they were to have no conditions other than total dissarmament? I wonder often that if there truely was a 'majority of countries' who wished the inspection to go on why they didn't bring forth a UN resolution that would provide a cancellation to all the previous ones that authorized force. Are you sure that there really was an official list of countries that actually stood up in the UN to be counted for a vote on a resolution rather than a popularity poll? Another thought stuck me the other day. 'There was no need to invade.' Every country on the planet save probably Iraq was all for the invasion, it was only the timing that was different. Some said now, some said after further inspections.

Better wake up Mr F. Do you think for a moment that Democrats don't think that terrorism is a serious threat to America? Do you actually think that they that different? Do you actually think that they think Bush lied and all when they themselves jumped right on the WMD bandwagon? (Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton and Gore all supported the notion that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to America.) Kerry even voted for the invasion. I think you actually believe that there are two, totally separate entities in the USA. One that is right, and the other that is left and when the administration changes, the country goes from black to white or whatever. They are merely opposite sides to fill in a political formula. Would Kerry get differing advice from the same Generals and CIA chiefs? Would he have pulled out the old war plan that was made in the Clinton Administration for invading Iraq and update it? Do you think for a minute that it is purely coincidence that Kerry says that we should go to the UN or might that be better for his campaign than saying that Bush did it right? Of course the Democrats have to take the opposite side. Let's just pretend for a moment that Gore was in charge and he did the exact same thing as Bush. Would Bush and his out of power administration be saying that Gore did the right and proper thing and that all his policies are correct? Not for a second. Myself, I would say that they did the right thing and you, would accuse me of being a Left Wing Redneck. If the Democrats did this would you have supported it or opposed it? Bush has a deep character flaw that the Left does not capitalize on. It has nothing to do with his ability to govern or make judgement calls based on the advice of some of the smartest people on the planet. The same stature of people that Kerry would surround himself with. I have no love for that man but see the sense of the whole action and even if it didn't make sense, 27 million people are free today because of him. That is wonderful.

LOL. What does it matter now? We all did when the decision had to be made. Even the Left Leaders thought there were. At the very least, the legalities of it were in place. The spirit of the UN Resolution which Iraq was to abide by were broken over and over again with Saddam being the one breaking them in WMD, Human Rights, Repatriation of Kuwaitis, Repayment of Debts to Kuwait and more. WMD was a selling point to the American Public and a plus to gain more members for the Coalition, not the reason for the war, legal or moral. One thing was certain, Saddam went to great lengths to stall, thwart and hamper UN inspections as well as hide his and keep his (at the time as now becomes apparent) unknown level of WMD capability to any degree that he could. This was NOT the spirit or intent of the UN resolutions against him. He was to rid himself and Iraq of every stinking speck of WMD and the capability to manufacture or use same. Delivery systems were still being developed the week prior to the US invasion, what the hell does that tell you? BTW, Ihave a theory about the alluminum tubes. What did they end up being used for? Irrigation? What are irrigation pipes usually made of? Are they not usually made of galvanized steel or PVC piping? Anyhow, my theory rests on the fact that he was not alloowed to have material that could be 'dual purpose.' Certain sizes of tubes were not permitted. Ever eat a pizza in front of the family dog? Stupid animal wants some but knows he will get a TV remote on the head if he tries so he sits at the end of the room .... watching .... wating. You take a bite and then watch the Alien snag another crew member and then turn, he's on his stomach doing a 'below radar' sneak. You turn back to the TV and then back to the pizza, dammed dog is on his belly two stinking feet away figuring you never would notice his slow, stealthy approach. Aluminum tubes for irrigation are say 31/2 inches this year. Hmmmmm, 41/2 inches next year and the following, suddenly, nobody cares as they are only irrigation pipes ..... the exact diameter needed for a nuclear project. All the time they are the same quantity and lengths.

Control of thirteen separate government ministries has been transferred to Iraqis It's complete bedlam in Iraq Yes sir, a real popular uprising. Maybe, just maybe, it is like normal people have been saying. That normal Iraqis want freedom and it is the radical nutbars and power hungry that don't. Anybody that says these guys are freedom fighters need their heads read Whatever, I have tons more to refute simply bad, pain in the ass continual rainy news that so many use to say Iraq is a lost cause and the insurgents are some sort of hope and are right. Go to Google, use the key words Iraq-Good-News. It even gives you details on how much Iraq gets to put away for it's oil sales - pretty much everything. It will also tell you how Australia and Japan will write off Iraqi debts but France won't.

Exactly. These undamaged shells which hit the ground at speeds exceeding the velocity of sound by three to four times would provide ample material for physics studies. As for packing them in from other countries, yes. None of the neighboring regimes would miss their WMD that they covet so much. They probably hand them out to anybody who asks. Matter of fact, I have a few in the trunk of my car. The shells only weigh about a hundred pounds each so packing them in is easy. Just put them in a duffle bag, wear your CBW suit as you get on the bus and don't drop it whatever you do. As for somebody collecting the undetonated ones, nobody moved in Iraq without official permission. It is one of the ways Saddam and Rregime kept control. Saddm kept meticulous records of everything from food to fuel to torture. The only shortfalls in his record keeping system it seems are the things that he valued the most - WMD.

Iraqi chemical weapons

I don't proffess to be an expert, but there sure seems to be a lot of farmers getting screwed by the CWB. Has anything changed in the past few years? A few of these links are dated a bit (96/99) and some of them are very recent. There is lots of them, probably hundreds of articles with the same message - CWB sucks big butt. THIS AND THIS AND THIS AND THAT AND THIS AND THAT AND THIS AND THAT AND THIS AND THAT .....

CNEWS GLOBE AND MAIL BRANDON SUN AID

The Heads of Astate of the following countries; United Kingdom. Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Philippines, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Mongolia, Palau, Tonga, El Salvador, Colombia, Nicaragua, Costa Rica Dominican Republic, Honduras, Australia, Kuwait, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Angola. Just because they don’t meet in the same basement as your ‘unofficial’ lawyers that like to hold ‘non-binding’ kangaroo courts doesn’t mean that they think it is illegal. People demonstrate against things they wish to change or for things they wish to prevent others from changing. When a government thinks something is the way it should be and is legal, they keep on doing it. BTW, has the new Spanish government said that the action was illegal? Vehemently? Hmmmm, as usual a bit mellowdramatic, If it were vehement then picture a hundred fifty thousand troops up against twenty five million people. It would be over in hours. I would say oppposed is a better word. Then again, I am opposed to the occupation in Iraq/ GW Bush is as well, every soldier in Iraq is. Nobody want the US to be there, them included. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...oll-cover_x.htm A year ago they said that they were worse off and they wanted the US out. What has changed scince then?

I assumed that English was your first language. Sorry. The actual problem is not 'I think' I thought I made it clear that that was the reason why you posted this. Because you thought something. Hence, the rationale for the statement. Anyhow, the problem is not you thinking but rather the insertion of 'that permission' into the sentence when it is only an understood permission if your name is Saddam Hussein who really wanted a signal or any kind that he would not be beaten to a pulp if he iinvaded. Hence, 'I think' is fine. However, scince there is no acceptance of permission being fact, why do you portray it as such suddenly? And sc ince it is not fact, how can it come from the White House throgh Glaspie or be the standing policy? You are in the habit of throwing stuff out and assuming that it will be accepted as fact. It is a debating trick of huckters. you tried it with the 'illegal' statement and you are trying it again here. Prove how this was permission. Otherwise, leave it for what it is widely understood to be, a major gaff by a politician.

The wheat board was a poor example. What I should have put forth was the observation that if we make it difficult or high priced to buy our commodities then they will seek these same things elsewhere. Right now, we have an edge with the ability to transport things cheaper and mor equickly but if tariffs and such are not reciprocal they might find Mexico a more lucrative market. When expense makes that unreasonable, they will go elsewhere. Diversify, yes, but only where it makes fiscal sense. BTW, the Wheat Board does not really compete. I believe that it is an extension of Canadian Foreign Policy. All at the expense of our farmers.

The part where the 'permission' is the non-fact and the 'I think' is the supposed rationale for the non-fact appearing in the manner it did.

REV Likely? But you said that it WAS illegal. Here is what Perle said "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." I didn't see a definite case for the war being illegal. Kofis quotes A rather interesting one from the World Federation of United Nations' Associations President Hasim Abdul Halim on march 26 who said .... Add his urging to Kofis quote as well because This would indicate that at that time no ruling was in place which made the action illegal. Otherwise, why call for a ruling that was already in place? Now, does not a current World Body President who says that the war is not, but should be illegal and needs to be made illegal carry more weight than a former has-been Advisor like Perle? If not, then why don't you like Bush's word, he's the President of the United States of America for cryng out loud and he says it's legal.. Where is Koffees? Perles? Yours for that matter? You say it is illegal. Show me the law that specifically says that this is illegal. Then show us all the charges and which atricles the guilty are being charged with by A RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY to bring those who broke the law to justice. From the Perle article: Don't know if any of these guys are lawyers but they carry more weight than a FORMER anything and they are against the war and they think that it should be illegal, yet they know that there is no law making it illegal. That's why all the urging to have the UN pass something. Hence, the war is not illegal. BTW Rev, a very good example you gave. I am impressed, although I do not agree with it's implication that the US action in Iraq is criminal, it still makes your point in an impressive manner. Kudos.

See Rev, this is how rumors are started. You state what is known by all, that you which is an accepted observation that is made from the official transcripts of the meeting. And then, make a completely false statement by changing this assumption into something which there is no proof or indication thereof. Seeing as how up until yesterrday you were not even familiar with the particulars of this event, what factual evidence have you come up with in the past eighteen hours that turns this from an Ambassador's poor wording to a conspiracy that goes to the top of the US government and becomes 'standing policy? Permission?

Is that clear enough for you, Krusty? It lists the articles and how they were violated. You can agree or not, but until you show up on my doorstep with a degree in international law and a huge resume, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the experts. Their opinions and interpretations of international law are worth far more than that of some anonymous poster on the Internet. Nopw either address the real issue at hand, whether it is unpatriotic for a Canadian to criticise the US or show us all your degree in international law and a resume showing you aren't just mob lawyer trying to pick up a side job. Where is your law degree Mr 'This War is Illegal and I know it 100% becasue I believe what 'unofficial pacifists holding a 'non binding kangaroo court in some hotel basement say so?' Not only are the guys holding this feel good, yet unoticed peacenik circle jerk long on rhetoric (conscripted coalition), they are short on facts (despite being unable to prove its allegations that it posed an imminent threat to the US). I guess they never heard that Iraq was already in violation of the respolutions and had been for over twelve years. Ridding themselves of WMD material, equipment, attempts to aquire same as well as providing accurate documentation of same, repatriation of Kuwaitis, human rights of it's own citizens, repayment of War damages and on and on. There was never a resolution that provided for damages or threats to the US and as I told you before, that was only a sell job to the American public and has zilch to do with international law. I appoligise for abbrieviating your quote, but I included it in full in my post as I address each point. KK Which resolution that the Security Council passed does it specifically say not to take action? Can you show us that it actually exists or was this just unofficial talking? As we all know, the UN likes to make rulings and such, surely there must be one for this important decision. When UN laws are made by guys 'calling' rather then voting in a formal quorum, this will stick. Until then, calls don't mean squat, resolutions do. KK What is this then? Security Council Resolution 678 “2. AUTHORIZES MEMBER STATES CO-OPERATING WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF KUWAIT, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;” It seems that the UN actually approves the idea of having a team of ‘Member States’ to assist the Government of Kuwait and get Iraq to comply with UN rulings USING ALL NECESSARY MEANS. When and where did this all OFFICIALLY change? KK The UN never gave legal justification for an attack against the US. That runup was for the American people. We are talking international law. Here is international justification UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, KK WTF??? These guys are so lame they can't even come up with a typist to make it look like they changed the wording of the first violation. Same crap, same wording but I will add some to the origional rebuttal above.... Calls so weak that they couldn’t find the time or the strength to make a resolution to recsind their own resolution? Come now, that is stretching things a bit. Their own resolution that they supposedly don’t support; Security Council Resolution 678 “2. AUTHORIZES MEMBER STATES CO-OPERATING WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF KUWAIT, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;” You are the one who is the supposed expert sayng that definitely it is illegal. I am merely quoting UN law and resolutions and asking you to prove they are wrong. Plain English. You can read that I am sure. You don't agree with UN resolutions? Why not? Then why didn't they let somebody know about it? Instead they leave the door open with Security Council Resolution 678 “2. AUTHORIZES MEMBER STATES CO-OPERATING WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF KUWAIT, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;” An oversight perhaps? They forgot to meet and cancel it? What? Instead, you would have us believe that they bitched and complained but never got around to stopping it? Too busy shopping that day I suppose. Let's see, the UN, the highest authority on the planet gives you written and recorded authority to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area and you figure that they are legally bound to take that resolution back to the UN and ask if it is still valid after 16 further resolutions over the last twelve years all said that it was? These things were written so that anybody can understand them, Sadddam, you, me, GW. Everybody. You showed me stuff that you understood that was written by Japanese Pacifist Lawers and I understood it. I assume you did as well otherwise you wouldn't have posted it. Are you telling me that what I have posted from an actual autority known as the highest in the world is beyond your understanding? Come to think of it, I probably could sell you on me being an international lawyer. I mean, you think those guys are on the up and up so you probably would believe anything. Here, I'll make it easy on you. Give me a UN security council resolution made after Jan 2004 that says it is illegal for the US to take action in Iraq and I will say it is illegal. Fair enogh? Not a group of citizens, not a group of lawyers but a UN order. On the other hand, scince you don't seem to like the actual laws. Would me getting some Right Wing Lawyers opinions make the case? I mean, you only seem to have Left Wing opinion here and at best, opinion of laws written before the UN made the resolutions countering those laws so why not?