bush and blair vindicated

davelerave

innocent people have died but it looks like they did the right thing now.i was kinda against it at the start but
baghdad has fallen quickly and the evil regime has been toppled

Frank Grimes

How exactly are they vindicated? They went in with the supposed intention of disarming the regime. So far the only thing they've found is pesticide.
They'll probably find more dangerous chemicals in a gardening centre.

innocent people have died but it looks like they did the right thing now

Yup. i see your point. actually, no i don't. How have they justified their invasion of another nation, for reasons that haven't been validated?

i was kinda against it at the start but baghdad has fallen quickly and the evil regime has been toppled

why do so many think that just because Baghdad has fallen, that this is the end of it? It isn't. There are still alot of Iraqi's that were truely loyal to the Saddam regime. Do you really think they're going to stop hating the west because Saddam is out of the picture? Hardly.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gwbtbahs

If you think they were vindicated then tell me again when you check the photo below


They have found nothing!

They have killed thousands!

They invaded illegally

They cannot be vindicated

dathi1

bush and blair vindicated

eh..I dont think the real war has even started.

Originally posted by gwbtbahs
If you think they were vindicated then tell me again when you check the photo below


They have found nothing!

They have killed thousands!

They invaded illegally

They cannot be vindicated

Awfull photo, but again, I must say, there weren't many photographers present to depict, the equally horrendous images of what Sadam husseins regime did over the last number of years.

I have BBC news 24 on in the background here, and Ragi Omar is reporting live from a crowd pulling down a huge statue of Sadam in Baghdads central square.
As I type, he has just seen, a kid about ten, kiss one of the marines on the cheek.
These are Iraqi people, some have walked up to the camera, saying thank you america, thank you Bush.

now considering the hospitals are overflowing with casulties and people know this, it speaks volumes for what the locals think as to whether the invasion was illegal or not.
and their opinions carry a lot more weight than ours.
mm

Johnmb

The key test is what way will the Sunnis welcome the US (as they benefited most from Saddam, the Shia have reason to hate his guts and welcome anybody who would overthrow him). Even ignoring that, I doubt very much that the US will be so welcome even by the Shia and the Kurds in about 2-3 months time when they're still there interfering in the decisions the Iraqis want to make for themselves.

The key test will be in abt 3 weeks, when the Coalition garrisons are at a low ebb of security/wariness. If the country erupts with pure guerrilla warfare, then we all know the general feeling of welcome isn't there, since pure g. warfare fails without the suport of the people. However, if it stays quiet, then yes, they have been honestly welcomed. At the moment most people in the cities are still "shell-shocked" and those outside the cities will do/say anything to receive humanitarian aid.

Johnmb

Also, getting back to the topic of vindication, it doesn't matter whether they won easily or not, nor does it matter whether they were welcomed or not, the fact still remains that they broke international law and the UN Charter by invading Iraq. Regardless as to your feelings about Saddam, the international community needs to take steps to ensure that the US cannot get away with doing this type of thing again.

davelerave

Originally posted by gwbtbahs
If you think they were vindicated then tell me again when you check the photo below


They have found nothing!

They have killed thousands!

They invaded illegally

They cannot be vindicated

sad photo ,an innocent child.i agree with your 3 points but
my point is that he killed hundreds of thousands of innocents and the iraqi people have been 'liberated' today by the looks of things,war is bad but the brutal iraqi regime was much worse, much more needs to be done by the west to achieve a lasting peace in the wider world and it remains to be seen if that will happen

Typedef

Right and wrong is a very selective, subjective proposition.

Unless you can 'enforce' your view of what is right, you are but, a powerless opinion.

The USA has the ability to enforce it's view of right and wrong, much like policemen and Europe, (to carry the allegory along) may think it's fine and well to smoke a little grass, but, ultimately until the European's are the police or the Americans agree with Europe, Europe's opinion on what is 'right' or 'wrong' is irrelevant, so no pot for you.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather there was no war, but, standing up on your soapbox and screaming bloody murder doesn't change that.

The Palestinians have been screaming for years and nobody has interceded. In my view it is right to intercede to help Palestine, but, since I can't make that happen, it really doesn't matter what I think.

Go, get a lobby group.

davelerave

Originally posted by Typedef
Right and wrong is a very selective, subjective proposition.

Unless you can 'enforce' your view of what is right, you are but, a powerless opinion.

The USA has the ability to enforce it's view of right and wrong, much like policemen and Europe, (to carry the allegory along) may think it's fine and well to smoke a little grass, but, ultimately until the European's are the police or the Americans agree with Europe, Europe's opinion on what is 'right' or 'wrong' is irrelevant, so no pot for you.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather there was no war, but, standing up on your soapbox and screaming bloody murder doesn't change that.

The Palestinians have been screaming for years and nobody has interceded. In my view it is right to intercede to help Palestine, but, since I can't make that happen, it really doesn't matter what I think.

Go, get a lobby group.

decode please?convoluted statement

Venom

The Palestinians have been screaming for years and nobody has interceded. In my view it is right to intercede to help Palestine, but, since I can't make that happen, it really doesn't matter what I think.

Maybe if the had huge oil feilds the US and UK might be more eager to help them.

The Palestinians have been screaming for years and nobody has interceded. In my view it is right to intercede to help Palestine, but, since I can't make that happen, it really doesn't matter what I think.

I think its right to help both Israel, and Palestine. Currently they're locked in a death grip, and it will take a foreign power/organisation to help them. I'm not saying that Israel is innocent, however, i'm definetly going to argue if someone says the Palestinians are innocent.

aine

Originally posted by davelerave
innocent people have died but it looks like they did the right thing now.i was kinda against it at the start but
baghdad has fallen quickly and the evil regime has been toppled

hmmmm werent they looking for Weapons of Mass destruction? isnt that why they were able to go in there under Resolution 1441?

I hardly think they are vindicated! I actually think we are facing into a very serious period in world history where the US an Britain now have precident to go after regimes they consider evil....they have 'succeeded' this time...so whats next?

gandalf

Yep as Aine says "SHOW ME THE WEAPONS". Because if there are none, then 1441 was complied with fully and the only valid excuse the Axis of Diesel had to "Regime Topple" is gone (and pesticides buired in the grown don't count!).

Therefore this will be a illegal invasion of a sovereign (with a nasty government) country.

Gandalf.

Shorty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2934651.stm

Baghdad :: Andrew Gilligan :: 0530GMT

It's still pretty restrained here today - the euphoria of yesterday hasn't been repeated yet. I drove round the city centre as the statue was being toppled yesterday, and mostly people are reserving judgement, it's mostly the Shia areas that are celebrating.

But there's no question people are glad to see the end of the regime.

One of my close Iraqi friends went up to an American marine and said to him: "I'm going to exercise my right of free speech for the first time in my life - we want you out of here as soon as possible."

---

Baghdad :: Paul Wood :: 0521GMT

We've just learned from the US marines that the US flag that was put on the face of Saddam yesterday - it was replaced by an Iraqi flag when the people shouted for that - was the flag that was flying over the Pentagon on September 11.

For a lot of the American marines, they think this war is all about defeating terrorism, they will tell you that over and over again. There is also a connection in the minds of the American public between the regime of Saddam and what happened on September 11, and apparently the flag that was draped over this face was flying over the pentagon when the plane crashed into it.

---

Anti-War does not equal Pro-Saddam. Where has this idea come from? Here

bonkey

Originally posted by gandalf
Yep as Aine says "SHOW ME THE WEAPONS". Because if there are none, then 1441 was complied with fully

Since the start of the hostilities, when have you ever seen the US say that this was about WMDs? They answered questions about them, they brought up the issue when it leant emotive strength to their propaganda, and they made frequent announcements that they "might" have found stuff, so that some would be fooled into believing that they still care.

Just like Afghanistan, the mission changed once the idea for the war was sold. Sell it as "get one man", then carry it out it as "regime change".

The US wont care if there are no WMDs. If anyone is brave enough to ask them how they can justify the war in retrospect, given its failure to prove its allegations, you will get a caring, almost pitying smile and a return question asking if you think it would have been better to leave the poor Iraqi's suffering under Saddam Hussein.

Why answer the question when you can simply dodge it by putting the questioner in a moral no-win situation.

jc

de5p0i1er

They have found nothing!

They have killed thousands!

They invaded illegally

They cannot be vindicated

Saddam fried more skud missiles then he was supposed to have under UN weapon sanctions, so he had some hidden weapons as no one could get suppleys in without the US knowing about it, so he was in violation of the weapon sanction imposed upon his regime and if had the extra squds whats there to say he didn't have any other weapons hidden as some of the Republician guard has not been found yet and they could be hiding anywhere with some anthrex rockets for all we know.

Shorty

Originally posted by de5p0i1er
Saddam fried more skud missiles

Mmmmm, fried scud missiles.

gandalf

Nope your wrong there were no Scud missiles fired. As usual with this misadventure they were quick to claim there were and slow to admit they were wrong.

The missile that hit Kuwait was actually a silkworm anti shipping missile.

Some of the others fired were Al Samouds (spl) which the Iraqis were destroying before the war.

Gandalf.

bonkey

Originally posted by de5p0i1er
Saddam fried more skud missiles then he was supposed to have under UN weapon sanctions, so he had some hidden weapons as no one could get suppleys in without the US knowing about

For a start, Saddam was supposed to have a grand total of 0 scud missiles. He fired - surprise surprise - a grand total of 0 scud missiles.

What he did have, was known to have, and was destroying prior to hostilities was Al Samoud 2 missiles. He also had a collection of shorter-range missiles. These were used during the conflict, but I havent seen a single report anywhere which has been able to make any type of estimate of how many of each were fired, and how many of each he was supposed to have had.

So, assuming that you simply made a mistake about the missile type, maybe you could point us all at the evidence backing this allegation....


As to this "they still could have chemical weapons for all we know" line.....when are people gonna give it a rest?

Day 1 of the invasion, every incoming shot was "potentially" a chemical weapon.

Approaching Basra, it was the first likely spot that Saddam would use chemical weapons.

Approaching Baghdad, there was a line in the sand. When the coalition crossed it, Saddam was goign to authorise the use of WMDs.

Once across that line, it was probable that the WMDs were being held until the troops were actually engaged in urban warfare.

Now, that the capital has been taken, the army decimated (or worse more likely), the ruling structure removed, and all "serious" fighting appearing to be over, you want us to believe that there "could be" some republican Guard hiding out with Anthrax "for all we know"?

There could be, but then again, there could be some Iraqi's hiding in a seekrit bunker under the oilfields with nuclear weapons, and they're going to turn the entire middle eastern oilfields into an unuseable radioactive nightmare once its clear that Saddam has lost.

"Could be" means that there is a probability which is neither 0 or 1. Thats all. The likelihood of what your are describing is infintessimal. It makes no sense - strategically or tactically - for any Iraqi unit to have held WMDs until this point and yet to still intend to use them.

Come on. The US line that the Iraqi government have run away to Syria, possibly bringing their WMDs with them is a more credible argument, and even that is a joke.

jc

While we are on the subject and in relation to this…
I was listening to an interview on radio 4 on last Tuesday morning. with chris James, the deputy head of the last inspection team ( that left in 1998 ) talking about the whole wmd thing.
He said that he had” absolutely no doubt that they were hiding something” as the inspectors back then before they left had too many obstacles and hindrances placed before them when ever they wanted to check some place.
It’s impossible to be categorical yet as to whether they had anything or not.
But one thing is for sure; the downfall of the regime should make it easier for some of those that are in the know so to speak to talk.
Given how terrified, the Iraqi minders of western journalists were to criticise the regime until yesterday, one could only imagine , how terrified anyone involved in an illegal weapons programme might be to let the cat out of the bag.

The previous evening, I saw a repeat of a “warzone” programme on BBC2 “A profile of Sadam” presented by John simpson, which interviewed many exiles who had known Sadam.
One of them described how he heard Sadam talk of what he was going to do to the Iranian army during the Iran Iraq war, the phrase was chilling, " we are going to spray them like insects”.

If there is anything there, I’d not have expected, too much to be found until Sadam had fallen and Tony Blair remains confident that something will be found.
My worry is though, if anything is found, how much of it has got into terrorist hands already, money speaks a universal language and all that.
mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DeVore

Originally posted by gwbtbahs
If you think they were vindicated then tell me again when you check the photo below


They have found nothing!

They have killed thousands!

They invaded illegally

They cannot be vindicated

Your emotive stridency says more then any real debate could.

</brasseye>

DeV.

Sparks

[nitpick]
daveirl,
Scott Ritter headed UNSCOM, not UNMOVIC - that was Hans Blix
[/nitpick]

DeVore,
Emotional reactions to death are rather commonplace amongst sane humans, especially to needless deaths. Lack of emotional reaction is often referred to as sociopathy...
How about you show how the invasion was legal, how the US are not in breach of the Hague and Geneva conventions and the UN charter, how they have found weapons of mass destruction or some other thing that could be classed as a clear and present danger to people outside Iraq?

Gordon

Incidentally has any tear gas been used by the US? Apparently they brought some over to Iraq with them even under UN frownings because it is in breach of the Geneva convention.

Sparks

We don't know if it was used, but we do know Bush gave the authorisation for it to be used. Which is why I said they broke the Hague convention...

Originally posted by daveirl
Scott Ritter who was the head of that inspection organisation holds the opposite opinion.

Yeah, he was asked about that and didn't want to comment, saying he had a lot of respect for his boss or words to that effect.
It's interesting though that the two main people can have different views based on see'ing the same information...very like here actually:p

Also whats very interesting is didn't the US have specific intelligence as to the location of the weapons but couldn't tell the UN where they were because their operatives would be comprimised. But when they went to these sites they found nothing.

That *could* just mean, that they were quick enough to remove any evidence.
mm

Sparks

Man,

That *could* just mean, that they were quick enough to remove any evidence.

That wouldn't explain the faking of evidence by the US. Plus, you always leave traces of chemicals at sites used for any length of time - one specific site presented to the UNSC by Powell as a chemical weapons factory was hit by special forces early in the invasion - and lab tests revealed absolutly nothing there.
And the general opinion of the UNMOVIC inspectors as to the quality of the US intel was a well-known one prior to the invasion. "It's $hit" was the quote, as I recall.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

That wouldn't explain the faking of evidence by the US.

link please to this faking of evidence
mm

gandalf

Ammm most of what Colin Powell presented to the UN man

(Hang on lads Fox News say they've found a mobile chemical weapons lab now !!!!!! :rolleyes:)

Gandalf.

Sparks

Man,
As you wish:
VIENNA (Reuters) - A few hours and a simple internet search was all it took for U.N. inspectors to realize documents backing U.S. and British claims that Iraq had revived its nuclear program were crude fakes, a U.N. official said.

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

British intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein has been trying to import uranium for a nuclear bomb are unfounded and based on deliberately fabricated evidence, according to an investigation by the UN nuclear inspectors in Iraq.

davelerave

maybe i shoulda said they probably will be vindicated.for now ,they've got rid of an evil dictator at a cost of many innocent lives ,but they have a lot more to do yet to win the peace long-term in the middle east

Actually I have no problem with being skeptical about that "evidence" , just that it would be deliberately faked and presented to the security council as such.
It may well be the case that Mr Powell was reading too much into some of what he was presenting.
Time will tell.
mm

Sparks

Man,
Given Powell's record in relation to My Lai, Panama, Nicaragua and so forth, as well as the fact that he is meant to be a professional with the largest, most professional staff in the world, I cannot accept that it is an innocent mistake without some proof.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
As you wish:
VIENNA (Reuters) - A few hours and a simple internet search was all it took for U.N. inspectors to realize documents backing U.S. and British claims that Iraq had revived its nuclear program were crude fakes, a U.N. official said.

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

British intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein has been trying to import uranium for a nuclear bomb are unfounded and based on deliberately fabricated evidence, according to an investigation by the UN nuclear inspectors in Iraq.

Hmmm, I must confess I didn't know that, but then I didn't know this either

The FBI is looking into the forgery of a key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program, including the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq. "It's something we're just beginning to look at," a senior law enforcement official said yesterday. Officials are trying to determine whether the documents were forged to try to influence U.S. policy, or whether they may have been created as part of a disinformation campaign directed by a foreign intelligence service.

Thats also from The WP 5 days later and indeed

The CIA, which had also obtained the documents, had questions about "whether they were accurate," said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure weapons of mass destruction.

mm

Sparks

Man,
I'm unsurprised that the FBI is now being asked to investigate - to do otherwise would be a tacit admission of complicity by the bush administration. Also, if the CIA evaluated the reports as forgerys, why did Powell present them to the UN?

And from the news:
Experts say U.S. `discovery' of nuclear materials in Iraq was breach of U.N.-monitored site
and
In harsh remarks published Wednesday, U.N. weapons chief Hans Blix roundly criticized Washington's decision to go to war in Iraq, and faulted U.S. intelligence for offering what he called bogus information about an alleged Iraqi weapons purchase from Niger.

*cough* Powell only mentioned in his speech to the UNSC:

Since 1998, his efforts to reconstitute his nuclear programme have been focussed on acquiring the third and last component: suffecient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion. to make the fissile material he needs to develop an ability to enrich uranium.

He went on then to speak of factual information regarding centrefuges which the U.S had intercepted, which although,could have been used for conventional rockets, were of such a high spec as to in their opinion be suspicious.
Thats a perfectly natural suspicion given Sadams record in the area.

Now where is the evidence so far, or indeed the conviction that the U.S falsified the documents you talk about?
Because otherwise your original contention, that the U.S were faking evidence, which I questioned above is just an unsubstantiated allegation and not a matter of fact.

Also, if the CIA evaluated the reports as forgerys, why did Powell present them to the UN?

Well the article, I read said:

The CIA, which had also obtained the documents, had questions about "whether they were accurate,"

and not that they were forgeries, perhaps the people to determine that was Dr Al Baredi, his organisation , being the authority on the subject, and indeed as you pointed out his people made that determination.
mm

Gordon

"This is a local shop for local people, you'll find no weapons of mass destruction here!"


"You're maiy laives now... deehv"

Sparks

Man,
The US evidence was presented to the UN and then found to be a crude forgery. Given the crudity of the forgery, and the proported expertise of the US intelligence community, it seems unlikely to be a simple mistake. That would be supported by Powell's past record, as well as that of most of the Bush administration.
So it's not unreasonable to suspect intentional deception.
Further, not only were the nuclear intelligence documents "inaccurate", so was the intel relating to the chemical and biological weapons programs.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
The US evidence was presented to the UN and then found to be a crude forgery. Given the crudity of the forgery, and the proported expertise of the US intelligence community, it seems unlikely to be a simple mistake. That would be supported by Powell's past record, as well as that of most of the Bush administration.
So it's not unreasonable to suspect intentional deception.
Further, not only were the nuclear intelligence documents "inaccurate", so was the intel relating to the chemical and biological weapons programs.

But what about the phone calls, they must have been forged too...it's obvious, when they included the blessings of Allah:rolleyes:
I'm not a Bush supporter politically, but he has pulled off operation Iraqi freedom fairly well, i'll join the people of Iraq, in saying well done regardless of what strokes were or were not pulled to bring it about.
mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

Man,
Then you would have to support the IRA as well. Or is it only okay for the US to break international law and kill people to achieve a political end?

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
Then you would have to support the IRA as well. Or is it only okay for the US to break international law and kill people to achieve a political end?

No.
One can support a country, which is different to supporting a terrorist organisation.
The U.S had the support of it's people for the action she took, the Provo's never had.
and we've been over the "illegality" ground already, nothing here has been declared illegal.
mm

seamus

Originally posted by Man
No.
One can support a country, which is different to supporting a terrorist organisation.
The U.S had the support of it's people for the action she took, the Provo's never had.
and we've been over the "illegality" ground already, nothing here has been declared illegal.
mm

The U.S. Government, like all good Governments, used half-truths and scare tactics to gain it's people's support for the war.

What was it? 50% of Americans believed Saddam had links with Al-Queda? Just goes to show the power of the U.S. propaganda machine.

The point here is that the U.S. declared "Saddam is lying. He has WMDs which he has not declared and is not actively disarming. We must invade Iraq and remove the regime in the name of peace and stability." 'Liberation of the Iraqi people' was only touted as a happy side-effect of such action, and never declared as an official objective (iirc).

As soon as the war starts, WMD are safely hidden from the agenda. What's their first objective? "SECURE THE OIL FIELDS, SIR!", 'to ensure the future economy of the Iraqi people'. 26(?) days on, and the only reference we hear to WMDs are Sky News talking about a 'possible' find of substances which 'may' have been used in WMDs.

Now, I have no problem with the liberation of the Iraqi people, and I don't believe the coalition will feck off and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves. What I have a problem with is them marching in under false pretences. The reason they bypassed the UN was because they couldn't secure support for an invasion to remove WMDs. Liberation of the Iraqi people or installation of a democracy weren't given as reasons. So they went in, illegally, in a situation where, if they had said why they were actually attacking Iraq, they may have secured support from the UN and much much more of the world's population. IMO this war was to do with vengeance and economic back-scratching, not peace, stability and humanitarianism.

The war was started because of WMDs . None have been found. Its NOT ok to now go "Oh well, never mind, at least the Iraqis are liberated". That's neither democratic nor Christian, the two religions which Bush loves to push.

(Wow, a convoluted post by me on Politics, will wonders never cease? )

Sparks

I don't believe the coalition will feck off and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves.

The fact that they probably won't is the actual problem in the long term

And Man,
1) The Provos did have popular support in the early 70s. It still didn't make their actions right.
2) A government is not and can not be above either national or international law - otherwise there's not point in either.
3) The US has broken many aspects of the Geneva convention, the Hague Convention and the UN Charter in plain sight of the entire world. Would you like me to cite you some examples, or will you accept that they have?
4) The only reason that the US gets away with it is because they've got the guns. Nice lesson to show to every terrorist and dictator in this world - might makes right and sod the UN, democracy, diplomacy and the rule of law.
5) We have been over the illegality aspect and it's been agreed that they have acted illegally. Problem is the lack of a court whose decision on the matter could be enforced. Maybe it's time that got fixed.

Originally posted by seamus
The U.S. Government, like all good Governments, used half-truths and scare tactics to gain it's people's support for the war.

What was it? 50% of Americans believed Saddam had links with Al-Queda? Just goes to show the power of the U.S. propaganda machine.

No, people there on the whole were scared and shell shocked after 9-11, their government didn't have to put up much of a case to foster that.

Regarding what polls say 50% of Americans thought...
Well you'll get mis conceptions and ignorance in all societies.
If I took a walk down my local town and into some of the estates, and asked who the Taoiseach was, straight away, I'd get Bertie Ahern,
Tanáiste? : some wouldn't know.

Minister for justice, an awfull lot wouldn't know, thats a fact.

Indeed in this country, theres a gene in roughly 40% of the people that seems to make them vote Fianna Fáil come what may.

The important thing with the U.S public, is that they knew what their government was about to do and the majority agreed with it.
mm

Originally posted by Sparks
And Man,
1) The Provos did have popular support in the early 70s. It still didn't make their actions right.

The provo's never had a mandate from the people of this island.

2) A government is not and can not be above either national or international law - otherwise there's not point in either.

Well, when you have China,and Russia, the congo amongst others on the security council ( not exactly bastions of human rights ) then how can you up hold international law??
At one stage, you had the U.S, the U.K and France all offering "help" to smaller members of the U.N.SC if they voted the right way.
Now I'm sure we withnessed the most open episode of this in the weeks before the Iraq war, which leads me to wonder what sort of wheeler dealing goes on in issuess that are not as much in the worlds media.

3) The US has broken many aspects of the Geneva convention, the Hague Convention and the UN Charter in plain sight of the entire world. Would you like me to cite you some examples, or will you accept that they have?

Oh it's clear that they have, I don't have a problem with you telling me that. ( I did have a problem with you stating as fact that they had forged evidence as that would be an un proven allegation )
Indeed the latest, one that they have been accused of breaking, was not bringing law an order to the streets of Iraq.
*cough* two days after the fall of Baghdad and given that they didn't want to be seen as a replacement agressor for Sadam.
I note it's now the third day since the fall of Baghdad and large numbers of Baghdad police force have turned up in response to calls from the U.S to restore order.
Which leads me into:

5) We have been over the illegality aspect and it's been agreed that they have acted illegally. Problem is the lack of a court whose decision on the matter could be enforced. Maybe it's time that got fixed.

With regard to the U.N charter, the coalition will maintain that they went into Iraq legally based on existing U.N.S.C resolutions.
Their action cannot be said to be an illegal act solely on the basis of breaking the "thou shalt not invade unless attack" aspect of the charter, unless that body declares it so.
Now we are back to the in adequacies of the U.N again because the system as it stands at the moment is designed for a perfect world, where no permanent member of the U.N.S.C has an axe to grind or interests to protect that aren't in conflict with each others.
Thats the perfect world we'll be waiting a long time for methinks.
mm