[moki]

Does this explain in part why inspections were not effective in Iraq, and that they never would be? The inspections were always meant not to *find* banned weapons, but rather to *verify* the disarmament; for this to work, it would require full cooperation from the Iraqi regime, which based on UNSCOM's history was fairly clearly never forthcoming.

But this is a new wrinkle; it appears that Iraqi officials had some inside information on when inspectors were going to appear, and destroyed evidence ahead of time.

from: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/23/iraqi_germs/

.....

Iraqi scientists: We were told to destroy germs

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By NIKO PRICE

April 23, 2003 _|_ BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Six Iraqi scientists working at different Baghdad research institutions were ordered to destroy some bacteria and equipment and hide more in their homes before visits from U.N. weapons inspectors in the months leading up to the war, the scientists told The Associated Press.

In separate interviews, all of the scientists said they were involved in civilian research projects and none knew of any programs for weapons of mass destruction. It was not clear why their materials, ostensibly for nonmilitary research, were ordered destroyed.

But their accounts indicate the government of Saddam Hussein may have had advance knowledge of at least some of the inspectors' visits, as the United States suspected, and that the former Iraqi regime was deeply concerned about any material that could raise the suspicion of U.N. experts.

"An hour or two before the inspectors came to the university, I got my orders from the chairman," said a biochemistry professor at Saddam University for Science and Engineering.

"The order was to hide anything that might make the inspectors suspicious. Any bacterium, any fungus. I destroyed seven petri dishes in the autoclave and I put the others in the trunk of my car."

An autoclave uses superheated steam, most often to sterilize equipment.

He said the petri dishes held Staphylococcus and E. coli bacteria and a fungus that can cause severe skin problems - all commonly used for experiments.

The scientist and several others would only speak on condition of anonymity.

While U.S. troops are firmly in control of the Iraqi capital, university officials, some of them linked by blood to Saddam, remain in their academic positions and scientists fear they could be fired if they are discovered providing information that slights their bosses.

Saddam University's assistant dean, Ameer Abbas Ameer, said inspectors visited his university three times, checking the chemistry, biology and physics departments. He denied ordering professors and researchers to destroy or hide materials.

"The inspectors never found anything because there wasn't anything to find," he said. "They were even joking about it when they were here. They were never serious. You don't search for weapons of mass destruction under the carpet."

But the professor and other scientists said orders came from Ameer's office, through the department chairman, to hide and destroy materials when the inspectors were on their way.

"The chairman told us not to answer questions from any inspectors, to go to the cafeteria and stay there until they left," the professor said. "They were afraid. What they were afraid of, I don't know."

President Bush claimed during his State of the Union address that Iraqi spies had penetrated the U.N. inspections. While some inspectors privately suspect as much, none of the inspection teams found any firm evidence to support the president's claim.

"Clearly we were well aware that the Iraqis were trying to figure out our inspection plans and we took many practicable precautions against that," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the U.N. inspectors. He said information was handled on a "need to know" basis and precautions included "silent briefings" between inspectors to elude any listening devices the Iraqis may have placed at U.N. offices in Baghdad.

U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq last November after a four-year hiatus. Over a period of 3 1/2 months, they conducted hundreds of visits to factories, universities and military facilities. Despite the insistence of the Bush administration that Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, the inspectors found no such evidence before the U.S.-led war on Iraq forced them to leave in mid-March.

So far, U.S. forces haven't found any conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons it was banned from possessing after the 1991 Gulf War. Officials hope scientists and other Iraqis will feel free to provide information now that the regime is gone. U.S. officials are questioning several top Iraqi officials who were involved in former weapons programs and the Pentagon has offered rewards of up to $200,000 for information on weapons of mass destruction.

None of the scientists interviewed by the AP in their homes and on campuses said they had any such information to provide.

But four graduate students in the biotechnology department at Saddam University said they too received orders from their department head to get rid of bacteria that could be used to produce toxins for biological weapons.

"We destroyed some species of bacteria and were told to hide others," one of the students said. "Some students took their samples to their houses."

At a biotechnology laboratory at the Baghdad University for Science and Engineering, researcher Majid Rasheed said inspectors visited three times, but that his chairman had ordered investigators to destroy and hide materials in November, just as the inspections resumed.

Rasheed said some basic materials were destroyed just to avoid any suspicions that they could be used for military purposes.

"We took home media for culturing bacteria and shaker-incubators used for fermentation," he said. "Now we will bring them back."

Such laboratory equipment, used by scientists to grow bacteria for study, could theoretically be used to create biological agents such as anthrax. But the equipment would be much too small to generate biological weapons in the quantities Iraq has been accused of producing.

Rasheed said none of the materials were being used for weapons development, but that he was unsure whether any were banned by U.N. resolutions adopted at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, which prohibited Iraqi research into weapons of mass destruction.

"Maybe some were banned. I don't know. We just wanted to avoid problems," Rasheed said.

Another professor from Ibn al-Haithem University said he saw a member of the Iraqi intelligence service, who had been sent to pursue a chemistry degree, taking materials out of the university just before the inspections began.

"I don't know what it was," said Alaha al-Qaisi, a chemistry professor.

---

EDITOR'S NOTE: Niko Price is correspondent at large for The Associated Press. Correspondent Dafna Linzer contributed to this report from the United Nations.

[raskol]

Damn moki you're working overtime. Don't get me wrong I appreciate it. I don't even have to leave MacNN to get news anymore!

The sheer number of threads is getting very difficult to keep up with.

[adamk]

yes, this does explain in part why inspections were not effective in iraq. this behaviour of hiding material (any material* it seems) probably hindered the inspections. good thing the iraqi minders and iraqi intellegence agencies aren't there to force this type of behaviour anymore.

*any biologists/chemists know what some of those things that were hidden are? were they worth hiding? i mean were they a true threat. i know e. coli can be found in about 10% of the US beef supply. i guess that threat is that someone could add even more!

adam

[Logic]

Originally posted by adamk:
yes, this does explain in part why inspections were not effective in iraq. this behaviour of hiding material (any material* it seems) probably hindered the inspections. good thing the iraqi minders and iraqi intellegence agencies aren't there to force this type of behaviour anymore.

*any biologists/chemists know what some of those things that were hidden are? were they worth hiding? i mean were they a true threat. i know e. coli can be found in about 10% of the US beef supply. i guess that threat is that someone could add even more!

adam

From the article above it seems like they were hiding destroying standard lab material. E. Coli is almost every where in the environment, you can find it in your kitchen, bathroom and most other places. It isn't good to eat it, but it is in our normal bacterial fauna/flora(One of the reasons you are not supposed to scracht your behind and then lick the finger). But if you cook the meat properly you don't have to worry. S. Aureus is on our skin, lives there, and is mostly harmless but can cause severe blood infection if it comes in contact with blood through a wound(on of the reasons we clean bleading wounds). But it cannot be used as a bioweapon.

The petridishes and autoclaves are standard appliances for lab work. Non of this could be used to manufacture WMDs on a grand scale. Of course you use all of this at the start of the development of bio/chem weapons, but at the same time you use this at the hospitals to culture bacteria from sick patients to determine what strain it is and what medicine you should use.

As I said, the things mentioned in this report indicate only that they teach biology, biochemistry and have ok hospitals. Nothing to worry about.

[Troll]

This 'information' is so full of holes you could wrap it up in plastic film and sell it as French Gruyere! Oh wait, who'd buy it?

The only allegation that is made in this article is that the Iraqis knew where the inspectors were going. As Logic mentioned, we're talking about bacteria in petri dishes so it's not a question of WMD. Three points here:

1) If they knew a few hours before, that's enough for them to destroy some petri dishes. It isn't enough for them to move warheads, nuclear weapons, research facilities, tanks and it certainly isn't enough time for them to cover up the traces of those toxins.

2) There are no dates attached to the events which makes drawing a link between the order to destroy the stuff and the inspections impossible. Perhaps all universities were ordered at the same time to destroy any potentially suspect materials thereby refuting the suggestion that the Iraqis knew where the inspectors were going.

3) Given the lack of dates, perhaps the dean gave the order after Iraq passed the law banning any research into WMD (when it might have been illegal for the university to have these experiments).

Whatever the case is, this seems to have little bearing on WMD. If the intelligence that Powell had was so incontrovertible and if the need to invade was so pressing, how come they didn't find WMD as they were entering Iraq? How come Saddam used Al Samoud II's, thereby showing a willingness to use illegal weapons, but never launched a Scud or used any chemical, nuclear or biological weapons? How come every person who has ever been in Iraq looking at their WMD programme has either said Iraq doesn't have any WMD, has destroyed them or hasn't been able to find any trace of them (including Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, Mohammed El Baradei, Jaffar al Jaffar, Hussein Kamel and now ... the US Army).

[Face Ache]

They need you over there moki.

First you reveal the fact that the Iraqis had RIFLES and now they've got Staphylococcus and E. coli plates in a microbiology lab. Why, the very presence of E. coli alone suggests to me that probably somewhere in Iraq is a stockpile of shit.

What the hell is going on over there in the US? Have you people all gone crazy?

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
They need you over there moki.

First you reveal the fact that the Iraqis had RIFLES and now they've got Staphylococcus and E. coli plates in a microbiology lab. Why, the very presence of E. coli alone suggests to me that probably somewhere in Iraq is a stockpile of shit.

What the hell is going on over there in the US? Have you people all gone crazy?

Well said.

[swsteckly]

Inspections DID work. They weren't allowed to be completed.

Because they didn't render the conclusion that you wanted/assumed, that means they were ineffective?

No WMD have been found. The conclusion of the unfinished weapons inspections were that there were no WMD found. How does this mean they are ineffective?

Assuming something without evidence (that Iraq has/had WMD) does not mean that will be the outcome. If the US' supposed 'evidence' was so accurate, number one, why wasn't it passed to the weapons inspectors so that they can search those locations, and number two, why are the WMD nowhere to be found?

This 'coalition' is deceitful, and murdered innocent people for the pursuit of financial gain, not for the safety of it's people, which was a questionable objective anyway.

[moki]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
They need you over there moki.

First you reveal the fact that the Iraqis had RIFLES and now they've got Staphylococcus and E. coli plates in a microbiology lab. Why, the very presence of E. coli alone suggests to me that probably somewhere in Iraq is a stockpile of shit.

What the hell is going on over there in the US? Have you people all gone crazy?

You missed the point entirely. The point was that they had prior notice to inspectors arriving. This is not insignificant.

[moki]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
Inspections DID work. They weren't allowed to be completed.

No, the did not.. Please do read UNSCOM's summary in their own words; Iraq never fully cooperated, and without full cooperation, the verifying nature of the inspections could not succeed. Blix stated this latter fact himself on numerous occasions.

Whether inspections *could* have worked depended on Iraq's level of cooperation, and based on Iraq's history in that regard, I think a very healthy dose of skepticism is in order.

Originally posted by swsteckly:
This 'coalition' is deceitful, and murdered innocent people for the pursuit of financial gain, not for the safety of it's people, which was a questionable objective anyway.

That is your opinion; I have a different idea of who has been deceitful (the Iraqi regime), but we'll have to see how the events pan out. I'll be the first one petitioning for Mr. Bush's removal from office if half of what you say comes to light.

Given the way things have been going, though, it seems the opposite is likely.

[swsteckly]

Given the way things are working out, it will be more to my 'side' than yours. There isn't the massive stockpiles of WMD's that the US expected, or no, KNEW that they had, without providing evidence, mind you, but there are none there! So, that would seem to indicate that my point of view is more likely, at least right now.

Anyway, Iraq was cooperating in the fact that they were allowing the inspectors where they needed to go. Whether someone wants to distort the facts to make it seem as though they weren't cooperating 'enough' is inconequential.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
Given the way things are working out, it will be more to my 'side' than yours. There isn't the massive stockpiles of WMD's that the US expected, or no, KNEW that they had, without providing evidence, mind you, but there are none there! So, that would seem to indicate that my point of view is more likely, at least right now.

No, that would be called asumming. The proof and things left behind, shows otherwise. We just need to find them.

Anyway, Iraq was cooperating in the fact that they were allowing the inspectors where they needed to go. Whether someone wants to distort the facts to make it seem as though they weren't cooperating 'enough' is inconequential.

Yeah, because you don't distort facts, and in 98 the Iraqi people didn't kick all the inspectors out when they thought they might be onto something.

Give me a break.

[swsteckly]

No, that would be called asumming

You're right! Just like assuming that Iraq has these weapons because at one time they did, without providing evidence to back it up!

Look at the interview in the thread 'Star Witness on Iraq said weapons were destroyed'. Very enlightening.

You might question that man's legitimacy. But, the US thought it was good enough to use an altered version as 'evidence'. It's kind of like those product testimonials, where they quote a review,

'The product was ... great ...!'

When it actually was;

'The product was not great at all!'.

In the light of trying to determine wether or not the US altered facts trying to gain support for its war or not, it doesn't matter if the testimony was honest or not. The fact is that the US deliberately altered statements to make the reverse of the actual fact true, and then present it as evidence.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
You're right! Just like assuming that Iraq has these weapons because at one time they did, without providing evidence to back it up!

How many times do I have to post that Iraq had already been found guilty of having the weapons? They saw them. They found them. They asked Iraq to nicely get rid of them and show proof that they did. This didn't happen.

Look at the interview in the thread 'Star Witness on Iraq said weapons were destroyed'. Very enlightening.

Funny you'll believe a Iraqi official, but ok. Non the less, they still didn't do what they was supposed to. You don't seem to be grasping this.

You might question that man's legitimacy. But, the US thought it was good enough to use an altered version as 'evidence'. It's kind of like those product testimonials, where they quote a review,

'The product was ... great ...!'

When it actually was;

'The product was not great at all!'.

In the light of trying to determine wether or not the US altered facts trying to gain support for its war or not, it doesn't matter if the testimony was honest or not. The fact is that the US deliberately altered statements to make the reverse of the actual fact true, and then present it as evidence.

Actually the US got that stuff from Britian. But ok.

[swsteckly]

I agree, both countries were in the wrong. Iraq failed to provide documents regarding the destruction of it's weapons, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and the testimony from the Iraqi scientist backs it up. Why would I believe him? The US seems to want to...

But, the US is guilty (IMO) of much more wrongdoing than that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
I agree, both countries were in the wrong.

Then you aren't agreeing with me. I never said both countries were wrong. Not once did I even imply that.

Iraq failed to provide documents regarding the destruction of it's weapons,

Documents and physical proof. Which was required. Or drastic actions would take place.

but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and the testimony from the Iraqi scientist backs it up. Why would I believe him? The US seems to want to...

Why would they not provide proof if they got rid of them? I mean they wouldn't be in this mess. It would make no sense to have gotten rid of them, and not provided proof. None at all. Just not logical.

But, the US is guilty (IMO) of much more wrongdoing than that.

Yeah sure.

[swsteckly]

What's even less logical is attacking a country without evidence of wrongdoing, international support, or the backing of the UN.

This is all I have to say on this subject. This back-and-forth could go on for days without any headway, and frankly it's incredibly stupid and boring. My political opinion still stands, and I assume that yours does also.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
What's even less logical is attacking a country without evidence of wrongdoing, international support, or the backing of the UN.

I think I have said this about 5 times now. Iraq had been found guilty. There was evidence. Iraq failed to show they got rid of said stuff. Over 40 nations supported the US.

This is all I have to say on this subject. This back-and-forth could go on for days without any headway, and frankly it's incredibly stupid and boring. My political opinion still stands, and I assume that yours does also.

As long as you can remember, It's just a opinion.
I just think you need to read up a bit on the history of the subject before forming a solid opinion.

[swsteckly]

I think I have said this about 5 times now. Iraq had been found guilty. There was evidence. Iraq failed to show they got rid of said stuff. Over 40 nations supported the US.

And I've said this about six times now. The US had no proof that any weapons were in the possesion of Iraq NOW. They attacked in violation of the UN charter.


40 nations huh? How many supported militarily?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
And I've said this about six times now. The US had no proof that any weapons were in the possesion of Iraq NOW.

That is because the US didn't NEED ANY PROOF. The PROOF wasn't on THE US.

THE PROOF WAS ON IRAQ TO SHOW THEY DIDN'T HAVE SUCH WEAPONS.

They attacked in violation of the UN charter.

No violation. The US had the authority.

40 nations huh? How many supported militarily?

Does it really matter? Did they really have to? Come on now, you are being petty.

[swsteckly]

That is because the US didn't NEED ANY PROOF. The PROOF wasn't on THE US.

THE PROOF WAS ON IRAQ TO SHOW THEY DIDN'T HAVE SUCH WEAPONS.

NO. THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON THE ILLEGALLY INVADING COUNTRY.

No violation. The US had the authority.

The US made accusations that Iraq had these weapons. UN weapons inspectors proved that they didn't. Unfounded accusations don't pass as proof, and unless proof of wrongdoing could be supplied to the UN, they are in voilation.

It says 'if Iraq has weapons....' not 'if the US assumes Iraq has weapons.....'.

[QUOTE Does it really matter? Did they really have to? Come on now, you are being petty.[/QUOTE]

It matters because it shows which countries supported it enough to provide military assistance, or were large enough to be able to, and not just signing a 'we agree' form, probably trying to get on the good side of the US.

[swsteckly]

Anyway, if 40 countries support it, that leaves 152 that do not. That's slightly over 1/5th approval.

Whoop-de-doo.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
NO. THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON THE ILLEGALLY INVADING COUNTRY.

No such country exists. And please provide proof to back up such claims. I've asked for it 4 times now.

The US made accusations that Iraq had these weapons.

No, Iraq had these weapons. The UN declared that. This was back in the 90s. Again, they told Iraq to get rid of them, and provide proof, or else. They didn't. How many times do I have to repeat that? Read your history for goodness sake.

UN weapons inspectors proved that they didn't.

They didn't prove anything.

Unfounded accusations don't pass as proof, and unless proof of wrongdoing could be supplied to the UN, they are in voilation.

Well it's a good thing they aren't in violation.

It says 'if Iraq has weapons....' not 'if the US assumes Iraq has weapons.....'.
.

Again, read up on your history.

It matters because it shows which countries supported it enough to provide military assistance, or were large enough to be able to, and not just signing a 'we agree' form, probably trying to get on the good side of the US.

Heh, no, the US and the Brits didn't need any help.

[swsteckly]

What the US and Brits needed was world support. If something was to happen where the US and Brits were to come under fire for their actions, the world vs. US and Britain isn't much of a contest.

I've said over and over the facts behind my opinons, and you keep coming up with juvenile retorts that fly in the face of facts. I am done trying to reason with and unreasonable person such as your self.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
I've said over and over the facts behind my opinons,

No, all you have provided is opinions. You have shown me no facts on how the burden of Proof is on the US. Not only that, you have totally ignored/have no idea about the entire history of all of this.

and you keep coming up with juvenile retorts that fly in the face of facts.

Juvenile retorts? Like me asking you to please back up your baseless accusations with facts? How dare anyone actually expect you to provide proof based on facts.

I am done trying to reason with and unreasonable person such as your self.

In other words, you have no proof to back up your claims, so you are going to take your game and go home.

[swsteckly]

Uhhh, no. The burden of proof is on the US because they invaded based on a pretext that they invented. Iraq may have had weapons years ago, but all that matters now is if they CURRENTLY DO or not. Iraq said that the weapons were destroyed. What does the US want? A vide of them blowing up? Interesting how the US' word is golden (that Iraq has WMD despite lack of evidence) but Iraq's word is worthless. The US thought that they knew the answer to this, so the defied the UN and went ahead. No weapons have been found, and it looks right now like the UN weapons inspectors were right after all.

[swsteckly]

All of my observations are based on facts, as are yours. We just differ in the interpretation of those facts.

[Spheric Harlot]

Looks like the Zimbot went off in auto-response mode again.

Can we have moki back again please?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
All of my observations are based on facts, as are yours. We just differ in the interpretation of those facts.

Sorry, Zimphire is actually on the right here.

America didn't technically need ANY further resolutions. The Charter specifically said that Iraq had to destroy all it's weapons and provide proof or face 'serious consequences', understood by all to be military action.

Iraq claims they had destroyed those weapons, but provided no proof. Nothing showing the actual destruction, and to top it all off, the reports on weapons they gave the UN inspectors were completely inaccurate. That is why the Iraqis were not co-operating. The UN inspectors were not meant to be on a hunt. They were there for the Iraqi government to present evidence that the weapons were destroyed. Thats all.

Note: Whether that is a valid or not reason for America to invade, is not what I'm debating in this post. I'm neutral on that matter.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
Uhhh, no. The burden of proof is on the US because they invaded based on a pretext that they invented. Iraq may have had weapons years ago, but all that matters now is if they CURRENTLY DO or not. Iraq said that the weapons were destroyed. What does the US want? A vide of them blowing up? Interesting how the US' word is golden (that Iraq has WMD despite lack of evidence) but Iraq's word is worthless. The US thought that they knew the answer to this, so the defied the UN and went ahead. No weapons have been found, and it looks right now like the UN weapons inspectors were right after all.

And you are repeating statements I knocked over posts ago. Again, you cannot ignore the facts, make up your own reasoning, and then get upset when someone tells you your full of it.

Call it a opinion, no problem. But you can't say it's based on fact. You have yet to shown me any proof. Other than "Because I said so."

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Looks like the Zimbot went off in auto-response mode again.

I hate having to repeate myself over and over again. Not my fault he was ignoring the issues.

Originally posted by undotwa:
Sorry, Zimphire is actually on the right here.

America didn't technically need ANY further resolutions. The Charter specifically said that Iraq had to destroy all it's weapons and provide proof or face 'serious consequences', understood by all to be military action.

Iraq claims they had destroyed those weapons, but provided no proof. Nothing showing the actual destruction, and to top it all off, the reports on weapons they gave the UN inspectors were completely inaccurate. That is why the Iraqis were not co-operating. The UN inspectors were not meant to be on a hunt. They were there for the Iraqi government to present evidence that the weapons were destroyed. Thats all.

Note: Whether that is a valid or not reason for America to invade, is not what I'm debating in this post. I'm neutral on that matter.

Thank you.

[swsteckly]

I'm getting very sick of going around in circles with you. I have said my point, which is solidly based on fact. I'd like you to prove how it isn't.

You can say how you 'knocked over' my points 'posts back', that doesn't make it so. I could say that I totally defeated your point of view, but that doesn't make it so.

Just as the US accusing Iraq of having WMDs without evidence doesn't make it so.

Resolution 678 id nullified by Resolution 687, and 1441 gave the US no right to act unilaterally.

Get your facts straight, before you espouse the garbags you obviously hear on the Fox Propaganda Network.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
I'm getting very sick of going around in circles with you. I have said my point, which is solidly based on fact. I'd like you to prove how it isn't.

You can say how you 'knocked over' my points 'posts back', that doesn't make it so. I could say that I totally defeated your point of view, but that doesn't make it so.

Just as the US accusing Iraq of having WMDs without evidence doesn't make it so.

Resolution 678 id nullified by Resolution 687, and 1441 gave the US no right to act unilaterally.

Get your facts straight, before you espouse the garbags you obviously hear on the Fox Propaganda Network.

The US didn't act unilaterally.

and yes, your points were totally defeated earlier in the thread.

At least to the casual observer, they were.

[roger_ramjet]

This was reported by ABC News and the Associated Press this morning:

U.S. Said to Find Iraq Nerve Gas Evidence
Iraqi Liaison to U.N. Weapons Inspectors Surrenders to U.S.; Forces Find Possible Chemical Stash

Suspicious Iraqi Drums
Preliminary Testing Suggests Chemical Agents; More Testing Needed

Reuters also has a report on this story.

[swsteckly]

The US acted without the consent of the UN, and that is considered an unilateral attack.

How were my posts 'defeated'?

[clarkgoble]

Whether the Iraq war was unilateral depends upon your sense of unilateral. UN support isn't the basis of not being unilateral. While most allies in the "coalition of the willing" were kind of PR buddies, the fact was that at a minimum England was with us. So I don't think it is purely unilateral. Grenada or Panama I could see as being unilateral. But not Iraq.

Further there have been lots of wars without UN support. Indeed the majority of wars by members of the UN security council have been unsanctioned.

[Face Ache]

Hmmm. It appears that history isn't created, it's manufactured.

Interesting process to watch.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Hmmm. It appears that history isn't created, it's manufactured.

Interesting process to watch.

And you said we didn't produce anything.

[christ]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
...at a minimum England was with us. So I don't think it is purely unilateral...

And Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!

I don't quite know what 'unilateral' would mean in this context - most wars are unilateral in that they have an aggressor rather than a bilateral agreement between the combatants.

This war certainly had an aggressor, regardless of the rights and wrongs.

And come off it spliff, since when have you been a 'casual observer' of anything?