Quote:

---

IsaacHunt said:
No, the US Congress listed a whole whap of other reasons as well. See lonestar's post.


But you do grasp that the only LEGAL reason was that the non-existent WMD posed a threat? That's why Bush and Blair were so keen to sell this fantasy to the UN.

---

Quote:

---

But in every one of Bush's speeches to the American people on the subject, the plight of the Iraqi people was brought up

---

Quote:

---

But the only LEGAL reason that had a prayer of getting through the UN was WMD. The UN describes launching wars of aggression as the supreme crime against humanity. It HAD to be self-defence from WMD. Certainly without the WMD fantasy Blair could not have gone to war which would have put Bush in a completely different position.

---

Quote:

---

How do you know the Pentagon has no contingency plan for, say, the invasion of North Korea

---

Quote:

---

I don't know about North Korea but it certainly appears to have no contingency plan for deposing the savage dictators of Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan because it is supporting them both.

---

Quote:

---

You will note that my description of the UN's approach to murderous tyrants --

YOUR description of the UN. That doesn't make it accurate. Indeed it would perhaps be more accurate as a description of Bush's support for Saudi.

As a side note, did you ever get around to providing us with your own definition of terrorism?

I don't know but I can't remember you defining why you considered Blair stating something in an interview is different from him stating it in a speech.

---

Quote:

---

so then the preservation of the meaning of the word is first and foremost...

---