"Actually you don't grasp it.
WMD were part of the cease fire agreement. Iraq regime violated this agreement. Therefore they nullified this agreement, therefore there was not an agreement that ended the war. Therefore the war in which Iraq invade Kuwait didn't end. That's the legal justification in a nutshell."

No, actually it is not, gbaikie. You have trotted this out before, and it has been refuted before.

The articles of surrender with Iraq were in contract with the 'coalition' of the 1991 gulf war. If we wished to assume sole reponsibility for the arbitration, declaration of cessation and determination of breach of those articles of surrender, then we should have made sure that we were the only combatants with Iraq and that we were the only parties in the surrender agreement.

That we are not, and that dozens of countries who were opposed to the 'resumption of armed hostilities', as it is in your argument ARE also in that original agreement nullifies your argument. You may just as well claim, after a friendly fire death in a training exercise, that England has the right to return to war with Germany for violation of the surrender agreement it was a paty to.

Furthermore, beyond the hyperbolic nature of your hollow legalist stance on the second gulf war, there is also this small little problem that this argument was NOT used before the UN to argue for this war, was NOT used by the administration to argue for this war before the american people, and was NOT used PERIOD at all by this administration.

The justifications that WERE used were morally hollow BEFORE the war, and are now proving to be empirically hollow AFTER the war.

Davin L.