"Oh, boy you sure are clueless. A country merely having WMD is not a reason to go to war. "

Oh, am I clueless?

Love it, you disagree with me and therefore insult me. Classy.

It is interesting that you are attributing to me things I did not say. I would call that particular behavior clueless.

But even more clueless is the fact that you unwittingly made my argument for me by:

"A country merely having WMD is not a reason to go to war. "

However, what you seem to be glazing over is that the THREAT posed to Iraq, as told to us by our administration was constituted by 2 things
1) The possession of WMD
2) The intent to use that WMD on us or our allies, as demonstrated by the Terrorist links.

Without 2, I agree, (and thank you, Mr. Fly, for making my argument) There is no threat and no cause for war.

As to the rest:

"I have already point out the fallacy of this argument."

Ahh, I see. And this is?

"It's only that that cease fire agreement included this provision, and that Iraq has been unwilling to comply which has lead to UN sanctions and all those UN resolutions. "

If you wish to argue that our invasion of Iraq is predicated on its defiance of the UN, you can't. Actual fact shows that our invasion is in defiance of the will of the UN.

By your argument, France could unilaterally start a war with, say, russia over a NATO-based dispute and call it a NATO military action. Or, by the same logic, Ethiopia could war with, say, Angola- who is one of the UN Sanction states, and call it a UN military action.

You simply can't have it both ways. You can't say that this war is justified by the defiance of the UN as we act in defiance of the UN. It makes no sense.

"f there wasn't this in the cease fire agreement, then the UN would have been acting unfairly and illegally. "

In general, you are MASSIVELY confused about your international bodies. The UN was not a party in the 'cease fire' agreement.

In general, you wish to maintain 2 contradictory facts as the justification for your conclusion. This is interesting, as just about anything will follow from a contradiction

Davin L.