Very good read, everyone take the time to read it. Though this all applies to past administrations. None of the information could imaginably be used in an arguement on why Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Still none the less quite interesting information, Shows quite well that the US is not adverse to providing an enemy with anything they need to fight another enemy. You seem to be back-tracking? What it shows is that the US is not averse to !@#$%^&*isting rogue dictators to use chemical and biological weapons even when this contravenes international treaties. It also shows the hypocricy of Donald Rumsfeld. For some reason he forgot to mention that he was Reagan's envoy to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war in his bio. Why would that be? Heh. When it comes to the invasion of Iraq, it seems to show why Rumsfeld was so certain that there were WMDs in Iraq. He felt so certain because he helped supply them. If I wanted to argue against the invasion I would start my investigation from 1991 and work towards the persent. All the evidence there suggests that there were no "deployable" WMDs in Iraq. As it turns out, there seem to not only be no deployable WMDs left, but it is possible that there was not even any raw ingredients of the WMDs left in Iraq. I think that the biggest mistake was pulling inspectors out of irag when thay had founds nothing, there was intelligance that alegadly suggested WMDs but no proof that there were from inspectors and thus no concrete evedance that saddam was breaking any resolutions. Israil on the otherhand is clearly putting new settlements in the west bank ( UN tiold them not to) Thay have this wall up and wont remove it ( UN told them not to ) They still occupy the west bank and gaza ( Un told them not to ) Yet no action is taken against israil usually due to vito by the US. I am in full support of the un but i dont think that 1 nation vitoing a resolution should be allowd, i feel that with recent events in the UN such as iraq and israils defiance the UN voting system is in need of a rethink.