"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[Chaerophon]

The Security Council ? The General Assembly ? The Secretary General ? UNMOVIC ? Hans Blix ? Or someone else ?
I suppose you mean Hans Blix. He is not "the UN", he can not even speak on behalf of the UN. He can give his personal opinion, and that's about it.

You're right, Hans Blix just walked on into Iraq and declared himself an agent of the United Nations, with no backing whatsoever. Bureaucrats are appointed according to the internal political structure of the United Nations. They represent it as a body. Furthermore, his opinions and findings dictated the subsequent policy of the United Nations. What are you trying to get at, here? Just because there may be dissenting opinions from within the United Nations does not mean that, as an organization, they were not in opposition to the war. They were. It is that simple. The United States adopted an official position in favour of war, while the UN adopted one that opposed pre-emptive military strikes. There are people in the US government who are against the war too - that doesn't mean that the United States government, as an organization, does not support the war.

The terms "WMDs" and "illegal weapons" are not synonymous. Iraq was not only disallowed to possess biological, chemical and nuclear weapons (that is what is commonly called "WMD", I think), but all weapon systems that fit certain criteria (certain medium-range missiles, for example).

Okay, your point is made, I suppose.... now tell me this? What difference does that make?

As far as the rest of your post is concerned... Your opinions are even more based in supposition than are mine, and I'm certainly not sure that they support military action; particularly given the fact that there are several nations in the world with as bad/threatening of dictators and much deadlier military capacity.

I read parts of the UNMOVIC report in print, not on the net, so I don't have a link. I think it is probably accessible somewhere at the UN website, though.

And I repeat: what would be the relevance of that considering that subsequent inspections, as were appointed and directed by the same regulatory body, to conduct inspections according to the same set of guidelines were coming to the conclusion that the weapons, and the capacity to make them, no longer existed in Iraq?