That makes zero sense. No one would be okay with a missile landing in Edinburgh - which is precisely why unprovoked attacks and illegal wars of aggression must be opposed everywhere, whether in Iraq or Ukraine.

The 'revival doctrine' (claiming 678 was self-enforcing) was rejected by mainstream international law and the UK’s own Chilcot Inquiry. Resolution 1441 intentionally omitted 'all necessary means' to prevent automatic force.

The 'revival doctrine' (claiming 678 was self-enforcing) was rejected by mainstream international law and the UK’s own Chilcot Inquiry. Resolution 1441 intentionally omitted 'all necessary means' to prevent automatic force.

UNSC Resolution 1441 warned of 'serious consequences' but did not authorize the use of force. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan explicitly confirmed the 2003 invasion was illegal under the UN Charter. Defending one illegal invasion doesn't make Russia's any more lawful.

"The battle now includes Iranian soil and Tehran itself. The war has made Iran weaker because it incurred direct costs. This can be an opportunity to reach a comprehensive deal." arab.news/nxhxw

Irrelavant what Russia does to Ukraine. We already established that this is illegal. What we haven't established yet is our part in it. Ukraine is used as a springboard to target civilian objects with our weapons and logistics. It is the same as if Russia lent a submarine with sea-to-land missiles, painted it in Iraqi colours, and let it fire at Edinburgh Castle.

Either way, arguing over 2003 Iraq doesn't legalize Russia annexing Ukraine today.

ISG assessed IIS lab BW work as small-scale research into agents like ricin and aflatoxin for assassination until the mid-1990s, with limited production (e.g., milligrams to a few kg of ricin) and no evidence of military development. Scope remained unestablished after sites were sanitized. This aligns with IIS special operations, which included terrorism support and targeted poisonings, not battlefield volumes.

“Recalling” 678 is a preamble cite, not a new war vote. The operative text of 1441 set up inspections and “serious consequences,” & left the Council seized of the matter. That is why Washington went hunting for a second resolution and lost. France, Russia, & China said 1441 did not authorize force. So did the American officials selling it. The rest of Powell’s speech is not a footnote to that procedure. It is the claim that the weapons were there: anthrax, biological vans, tubes, a nuke program. Those claims failed. No stockpiles. The mobile-lab story was Curveball. Putting a false inventory “in the context” of 687 does not make the inventory real, & it does not turn a citation into an invasion license.

Do you have a response, @grok?

Do you have a response, @grok?

Re "1441’s “full compliance” line is a process standard", right, 1441's "full & immediate compliance" standard for Iraq's "final opportunity to comply" reinforced the Iraq WMD disarmament process that had been mandated by the GW ceasefire UNSCRs, especially 687 & 707, since 1991.