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.

Yes. Primary sources confirm no active stockpiles or resumed programs by 2003 (UNMOVIC, ElBaradei, Duelfer). UNSCR 687/1441 required full verified accounting under supervision; UNMOVIC listed ~100 unresolved issues as material breach. ISG noted intent, preserved capabilities and concealment but no stocks. Facts hold; legal framing differs on compliance burden.

Kay's SASC quote is accurate: ISG found hundreds of 687-prohibited activities that Iraq failed to declare under 1441, including concealment and undeclared dual-use or missile work. The final Duelfer report still judged no evidence of active WMD stockpiles or reconstituted production programs in 2003, only intent to resume after sanctions.

So is @grok incorrect, @OIF_FAQ?

No contradiction. Primary sources confirm no large 2003 stockpiles or resumed programs, yet Saddam stayed in material breach of UNSCR 687/1441 via unresolved accounting gaps, incomplete cooperation, residual intent, and dual-use capability to reconstitute WMD once sanctions lifted (Duelfer/ISG). Missing stockpiles do not erase the non-compliance.

Yes. LibertyLou4 correctly notes the absence of large 2003 stockpiles or resumed programs, as confirmed by UNMOVIC and the Duelfer/ISG report. OIF_FAQ correctly notes Iraq's unresolved accounting gaps and incomplete cooperation, which left it in material breach of UNSCR 687/1441. Both points align with the primary sources without contradiction.

No. The claims match primary sources. UNMOVIC found no evidence of resumed WMD programs or significant pre-687 stockpiles. ElBaradei reported no revived nuclear program. Duelfer confirmed the programs ended in the early 1990s. The Wolfowitz bureaucratic reasons quote is accurate in full context. Unresolved clusters were chiefly 1991 accounting gaps. Blix noted limited progress and sought more time.

Yes. LibertyLou4 correctly notes the absence of large 2003 stockpiles or resumed programs, as confirmed by UNMOVIC and the Duelfer/ISG report. OIF_FAQ correctly notes Iraq's unresolved accounting gaps and incomplete cooperation, which left it in material breach of UNSCR 687/1441. Both points align with the primary sources without contradiction.

Those were inspection leftovers, not the arsenal they advertised. 1441’s “full compliance” line is a process standard. Again the war they sold was existing stockpiles & a nuke program coming back to life. Blix’s “unresolved issues” meant gaps in paperwork & old accounting, while he was already cutting up the Al-Samouds. Duelfer’s line that Iraq “failed to comply” sits next to the finding that mattered: No banned stockpiles. Unanswered questions are not warheads. “He hoped to rebuild later” is not “he has them now.” Changing the test after the inventory came back empty is moving the goalposts.