A “reasonable case” is not a strong case, nor is it even a case with a 50/50 chance of success. It is merely a case which is not obviously implausible. And the “reasonable case” here relies on accepting the US premise that individual members, and not the Security Council, can assess whether Iraq is in breach of its obligations; a position that no-one else has taken.

You also ignore the final paragraph, where the Attorney-General warns that the use of force must be proportionate to Iraq’s breach, and that “regime change” per se is not legitimate.

Finally, you accuse Antony of being “hysterical” in opposing the war. How opposing a war that is, according to most independent legal opinion, illegal (thus a crime against peace under the Nuremburg Charter), that is immoral and that has cost up to 100,000 Iraqi lives can be classed as “hysterical” is beyond me. The only hysteria I’ve seen has been from Bush, Blair, Howard and other war supporters trying to defend the indefensible; repeating, with self-righteous certainty, their lies and ad hominem attacks on opponents.

If you can be bothered reading the primary document (as opposed to The Guardian commentary), you will find that each of the possible objections outlined by Goldsmith is countered and that, in his opinion, there was no need for a further UN resolution. A legal opinion must acknowledge and deal with opposing arguments. Like many, you make the mistake of focusing on the acknowledgements while totally ignoring the counter-arguments. In the process, you totally distort the conclusion.

Yes, the March 7th opinion was more equivocal to the one presented to Parliament on the 17th. But you also overlook the fact that the March 7th opinion was in response to queries about the possible legality of military action in Iraq; while the March 17th opinion was a response to a query about the basis of his earlier conclusion.

For someone who (rightly) demands a higher standard of accuracy from the MSM, you sadly seem to have fallen into the same trap – namely, your hysterical opposition to the war has blinded you to reality.

Just to clarify a bit here mate. Are you suggesting that international law, created by, agreed by, and signed and ratified by such nations as australia, great britain, and the US, should be dropped by said countries whenever they feel like it? Do you believe that international law should apply to all countries, or should it apply just to a few when the situation is advantageous to your world / policy view?

You are a racist.

‘a law in a place like austrlaia or america or great briatin divines from a real rpoper authoruty, i.e, the peopl,e, but what is the sorce of international law?’

You don’t see the UN as a legitimate source of int’l authority.. that is a view that, while I don’t hold it, can be supported, but your attitude derives more from the opinions of people you read or listen to rather than any independent analysis. You’re one of millions who have obediently swallowed the US spin on the UN (as well as Iraq and everything else)

And this ‘proper authority’ business - this is partly how people like you feel able to ignore basic decency in our foreign policy, because the push for utter self-interest now comes from traditional sources of authority, once trusted without demur by most of us, but now regarded with fear and horror and outrage by those of us with eyes to see, or at least the courage to open those eyes.

The world no longer divides on a right/left axis. There are those of us who will eat shit (and even help to dish it up) and those of us who won’t.

You’re in the former category.

Have another drink.

Christ almight, Lowensteing, would you just go read the bloody memo before you scream the fuckign war was illegal? its’ voer at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4491801.stm

you’r e drawing a pretty long bow when you say tat this says the war was ‘illegal’.

BUt the bigger point remainfs: WHEN you say the war is illegla, WHO CONSTITUTEES THE LAW? the moral equivalence involved i giving america/austrlaia /israel the same weght as iriaq/myanmang/tinhornistan is shocking! a law in a place like austrlaia or america or great briatin divines from a real rpoper authoruty, i.e, the peopl,e, but what is the sorce of international law? this is a really serious quesiton, which i have never seen addressed.

gonggo passout om sofa now. maybe groundforce is on lifestyle channnnel…lve that reddheahddd