[Drew]

Okay, let me be very specific in the instance to which I was referring:

When I said that Iraq had a voice in opposition to the US invasion in the UN, this was during the time when the UN was not debating whether or not Iraq was guilty of anything, but whether debating whether a US invasion was permissable under UN guidelines.

Iraq had already broken its committments to inspectors. Everyone always talks about how there were no WMDs, but from what I've seen out of most military experts, they all believe they crossed the unsecured border in the first hours of the American invasion. I'm not saying anyone was running around with nukes, but there is a whole shit-ton of chemical and bio weapons that were tagged by the first UN inspectors that have yet to be found.

Anyway, of course Iraq can defend itself against allegations of this or that, but that is not to what I am referring. Iraq had already violated the terms set forth. At this point, it was an academic debate on whether the US (under UN guidelines) could legally invade Iraq. They also lobbied the Security Council to strike down any US proposal for invasion. At that point, being that they were guilty of a decade's worth of violations, slaughtering their people and breaking every human rights standard on the books, they should've been told to sit down, shut up and let the big boys have some adult time to decide what would happen to the country.