Sounds good in theory but have you checked how big Iraq is? The fact is the weapon inspections were a waste of time in some ways, it would've taken years and years to find anything if there was anything. Weapons inspectors sound great in theory, but they'll only find things that goverments wanted to be found, I think it's probably true that there is no WMDs in Iraq BUT in all fairness there's still some possibility they could exist and could be hidden out in the desert - again it's something we'll likely never know unless we stumble across them though so you are correct in assuming now that there are no weapons, for the time being at least.I do know how the U.N is run mate. This was nothing they voted for, it was just reports by their weapon inspectors which should have been enough.
I do agree with the questionable legality of the war though I must say, we're in the UN for a reason so to just outright ignore it is a bad choice on our and America's behalf, but again if you realistically thought Iraq posed a real threat then would you hesitate just because of what can often be an overly politically correct body? The other thing to remember is the French interference with the vote, the fact they threatened to veto the vote either way. The French didn't want us going into Iraq because they accepted a lot of bribes from and sold a lot of weapons to the old Iraqi regime. Like you said though if the vetos didn't exist then that wouldn't have been an issue and we could have had a much more fair vote on the war on Iraq.
They were fighting a combination of their own equipment and stuff stolen from the Russians when they went into Afghanistan in 2001. The CIA armed the Afghans with the aim of helping them defeat the Russians.
kind of anyway!