In regards to my statement, WE (the states) do not give YOU (Britain) chemical weapons, to my knowledge, but neither do WE prevent YOU from making your own. If it makes you feel better, France lets Britain make chemical weapons, Germany lets Britain make chemical weapons, and China lets Britain make chemical weapons. We are, however, not discussing the actions of France, Germany, and China, but rather the United States.

It is true that the UN is not yet decided on any action. However, it is clear that Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions and world treaties. The world can choose to let those violations pass, knowing it will result in the dismantling of the Nonproliferation Treaty, CWC, BWC, et all. It can also take action through threatening a stick if it doesn't shape up or a carrot if it does. Maybe it is wiser to just let things pass, maybe not. Also, while I agree that the UN has generally been a positive force and doing so would seriously weaken it, individual countries can take action.

Even countries that have not signed these conventions are still influenced by international law. Violating maritime law, for example, has always been grounds for action, whether harsh words, embargoes, or war. Such action could not be considered "unprovoked," but it is up to the countries involved to decided whether it is "justified"

-Biscuits