" or more people with serious reservations about the same issues I had. However, a select group of gargoyles have formed a coalition to ensure that this page is reverted back almost in any case they feel makes even the slightest alteration to a more factual accord...and attempts to move this article to a NPOV one. Besides the mere alteration of and or incorporation of anythig that would make the article NPOV, you'll find that many wish to continue to utilize phrasing, tone and qualification for ""balance""...jst a ruse to ensure their jargon is here for good...your attempts are ones to be encyclopedic, theirs are ones to utilize this article as a political sounding board.  

 == Resolution 687 == 
 Silverback, you removed 
 :""in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687(notably point 22);"" 
 with the comment 
 :""rv, this text does not make the case claimed for it, obviously congress was judging Saddam's behavior, if he complied with the UN that in itself would be regime change, the lack of a treaty is decisiv"" 
 Would you mind extrapolate a little bit, I am not quite sure that I follow you... Sorry if I am slow to grasp the meaning p   

 The continual charge that the Iraq Liberation act is either a violation of 687 or in international law in general is open to wide speculation. Christian lost this fight over in the Iraq Liberation act article and now wants to try it again here. Furthermore, I cannot find a credible source that states that the ILA is a violation of 686 or international law. Law, and UN resolutions in general are subject to a wide variation of interpretation, that’s why we have lawyers and judges and juries. If a source can be found then perhaps the reverted material can be added to the article, otherwise it be gone and it stay gone.   

 : Thank you for yout input. The argument here, as I understand it, is that the statement by the USA that only the removal of Saddam Hussein will permit the lifting of the sanctions does not match the UN resolution 687; indeed, in the resolution, a set of conditions is defined for the lifting of the sanctions, which nowhere demands a change of government. I suppose that the argument developed here means that no other resolution of the UN demanded the departure of Saddam Hussein, and that as such, the ultimatum made by the USA was not in a continuation of the UN process. On this particular point, the UN resolution leave very little room for interpretation, it does not make mention of a change of power.   

 Excuse me all, but could we please discuss the reasons which led Silverback to remove the piece in the the first place, as well as the oportunity of putting the piece here, rather than keeping reverting back and fro without any proper reason ? I say this in the interest of the nerves of all the parties, as well as for the poor server which is striving to catch on...   

 ::The references did not seem logically connected to any argument that this law violated international law. The provisions cited relied upon the security council to lift sanctions.  Since the US has a veto on the council, if the US says the sanctions will only be lifted under certain conditions such as regime change, it obviously has the means within the article you cite to make sure those conditions are met, or at least the sanctions stay on the books. The US has a veto on the findings of fact. The behavior of other members on the security council demonstrate they feel no obligation to be intellectually honest in the evaluation of the facts. The US of course would have had to have done much more to prevent the cheating on the sanctions by several of the parties that voted for them.  How could the law passed by congress, be in anyway a violation of those provisions of the sanctions, it seems quite within them.  Now if the law unilaterally lifted the sanctions, or authorized the US government to cheat on them, then it would be a violation under those provisions, just as the cheating by other security council members was.  

 : Seems like an arguable interpretation.  I'm not comfortable with the statement as a fact that the Act was in violation of of Resolution 687, and I'd like to see some reasonable reference to a legal argument being made for this if I'd even want it included as a notable opinion. It looks to me like it's probably a bit of original research as suggested. |  

 :: perhaps a bit of sur-interpretation at least. The current formulation in the article in now ""in contras