Original sentence: Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".It is interesting to note however, that despite the alleged "illegality" of the decision to declare war on Iraq, the United States has not been subjected to any UN sanctions nor has the UN passed any resolutions declaring the United States and United Kingdom to be "rogue states" for their part in the war
Edited sentence: " (A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence." (However, we now know this was outside of Saddam Hussein's control and as such this is not a valid casus belli under the laws of war and with the definition of war of aggression in mind." (Whether this is a valid casus belli is debatable with the laws of war and prohibition of a war of aggression in mind.(A statement we now know is a loose interpretation of the available evidence to validate the initial suggestion Iraq was involved in 9/11.(Despite this statement and subsequent comments by the Bush administration, weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories at the time.(Under international law, this point is not a valid casus belli, and as such attacking Iraq would constitute a war of aggression.(We know that the available evidence showed no "working relationship" between Iraq and the people behind 9/11).(Whether this is a valid casus belli is debatable with the laws of war and prohibition of a war of aggression in mind.Continuing the inspections was made impossible by the U.Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people" (We now know that the available evidence at the time showed there probably were no WMD's in Iraq.inspectors out.led invasion of Iraq which forced the U