Here is an article I ran across. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq The following article states that the U.S isn't bringing that smoking gun that everyone was looking for, it's more like a smoking match. "UNITED NATIONS - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) is not bringing "a smoking gun" against Iraq to the United Nations (news - web sites) next week but will have circumstantial evidence to make a convincing case that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, a U.S. official said Thursday. " Excerpt http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet...20030131/wxpixx0131/Front/homeBN/breakingnews " The Secretary of State is expected to produce satellite photographs of Iraqi tractor-trailers with unusually big roof-mounted air vents, indicative of mobile biochemical weapons labs, USA Today reported Thursday. Other exhibits may include overhead photos of Iraqis driving bulldozers and performing clean-up operations in advance of visits by the UN weapons inspectors currently scouring the country." The first question that comes to mind is will circumstantial evidence be enough for the UN. Should it be ? Should the U.S, U.N or anyone else for that matter be allowed to attack another country without hard evidence. It seems we are about to find out.