Who is responsible for the Iraq War ?? Hussein, Bush, Blair or bin Laden ??

Actually France called on your BS, said they wouldn't take part in the warmongering and did everything to prevent it. Most countries in the world with an official stance on the issue chose not to support this aggression.

You know, it's not very constructive to call my arguments BS without providing evidence or a point of view that supports your counter. I followed the link of the map you gave, and it was difficult to find the site that explained what the colors meant, but I eventually found it on wikimedia commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:State_positions_Iraq_war.svg

Okay, orange are the countries that participated in the invasion of Iraq. Yellow were those in support of the invasion. Blue were those in opposition, and gray were those who took no stance. France indeed was one of those opposed. In fact, there was a particularly strong alliance between France and Germany in opposition to war, that argued that the United Nations should be allowed to complete their investigations and exploration of options first. Fair enough, but you have to admit, faith in the UN is not particularly high (nor is people's trust in their governments anymore), and there was plenty of opposition to the Iraq War among the British and American people.

Saddam Hussein did, however, claim to the world that he had massive weapons, and would later tell FBI investigators that he did so out of the concern that he would appear weak to Iran if he did not. Iraq and Iran had waged a war before in the 1980s, and he may have indeed been worried about an Iran invasion - this is a part of the world that has waged continuous religious and territorial wars for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. When much of the world believed Hussein's story (whether they were supportive of American and European intervention or not), should they have just let Iraq and its neighbors fight their fights with each other? Maybe.

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: And you do not have time to play games with less lethal options while people die. [...]

I will also add the Dalai Lama agrees with me

(emphasis mine)

The rest of that quote is, "Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg." His Holiness was not exactly advocating one blow someone's head off, even when he or she poses a threat to someone else's life. Besides that, what does the current Dalai Lama have to do with anything other than (Tibetan) Buddhism? At the end of the day, he's just a person who has opinions like everyone else.

Well Adi first of all I must ask have you ever fired a gun? Ever studied the effects of shot placement? Because anyone with training will tell you shooting the leg is A.) hard under pressure and worse with a target on the move B.) Shooting the leg increases the chance of a miss risking the lives of anyone that that miss may hit and risking your life if the person rushes you before you get back on target and finally C) the leg has a massive artery in it called the femoral artery which will kill you more surely then a shot center mass. Cops nor anyone with training do not aim for the head unless under very particular circumstances. All shots are aimed center mass which is the largest part of your target that you can see usually from the waist to the neck and shoulder to shoulder.

Finally what does his holiness have to do with it? Well he is a very wise man dedicated to peace and if he can see that lethal force is needed at times then anyone else should be able to.