In the international community, every household on the street is "in law enforcement," i.e. they are all sovereign states, and no one state has the right to dictate to any other state. So I wouldn't add that condition. The U.S. has no inherent intrinsic authority over Iraq and never did. It's either one cop invading another cop's home or one civilian invading another civilian's home.
No, the "thug/criminal" is accurately portrayed as the thug/criminal in this scenario
<<that the thug criminal refused to allow the "police" to fully investigate . . . >>
I'll give you that.
<< . . . and that when the time was up for the thug to come out of the house clean . . .>>
I won't give you that, because the UN refused to set the deadline, refused to authorize use of force at the point in time when the U.S. invaded; there was no lawful deadline on the thug at that point, so I won't concede the time was up for him to do anything.
Half wrong, they did authorize serious consequences, but didn't want to add the "use of force" qualifier. Besides, again, we never needed UN authorization in the 1st place, nor did we need another police force giving us permission to enforce law
<< . . . the killing that occured was targeting that of the thug criminal, and any other deaths that may have occured, were tragic accidents>>
I'll give you that too.
So on the conditions I set, are you willing to answer the question? Is plane?
No, since your "conditions" don't accurately reflect what's going on in Iraq
