The court is not supposed to know shit

I think you are arguing from the perspective of Common law which does not apply in Germany. Here, judges and courts in general have much more freedom in discovering the truth during trials, they may ask questions, they may ask for more information. And we are happy they do so.

I don't recall anybody saying "What a pity Opel decided to use a cheaper identical product rather than a more expensive one". What they said was "Great, we have a long term contract, a patent and an unassailable technical lead."

Are we talking about the same Opel that lost the quality race in Germany in the 90's in all fields? The same Opel that is almost certainly bankrupt no later than Q2 2009 because we do not like to buy their cars anymore?

What initial arguments have I let go of?

UN-support, popular support, "Saddam not allowing UN weapons inspectors in". You mentioned some reasons for the war and they are all gone. What now?

Also, you speak of Iraqi weapons factories as they are ran like a Taco Bell.

Did Iraq look particularly well managed to you? And I just gave you some examples that you cannot go from one rather minor problem to full warfare.

Not promptly providing access is proof they are trying to hide something.

Now this sounds a bit too much like a conspiracy.

Maybe the factory director didn't get the memo? Maybe he was on a walk and the security guy at the front door wasn't authorized. Maybe there was absolutely no one there? Maybe the director was with a boy at the time and feared his fellow co-workers? Who knows? Hans Blix certainly wasn't too much worried about that little slip.

I also notice that you let go of all your initial arguments. Already convinced?

with one exception

This is key, it doesn't take more than one location to hide bio weapons.

Starting a war because someone did not give access promptly to one site for inspection sounds rather harsh, doesn't it? That sounds more like a rationale and not like a reason.

Just being in the country doesn't mean that they were able to do any actual inspecting.

Hans Blix said himself, that "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well". Furthermore "access has been provided to all sites" and "with one exception it has been prompt." Source

On top of that, how do you know the citizens didn't support it?

These historical huge demonstrations of concerned citizens were a dead giveaway, weren't they?

Dont forget the UN

The united nations were far away from supporting the invasion of Iraq. This Guardian article explains the details.

and every other country in the world that invaded Iraq with the US,

While there were certain governments to support the invasions, the citizens of these countries did not.

not due to WMD's, but due to Saddam not allowing UN weapons inspectors in. Iraq was not a sovereign nation, it was part of a ceasefire agreement where they promised to allow weapons inspectors in, and when they refused, they were then subject to the consequences.

Which is another apparent falsehood on your side. There were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq until few days before the invasion. The "coalition of the willing" regularly denounced any Iraqi efforts to follow agreements. I remember very well the day when Iraq gave thousands of pages of protocols and archive data to the United Nations. The coalition did not even read anything of it before condemning the material as untrustworthy.

I think you are misled here. The Hitler diaries were an extreme failure for Stern. Their circulation dropped down to below 1Mio from previously almost 2 million sold copies. They never recovered and still sell less then 1M.