I'm going to lay this out for you since your brain has a severe short attention span:
[You:]One of them named Kofi Annan recently said that the UN Charter prevented the US from going to war in Iraq, indicating this very same belief.
[Me:] And this is significant because...?
[You:]Because it shows that your statement, regardless of how you asserted it and regardless of what merits it may have, is not universally accepted to the point that others are willing to take actions in violation of it.
[Me:]I still don't see Kofi's opinion as being significant.
[You:]Personally, neither do I.
[Me:]Good, you agree that Kofi's opinion is insignificant.
[You:]No.
No wonder you neo-Confederates are so screwed up, you don't know whether you're coming or going. LOL
Nevertheless, try reading what you posted previously. You stated:
"I still don't see Kofi's opinion as being significant," to which any rational person would take as the expression of a personal belief that Kofi Annan's opinion lacks the significance needed to influence ones own. Insofar as my personal beliefs go as well, I agreed with you, as is signified in my response "Personally, neither do I." I then noted that others give significance to Annan's opinion, believe it to have merit and sway on their own opinions, and may even be willing to act in his favor. That is a simple fact of reality and cannot be ignored on the grounds that you or I don't like it.
Evidently you have yet to grasp this last part as you are still debating with yourself over an erronious semantical construct of trivial proportions. And you wonder why some here question your sanity...