Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
While either an international law or a moralistic argument might have applied to Iraq II, those justifications were never offered and instead the WMD/pre-emption justification was offered up.
...If I wanted to make that argument and say that those actions were, by extension, aggression towards the US then that would still not be the same as pre-emption because if we considered those actions against Kuwait to extend to actions against us we would merely be retaliating to those actions already committed against Kuwait/ourselves.
|
It seems we have a scenario where both GF1 and the current IW both could possibly satisfy the definition of retaliation, one based on violation of 1441 (and 9/11), and one based on UN Resolution 660, and 678 where the invasion of Kuwait constituted an existential threat to America. In the case of the IW, I agree that violation of 1441 wasn't explained clearly enough, and was poorly and overzealously sold. Great post MuadDib.