Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i have never accepted the argument that oil was THE motivation. i dont think it irrelevant, but think it down the list a bit in terms of priorities.
|
Point taken. It's easy to slip into the party line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
actually, willravel, without going through the rigmarole of the legalisms, arguably it wasn't necessary to get UN approval because the 1991 resolutions that suspended the war already authorized the use of force for noncompliance. That doesn't tell you anything about whether the politics dictated a new resolution, or the optics, or whether getting another resolution was a good idea. I can think of good arguments either way.
|
The use of force wasn't just anyone's to use, though. The idea was to leave the door open for another UN decision, and the UN was considering the "eighteenth resolution", the plan put fourth by the US, UK, and Spain (cha cha cha!) which was essentially what ended up happening in the invasion. The thing is, France, Germany, and Russia said no. In other words, this was all still tied up in the UN when King George suddenly exclaimed "Diplomacy has failed" and then gave very suspect information to the Senate in order to rush the war.