The fire and brimstone (though I would associate that more with the religious right than the liberal left) comes from this line:
"agents could not prove Iraq had ongoing chemical or biological weapons facilities"
Seeing a country "moving things round" is not an adequate excuse for going to war. Certainly not for going to war without Security Council authorisation.
IMHO the war would have been illegal and wrong regardless of whether America did or did not know that Iraq had WMD.
BUT if the US knew for certain that there were WMDs and they were a genuine secruity threat, then I can at least say that their motives were good even if their actions were wrong.
HOWEVER if the US didn't know Iraq had WMD or, even worse, they suspected that they didn't have them, then the US not only broke international law, but they did so in a shroud of lies and for culpable reasons.
Now if WMD are found in Iraq then we will never be sure of what the US did or did not know and we will have to give them the benefit of the doubt. BUT if no WMDs are found in Iraq and we learn that there haven't been WMD for some time, then the US could not have known Iraq had them, coz they didn't, and the US and UK should/will be in a lot of trouble.
__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!
Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-07-2003 at 09:59 AM..
|