Quote:
Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
...
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.
|
How shall I put this delicately...
1) The war was not illegal and wrong. The legal bit is just like the discussion about God: both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. There is no set of *fixed* international laws, and thus the war wasn't illegal. I can argue that resolution 1441 speaks of "serious consequences"; and because war is certainly a serious consequence, 1441 was enough to start the war. The other side can argue that "serious consequences" does not mean war (which would be "all means necessary"), and that 1441 does *not* allow war. Technically speaking, both arguments would be correct.
To me, the war also wasn't wrong, because of the many mass graves we're finding these days; how can it be wrong to topple a murderous dictator? Oh, and don't give me that nonsense about other dictators not being attacked, because that's irrelevant to the morality of this war. After all, would you suggest the police should not arrest any murderers just because they cannot catch them all? Removing a murderous dictator is a GOOD act, no matter how you twist and turn the discussion.
2) Iraq had WMDs; that is a fact. Saddam and friends spend years producing chemical and biological weapons, and they've used them before, even on their own people. Iraq had to prove they did not have these weapons anymore, and failed to do so; given the fact that UN inspectors themselves indicated a lot of WMDs were missing, it is not unreasonable to assume Iraq still had them.
3) The US did NOT suspect Iraq had no WMDs, and the declassified report never said that. It said that the CIA and such couldn't find any credible proof that Iraq was *producing* new WMDs. That does not mean they weren't producing it after all, and it certainly doesn't mean that Iraq have no remaining stockpiles of nerve gas hidden away. In fact, given that Iraq had not provided any evidence that this large cache of WMDs had been destroyed, and given the fact that Iraq had lied about their forbidden weapons on numerous occasions, one can only assume these weapons were still around.
4) If no WMDs are found, that does not mean they weren't there, and it doesn't even mean they don't exist... It simply means we haven't found any *yet*. And even if there are no WMDs around anymore because Iraq had indeed destroyed all of their weapons years ago, the US would *still* be right in attacking: Iraq should have provided *evidence* of this destruction. After all, without evidence, one cannot know for sure that the WMDs are gone. One rumor or bit of misinterpreted intelligence info would be enough to make the US doubt Saddam's story.