Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Arguing the resolution's legality is a fairly moot point. The question this thread brings up is whether or not the white house influenced the reports it received and brought to the UN, and others to convince them of their case.
|
I know that... it's just a result of how the thread developed.
The quote from the report that was leaked was taken out of context. Even if it were true that there was no reliable evidence that Iraq was building new WMDs, or even any evidence at all... that hardly matters. Iraq had to prove they didn't have any *old* WMDs around, and they didn't do that. One can then argue whether this means that Iraq had WMDs, or whether there is another reason for Iraq's reluctance to prove anything, but that also is pretty irrelevant.
According to 1441 and the countless resolutions before that, Iraq had to prove they had no more WMDs, and Iraq failed to do that. Reason enough to attack them. If the UN then fails to intervene because of political games, I can see why the US would go it alone. Perhaps one can say that they did it because they *could*. Regardless of the reasons or legality of the war, it sends a clear message to other rogue states: if you piss us off, we'll kick your arse.
Thanks to this war, states like Iran and Syria might think twice about supporting terrorism against the west, or doing something else that hurts us.