Lord Nobby wrote:
gbaji wrote:
did you miss the bit where the US gave Saddam and his family 48 hours to leave Iraq and allow a peaceful transfer of power under UN supervision or we'd attack and remove them from power? How the hell can you have such strong opinions about something you clearly have a selective memory about?
I suspect Mr Paulsol is referring to the UN resolution (1441?) that stated international support for an invasion
if WMD were still under strong suspicion.
And this is why you are both consistently coming to false conclusions. That resolution didn't state support for an invasion if "WMD were strong suspicion". Certainly, the resolution did not hinge on proof that Iraq "possessed WMDs", yet that's how some people constantly interpret it.
UN resolution 1441 found Iraq to be in material breach of the terms of the cease fire agreement. This was not just about WMDs (which were not themselves just about possession, but also blocking of inspections, clear actions designed to obtain materials related to WMD development and production, etc), but was also about missile development in violation of the agreement, and lack of compensation to Kuwait for damages done during the 1990 invasion of that country.
The Hans Blix report showed that Iraq was
still violating those terms. It could not have been more clear about this. That the UN chose not to follow through with the threat in 1441 speaks volumes about many UN nations lack of spine, and not to some kind of lie perpetrated by the US.
Read the actual freaking documents instead of repeating anti-war rhetoric. You might just learn something...
Quote:
The rest of the world (you know, the bits of the map that aren't USA) made it clear that regime change was not justified, but invasion to prevent the use of WMD would have been justified if Mr Blix had another chance to review and report.
It was not about the "use" of WMDs though. This was the anti-war folks moving the goalposts. I think that when the UN still refused to take action even after the Blix report showed that Iraq still had not met its obligations and appeared to have no intention of *ever* meeting those treaty obligations it became obvious to any sane person that the UN was never going to take action no matter what Iraq did. At that point, it lost the right to control what happened. What that was was the UN proving to the world just how ineffectual it really was. So once again the US stepped up to do what needed to be done while you Europeans largely sat around wringing your hands.
Go sit on your rocking chair and knit your sweaters Granny. We'll take care of things. But don't sit there and complain when we do so. If you want to get up out of your chair and do something meaningful, then do it. But Europe has so completely lost its spine for so long, I'm not going to hold my breath.
Edited, Nov 2nd 2010 2:05pm by gbaji