Quote:
Quote by: rmnunez  Now I wouldn't use the WMD threat since its been disproven, but when the decision was made this wasn't as evident.
I think the humanitarian situation could provide a good justification, some estimates calculate over 300 thousand Iraqis buried in mass graves, WMDs were used against the Kurds, maybe the story of the human shredder didn't pan out, but there were plenty of other reports of outrageous treatment of dissidents, acts of violent repression, refugees fleeing the place.
"Threats to international peace and security" justify the use of force under the UN Charter and there were threats to neighbors, Saddam actually invaded Kuwait and had a full-blown war with Iran for over a decade. He maintained a substantial armed force and had antagonistic relations with Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Another justification might be found in the continued breach of every pertinent UN Security Council resolution. Though breach of UN resolutions doesn't seem to justify use of force under many people's views, perhaps considering there were many breaches and that these were of Security Council Resolutions implemented to enforce a ceasefire, this would seem more justifiable. |
You should run for office.
You sound just like GW. Commit ( what you obviously do not see as an ) attrocity, and then seek out any justification people will buy.
I call that a fascist tendency.