use Perl

• We destroyed our logic before invading (Score:2)

  by Ovid (2709)

  Over in Great Britain, Tony Blair is taking a lot of heat because those weapons were the primary reason for our unpopular invasion. Over here in "love it or leave it" America, you don't hear a lot about it. Colin Powell cites plagiarized intelligence reports (which Britain later admitted) and forged documents (that no one claims to know the origin of) and yet no seems to care.

  So we're going after Saddam for the weapons but we couldn't find them. Eh, maybe we were going after him for his role in 9/11.
  • Re:We destroyed our logic before invading (Score:1)

    by jordan (120)

    The justification to invade Iraq was that Iraq didn't live up to their commitment to 'fully, proactively and immediately' disarm as required by Resolution 1441. Everyone who signed on to Resolution 1441, the entire UN Security council, was clear on the fact that Iraq did possess such weapons.

    It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors. It's also clear from what we are finding that they had an active program to develop or research WMDs.

    The fact that they may have been busy destroying
    • Re:We destroyed our logic before invading (Score:2)

      by schwern (1528)

      It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors.

      You don't invade a country because they're playing parliamentary games.

      Certainly, if Iraq had no WMD, they could have fully cooperated with the UN Inspectors and made a mockery of the US and probably gotten the sanctions lifted in no time.

      I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment). Just th
      • Re:We destroyed our logic before invading (Score:2)

        by pudge (1) on 2003.06.01 21:05 (#20689) Homepage Journal

        Does it really matter how they destroyed them as long as they got destroyed?
        
        Yes, it does. There is a reason that Resolution 687 says that the destruction of biological and chemical weapons must be conducted under UN supervision: verification. We cannot trust their word.
        
        Same result either way, weapons destroyed.
        
        Assuming they actually are destroyed ... something we logically cannot do, without verification.
        
        Hans Blix was clear on the point that it is, absolutely, Iraq's obligation to account for all their weapons, destroyed or not, and that they had failed in this regard. And really, whatever else Iraq did do right in the inspections, the two most important things mentioned in Resolution 1441 -- providing evidence of existing weapons, or evidence of destroyed weapons, and providing interviews with scientists under the terms prescribed by the UN inspectors -- were complete failures by Iraq.

        Reply to This

        Parent