Rather than answer your question, I am curious as to what you think is legal justification for invading Iraq? After all, you didn't feel Bush Sr. was justified going into Iraq even though Iraq had invaded a neighbor which asked for our assistance.
Violation of the ceasefire agreement. It is really that simple. The fact that we had incompetent leadership at the time does not in any way waive our right to enforce the ceasefire now.
Of course, in reality, even though that alone is sufficient justification, a more important justification (but obviously related) is that we simply cannot allow this tyrant to have WMD. Once they have them, they have them. And it is our call to make.
I find it interesting that, once again, the hypocrisy is rampant. In the 70's the liberals' #1 issue was nuclear proliferation, and in fact, Carter ran on that subject. Of course, we remember that Carter did absolutely nothing about it, then Reagan came in and solved the problem. Now, the liberals are willing to let proliferation go -- but once Saddam has nukes, who is going to clean it up? The liberals? I don't think so.
We need to deal with this problem now, while we have someone with the guts to do it. We just really can't afford to screw around with this.
These were the terms of the ceasefire, and we need to enforce them, even though the previous administration totally abandoned its responsibility to do so (in fairness, the previous administration WAS occupied with other things at the time, so maybe they just didn't have time to get to lesser priority items like foreign policy and nuclear proliferation) |
