It is relevant to the argument of your president re "Saddam is an evil man who gassed Kurds and Iranians" etc.
You're argument seems to assert that there is some measure of liability upon those who may have assisted in Saddam obtaining those weapons. But no Zonder.. It's NOT relevant..
You might perceive it to be relevant, but it has NOTHING to do with the UNSC binding resolution DEMANDING (upon use of force) that Saddam destroy any such described weapons in exchange for granting a cease fire..
So I'm sorry about this fixation you have with who did what to enable Saddam to possess this weaponry. As someone else aptly stated, "that was then, this is now"..
Saddam has been convicted by the UNSC and he has been given the terms of his probation. But he has violated that probation (1995), but was given a second chance to comply. He opted not to, and now we have documented evidence that Saddam has some 6,000 Chemical warheads unaccounted for.
So he kicked out the inspectors (stopped seeing his probation officer).. In return, we have staked out his house and demanded his comply.. But still he fails to acknowledge the authority of the UNSC resolution, or the `6 others that have followed on, as well as his obligation to comply. And the UN, as a whole, is afraid of enforcing its own resolutions. It has become an OBVIOUS paper tiger which is now bent upon doing it's upmost to AVOID enforcing those resolutions.
So now the US, as the strongest member of the UN, the one who has assumed the obligation to do the job THE UN WILL NOT DO, has threatened to act alone militarily. In making this decision the UN has falling all over itself with a sudden motivation to actually recommence the inspection process after 5 YEARS OF IGNORING IT, hoping to avoid having the US act unilaterally to enforce UN resolutions.
But here we are... 4 months later and nothing... We know there are 6,000 warheads unaccounted for.. That's what Iraqi records state.. But no one seems to know where they are and Saddam's people seem to claim that they lost all paperwork related to them and that they were destroyed...
So while you think you have some kind of major argument Zonder, you really don't. All of the actions you discuss took place BEFORE Saddam's invasion of Iraq, not after.
And this whole issue is NOT about who provided weapons to Saddam, but in forcing him to disarm himself because he has shown he CANNOT be trusted to possess them and not use them..
Hawk |
