Let's look at this again:
>>>In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected German arguments of the "necessity'' for pre-emptive attacks against its neighbours. "To initiate a war of aggression,'' said the tribunal's judgment, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.''<<<
argument.independent.co.uk
It's my understanding that the US Congress was shown evidence (later deemed false) indicating that Saddam was developing a nuclear weapon(s), that he had chemical and biological weapons and, overall, it was because of the fear of weapons of mass destructions resolution was required to support Bush's new doctrime of Preemptive Warfare.
Unfortunately, the US and Brits relied on the part of statement of Saddam's son-in-law, Kamel, who claimed Saddam was close to a nuclear weapon, but ignored, in the other part of the same statement, the part where Kamel claimed Saddam had unilaterally destroyed the chemical and biological weapons. Was the second part of this statement also withheld from Congress?
Anyway, we seem clearly very much involved in a campaign for "Iraqi Freedom" instead of a campaign against weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Bush doesn't even talk about WDM anymore except, at best, in a passing reference. How does the theme of this war "Iraqi Freedom" comport with the statement above relative to the Nuremberg Tribunal? |
