But you don't have a single stick of evidence that proves that Iraq was still doing that in 2003.
Bilow.. was the UN conducting inspections, or was it supposed to be conducting an investigation?
Bottom line.. So long as Saddam's regime was intransigent about accounting for all of its weapons (which we both seem to agree upon), they were in violation of each and every UNSC resolution as well as the 1991 cease fire agreement.
Violate a cease fire agreement and it equates to a recommencment of hostilities. And that's essentially what Bush did, force the UNSC and Iraq to come to a point where either Saddam was in compliance, or the Desert Storm would recommence for the purpose of regime change within Iraq.
Pretty simple, and entirely legal within the context of the UN. The folly that we needed UN approval to exact regime change is absolutely wrong. The UN should NOT get in the business of deciding what regimes should be changed or not. However, IT SHOULD determine when certain regimes have become a danger to regional stability and maintenance of peace and authorize its member states to take whatever actions are required to restore the situation.
And that forces the "target" government, in this case Saddam's, to realize that they won't necessarily be "saved by a veto" (even a US veto) once the UNSC has determined Chapter VII should be invoked. If the permanent members are able to reach sufficient consensus that Chapter VII should be invoked, no more "politics" should be played with regard to how that resolution is satisfied.
It should be left to those nations which are risking their soldiers in carrying out that binding resolution.
This is just like the Vietnam war, in a certain way. Long after the end of the hopeless war, conservatives were still yammering about how "winnable" it was. Okay, now you've got a war in Iraq.
Vietnam this, Vietnam that... I really despise it when people constantly bring up the Vietnam analogy when they don't really understand anything more than "quagmire".
Vietnam was lost because the will to win was not there, and neither were the strategies authorized that would have won the war. When you permit your enemy to violate the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia, using them as sanctuaries and supplies zones, but are unwilling to do so yourself in pursuing them, you've set yourself up for defeat.
This is what DOD leadership means when they say "no more Vietnams".. NO more political "rules of engagement" and having targets selected by the White House. The way you win a war is the political leadership setting out the mission parameters.. Telling them what the military can, and cannot do, and letting the generals do the rest.
Give them the objective, don't tell them how to obtain it.
Hawk |
