Oh, for crying out loud. Patting yourself on the back for being "non-conformist" in your undying faith in W is fairly ironic in this particular forum.
Just Bush? I seem to recall the previous administration was calling upon the UN to do the same thing that Bush was demanding, namely for the UN to enforce it's resolutions.
The Clinton administration carried on a defacto war against Saddam for years, with nearly daily bombings against Iraqi military targets...
Is there something wrong with Bush pushing the UN to show some spine and resolve the non-compliance issue once and for all, even if it required the overthrow of Saddam?
Afterall, there was serious consideration towards removing Saddam in response to his invasion of Kuwait back in 1991.. It was only the unwillingness to take on a long-term occupation of Iraq, as well as Saudi reassurance that Saddam would be internally overthrow in short time, that prevented the US from doing so then..
So it's not like removing Saddam has always been out of the question..
But I don't have to "pat myself on the back" Win..
All I have to do is read the UNSC resolutions, note the previous ones that are noted as precedents and authorizations (UNSC 678 and 687), understand the implications of the term "material breach" and "serious consequences", and recognize that the UN was not enforcing any of its resolutions...
Derived from that information, and applying some and apply some simple legal logic and it's clear that Bush was engaged in enforcing international law and France, Germany, and Russia were engaged in undermining it.
Hawk |
