If I had known then what we know now, I might not have supported the war against Iraq. No real way to know, we never got the chance to debate the matter as you are framing it now.
Well, I'll never have that problem because, for me, the issue was ALWAYS about the importance of forcing the UNSC to uphold it's binding resolutions.
I really believed Saddam had WMDs hanging around in stockpiles. And from my perspective, the jury is still out because we're still trying to account for thousands of warheads that Iraq claimed to have expended against the Iranians.
But it doesn't matter, IMO, if we never find them. Because it's still evidence that Saddam WANTED the world to believe he had them. And that's just as contrary to the purpose of those UNSC resolutions as actual possession of them.
The UNSC resolutions, spurring from Desert Storm, intended that Iraq would abide by its disarmament obligations in order to restore peace and regional stability.
Saddam's lying, direct, or implicit by way of non-cooperation, was contrary to those obligations.
If the UN is to have any meaningful role, or credibility, in maintain international order in this world, it's binding resolutions MUST be upheld, no matter what the cost.
And the only way we were going to get the truth was to get Saddam out of the way so the truth could be revealed.
Hawk |
