First, JD, I think any quick search will reveal that WMD was reason #1, by far, for going to Iraq. It was also the only reason that would allow us to go preemptively LEGALLY -- more on that below.
Quote:
*side note just to score points agianst you T.L. *
I seem to remember several wonderful posts by you as to why even if there were NO WoMD's Iraq because of it's actions, under the law International and common Iraq acted as if it was guilty and therefore gave a valid reason for invading for the search of WoMD's.
|
Yes, it was a perfectly defensible action legally. Saddam ignored the UN for far too long, and there were numerous resolutions stating that member nations would take all actions necessary, etc., etc. In fact, WMD was the only justifiable action to act preemptively without UN approval, because those resolutions all discussed disarmament of Iraq, and not one said member nations can attack Iraq if Saddam is mean to his people. That is a separate reason to attack that would have needed UN approval -- like Kosovo, Rowanda, etc.
But, just because something is justified legally, it does not necessarily follow that it is justified morally. I'm sure you guys don't need a lawyer to remind you that some things that are legal still just ain't right.
To boil it down, I think I've made these general points, among others, over time:
1. It was not obviously illegal, and was arguably legal, for the US to go to Iraq to force a 12-yr-stale disarmament requirement.
2. It was reasonable to believe Saddam had WMD, because he had used WMD before, had admitted he had them and agreed to disarm, had failed to take promised steps toward disarmament, and because the UN thought he had them.
3. However, if the US had information that Saddam's WMD stockpiles were depleted, insufficient, or basically nonexistent, that should cast a doubt on WMD being used as an ostensible reason to invade. Conversely, any representation that Iraq was known to have such weapons should have been damned accurate -- and they weren't (did we ever find that killer RV Colin Powell cited and showed pictures of?).
4. Barring WMD and/or other egregious violations of the umpteen resolutions against Iraq, the US would need to wait for UN approval to attack Iraq.
5. Even if it was legally justified in attacking Iraq, political and/or moral considerations should have been taken into account. We had a LOT of political support going into Afghanistan, and somehow it all got pissed away in determining to attack Iraq. Regardless of the other factors you can argue about Iraq, it was a colossal mistake politically, that squandered good will.
6. Saddam was bad, mkay, and Iraq is probably better off without him. Iraq may also be better off at the end of this whole affair -- keeping my fingers crossed. However, even when the ends justify the means, it doesn't excuse completely ignoring doing things the right way. Even though it admittedly acts at glacial speed, 30 or 60 more days haggling with the chicken littles at the UN could have changed the political face of this thing 180 degrees.
Ugh... I probably could clarify these a bit or add more, but duty calls at present. I'll check back in, of course.