Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
And this is a fair point, but let's address it in two different ways:
1 - You don't feel there was the potential for some dangerous weapons systems if the Iraqi Ba'athist government was left unrestrained? I mean, between the lack of cooperation w/ the UN, and historical seeking out (and receiving) nuclear systems . . . I think that the danger was present, even if the preexisting weapons were removed or (most likely) relocated.
|
Well I'd argue that technically the Iraqi Ba'athists were restrained, and that the UN sanctions and inspections while resisted were working - along with the bombing campaign. The arguement of the Canadian government (which I agree with) was that a pre-emptive war on Iraq based on the "possibility" of WMD would create more of a geopolitical mess and fuel terrorism in the region.
Quote:
2 - Even if we 'sold' it as WMD-based, the geopolitical concerns alone make this a fairly justifiable course of action, no? So while the press derides the Bush administration, why not devote some time to the positives of regime change to the geopolitical texture of the region? If it would have been easy to explain this to the masses as justification by the Bush admin, surely the press will have no trouble breaking the story either . . . right?
It's pretty clear that's not going to happen . . .
-RC
--"The people is stupid." --alexander hamilton
|
Well actually the geopolitical and legal implications of a pre-emptive war easily outweighed what percieved benifit there would be. See the legal arguement against pre-emptive war has been on the books since Nuremburg (ironically put there by the US) - the message that was sent was that the if a nation feels threatened, it can launch a pre-emptive war to "protect" itself... which is why it was declared illegal by the UN (even by the, well now former UN ambassador from the US - he didn't last to long after that vote).