@El:
F_alk,
Are you saying that because it doesn’t say…
"Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and
IRAQ’S proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…
They are talking about two different things?
Exactly.
Look at GWB talking about Iraq and 9/11. He managed to make it look like they had some common ground. Very much like the above. It can easily be understood the way that Iraq is in both parts of the sentence above, but it doesn’t say so.
@D:S:
The US doesn’t simply “hope it’s right” while at the same time sending 500,000 troops into war.
You still believe it was about WMDs? You must be one of the last ones to believe that, D:S. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz both said that this reason was not the main reason for them, just for the PR work they had to do. And both had this war on their agenda since 1991 (read “Rebuilding Americas Defenses” etc.). Wether 1441 authorized you is a question for lawyers. And porbably, you should take a look at that “B” option yourself.
They are privelages. Privelages need to be earned. Countries like Iraq and North Korea have already had their opportunity to possess WMD’s legitimately.
When? How can you legitimately possess WMDs, except for nuclear ones if you are one of those exceptions in the proliferation-ban-treaty? Even Israel is not legitimate to possess nuclear weapons……
And for Hamas, they offered a ceasefire yesterday. Of course, they had some contitions on Israel to be fulfilled, but doesn’t Israel work the same way with ceasefires only on contidions? I hope that this becomes one of the first steps to peace there.
