> Was the invasion in Iraq self defense?
Good question ... I would say both depending on priorities. The arguments are:
1.) Yes. Mr. Hussein was terrorizing his people and may have had
WMD. That is, we were defending Iraqis and the US as well as the
world.
2.) No. The globally accepted method of defending a people is via the
UN security council and the US had no explicit agreement for war.
Assuming the defense of the Iraqi people is a priority the US can't
afford right now, the answer is no. This is because Preemption
depends on good intelligence and good intelligence means multiple
source confirmation of a threat.
Hans Blix said in an interview that he felt he was 3 months away from
conclusively proving Iraq had no WMD and the US has spent some $300
Million looking into it after the fact.
Obviously our intelligence was flawed and there were dissenters within
the Whitehouse. On that basis you must conclude the intelligence was
not accurate enough to justify preemption.
So, no.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
