Originally Posted by dorfman24
If you read this:CNN.com - Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq - Nov. 8, 2002
Two things become apparent. One, the U.N. stipulates that the responsibility is on Iraq - not the U.N., Colin Powell, the U.S., Britain or anyone else - to comply with all U.N. resolutions and with the ceasefire that Iraq signed in 1991. The U.N. also stipulates that failure to comply with the resolutions (which Hans Blix then stipulated Iraq had done, that is failed) would breach the ceasefire. Breaching a ceasefire is a cause for war.
Now, you can disagree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, which no doubt you do. Many people do. But that fact that Iraq was not complying with U.N. resolutions and was violating the terms of the ceasefire is really not debateable.
The black and white world you live in must be comforting to you. Choices and consequences are so readily justified - just stay in the white region and you are above recrimination, no matter what the consequences.
No one in the UN backed the idea that Saddam's less than fulfilling efforts to comply with the UN's resolutions in early 2003 constituted a violation of the cease fire warranting an invasion and regime change. That was an American rationalization to suit an American neocon political agenda. There were literally an unlimited number of other remedies available, not the least of which was the one Hans Blix called for, which was to continue the weapons inspectors' initiative and press for additional records or data to validate the destruction of the known inventories of chemical weapons at the end of the first Gulf War. Or, we could have just continued with Clinton's very effective strategy - Saddam was, as we learned later in the Duelfer Report, without any real military capability and had no WMDs - no nukes, no biological and no chemical flavors of WMDs or the capabilities to make them. We also learned in that report, Saddam's posturing was not directed at us, it was an act to make the Iranians think he could mortally wound them in a counter strike if they invaded Iraq.
To those of us who see the world as mostly a mix of shades of grey, with black and white at the extremes of the spectrum, but black and white mixed in varying ratios in virtually all human activities, good judgement is necessary to select the appropriate remedy. But, if all is black or white, well, a verbal taunt that can be perceived as a ceasefire breach can get you nuked, eh? And by your standards that is ok. Or have your country subjected to Shock and Awe, followed by a transformation to a complete hell of civil war. Also apparently ok. A nuke might actually have been merciful as if this continues for another ten years we will have managed to leave millions of people destitute, dead, dying or maimed to the point of being incapable of rebuilding anything.