04-11-2003, 08:18 AM
The one and only justification that has a chance, for me, of holding water is the WMD argument.
The reason I find it to be insufficient is as follows: If he had any weapons that are technically banned (small scale chemical or biological weapons, as opposed to large scale bio or nuclear; missiles slightly longer range than allowed; etc...) the UN Security Council has the right to impose its will, as per the cease fire at the end of the first Gulf war.
Since the UN Security Council did NOT authorize a war, a much larger violation would be necessary to justify unilateral action against the will of the Security Council. It's one thing to say they're not quite living up to the terms of their agreement; it's quite another to justify "vigilante" action to rectify the situation.
It's up to the US administration to prove he has broken the terms of the cease fire in a manner so flagrant.
I doubt this is going to happen. It might. We shall see. This radiation thing might pan out, or it might not.
Jester
The reason I find it to be insufficient is as follows: If he had any weapons that are technically banned (small scale chemical or biological weapons, as opposed to large scale bio or nuclear; missiles slightly longer range than allowed; etc...) the UN Security Council has the right to impose its will, as per the cease fire at the end of the first Gulf war.
Since the UN Security Council did NOT authorize a war, a much larger violation would be necessary to justify unilateral action against the will of the Security Council. It's one thing to say they're not quite living up to the terms of their agreement; it's quite another to justify "vigilante" action to rectify the situation.
It's up to the US administration to prove he has broken the terms of the cease fire in a manner so flagrant.
I doubt this is going to happen. It might. We shall see. This radiation thing might pan out, or it might not.
Jester