Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[kandrathe]

My first comment to this thread was "Remember the Maine!!!" How appropriate that you should come full circle to describe law on the high seas. I updated my prior comment with a link the Smithsonian's description of the Maine fiasco, and how it erroneously propelled the US into a war with Spain.

To me, there is an eerie similarity between the politics, and posturing between the second Gulf War, and that war with Spain.

[Occhidiangela]

It was some years after the Maine incident that a naval officer, by name of Hyman Rickover, published a report that showed solid forensic evidence that the Maine sank due to an internal explosion. He was famous, or rather infamous, long before he became the Father of the Nuclear Powered Fleet, and a power within his own right inside the Beltway.

[Chaerophon]

Sad but true, though the progress toward a greater amount of rule of law is there, thanks to the support of nations like . . . The United States and its European allies.

Well, since the closest and best platform for a true international systemic "rule of law" would presently seem to depend upon a reliance upon the United Nations and a desire to reform it so as to better reflect a standardized international protocol rather than render it obsolete, it seems altogether obvious that, given the Americans lack of regard for the multilateral support of the closest thing that we have to a "tribunal of law" and their general hijacking of the institution on the basis of their overwhelming "financial support", they desire to be judge jury and executor on international matters and care little for the development of any sort of an international standard.

Personally, I don't think that the "law standard" is even partially achievable when it comes to international affairs; however, to make the argument that the US is somehow a 'front runner' in the call for standardized international law seems a little bit fishy given the current state of affairs. Granted, Iraq broke 1441; however, unilateral action contrary to the wishes of what we have that best represents a law tribunal seems to smack of vigilanteism (within the current context of international law) given the lack of immediacy with which the rest of the world regarded the Iraqi threat. Reform from within, not from without, will be the key if this goal is to ever become even the slightest reality. At no point has the United States attempted to reconcile themselves with or reform the United Nations. Threats and finger pointing abound, but, given the fact that they have made the argument that they should not be punishable by international law in the same way that are "rogue states", one has to wonder how seriously they take the ideals which you posit them to value so highly.

[WarBlade]

'Probably' is not good enough, and so they must be regarded as centrifuge components.

I can see it now. "Excuse me Mr Iraqi person, but the reason we killed all your family is because there was an astronomically remote chance some aluminum tubes that were probably destined for quite legitimate use might have been used for a very substandard component of a nuclear arms facility. I know the chance was extremely unlikely, but we just couldn't accept the risk"

Pardon my taking the piss there, but your line, in conclusion to a logic defying assessment of probable threat, would have to be among the most absurd pieces of BS I've read regarding this situation. <_<